Before anyone starts throwing rotten tomatoes at their computer screen…. please allow me to finish. :) The subject that I'm bringing up may be a "hot button" for folks thinking that I'm being negative or anti-whatever, which I'm not. I have questions about the Gallbladder/Liver Flushing since a lot of people do it and it relates to parasites and microbial issues.

If at all possible, I'd like to present both sides of the GB/LF for consideration – CZ members and MDs – I see what the problem is on both sides and would like to stay neutral. MD's believe that stimulating the liver with proper bile, removing toxins, etc., is a ridiculous notion; however, it has been proven from scientific studies that herbs can aid/support/repair liver functions despite the ridicule.  For instance, such herbs have been studied -- milk thistle, turmeric, rosemary, and dandelion just to name a few (something that I have a good understanding in). Many people on CZ forums come here because they feel that they aren't getting the help that they need from the medical community. Concerns and complaints aren't taken seriously enough; people have been ridiculed, humiliated, or simply ignored when in serious pain. Therefore, they have no other alternative than to seek help elsewhere.

Although I want to stay neutral during this discussion, in fairness, please allow me to present my opinions and beliefs that may differ, perhaps, from you on this subject. I believe that the liver is one of the most important organs in the body and keeping it healthy is vital. The liver system would be critical organ when it comes to parasites – it is no great secret that parasites enjoy rich nutrients (such as blood).  I have not done a flush because I believe it will be more injurious to my health, in regard to what I'm dealing with. As I've stated before, due to the damage that was done (by pharm MEDS, btw), I've been more judicious and interested in practices that have been scientifically proven/sound (without equivocation before taking anything); or, knowledge from my personal experiences/research as an alternative practitioner.  The practice GB/LF is in question based upon what I know or have found regarding the practice. It could be a good thing or not which is why I'm posing the questions.

Since our Forum is to present scientific information with as much validity as possible – it is also designed to get people thinking and to open their minds – we try not to present information purposely for the sake of confrontation/arguments. I'm interested in an open discussion with all points of view. I'd like to reiterate my stance during this discussion: bad behavior, hostility, name calling, swearing, purposely citing confrontations, etc., you will be banned from this Forum and not welcomed back. Please take your "stuff" someplace else. 

In this discussion, I don't think that it is necessary to get into a bunch of testimonials because there are PLENTY on the GB/LF Forum; I've managed to stay away from making this into a cleansing forum and would like to keep it that way.  However, if you absolutely feel compelled to share a little to give us all a perspective of what your position is, please include something brief. I'd like to invite any/all Forum owners to join the discussion if you have the time to visit here because I truly have some questions and would value your input. If there are some MDs out there, please join in – we know that you watch CZ Forums. :) I have questions for you too.

First, what I'd like to do is present material I've found about GB/Liver when I had a discussion with someone about the subject. Everyone knows that I do plenty of research, so here goes it…. below here's what I'm presenting:

Pro-flush & Purpose  * Scientific Research  * Against flushing or "stones"  *  Missing data - possible suggested "evidence" that  that flushing does work or not, or another agenda?  * Questions for both sides.

Since MOST people on CZ haven't had a basic anatomy class or internal medicine course, I think it would be prudent to present everything here for consideration. I think it is appropriate to show an MD blog who arguably presents an anatomical basis against flushing.  Most of the blog is intent on bashing everyone who is flushing, with name calling which I find unprofessional.  Rather than bashing people, it makes more sense, to me, to educate/understand BOTH sides for the flushing purpose with possible choices, open-mindedness, and education.  I'm not interested in a "debate" I'm interested in learning something.  They seem to be in an uproar about "stones" [an excuse to call people names], but something must be going on with flushers [I don't know what] because there seems to be a relief of symptoms as you'll see in Pro-flush & Purpose.

My apologies for the different font sizes within this post, I wasn't able to get the entire post uniformed.

****

Pro-flush & Purpose 

A post on liver cancer and flushing:

http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=67748#i

There are MANY stories on CZ that are similar to the post below on a physician blog that I found. This is from a LF who responded to the blog post and physicians (their comments in bold/italics for emphasis).

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=93

"I have liver flushed and quite quickly realised that the green stones couldn't possibly be gallstones because the volume is just far to great. However, not all the debris that emerged was green or soft. One "stones was very hard white crystalline material shaped like a plug and there were 5 very hard (looked like discarded chewing gum) stones. I had been been diagnosed with biliary sludge which made it impossible to determine the presence of gallstones. The blood test indicated that the bile flow was being restricted. I undertook twelve flushes over a year and the last flush produced the white stones. Cholesterol is down by a third, the gallbladder is verified clear by a follow up ultra sound and I feel great. I no longer produce green stones if I liver flush, although I've now stopped.

One other aspect that doctor discussed with me was biliary stasis. For some modern lifestyle reason the entero-hepatic cholesterol cycle stalls and the bile thickens. Does this coagulated bile have a greater tendency to produce green stones than "fresh" bile."

There are so many questions that need to be addressed and whether they are gallstones or not isn't the primary arguments.

Although gallbladder surgery is very successful technically. Unfortunately if you look at the statistic 40% of patients have a return to the original condition after a year or even two. This level of success is unsatisfactory to the patient and a drain of resources. Other complementary therapies may be beneficial providing they are put on a scientific footing.

Follow-up….

Patients complain about pain and discomfort and it is this that returns. Gallstones are not a medical condition and many people with gallstones remain symptom free."

Scientific  Research

I'm going to post the following in their entirety, because webpages have a habit of "disappearing". Some of these I had to look really hard for because they led to dead links (makes one wonder).

http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=597126

*****

ORIGINAL:   Singapore Med J. 1986 Dec;27(6):533-6;

 Spontaneous passage of gallstones after ingestion of olive oil: a case report.

PMID: 3589728 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Koh D.

http://www.curezone.com/forums/am.asp?i=2984

http://www.healthlibrary.com/reading/rebello/pg39.h

Olive Oil Treatment for Gallstones
by Dr. D. Koh

Dept. of Social Medicine and Public Health
National University of Singapore, Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore 0511.

Koh reports here a case of spontaneous passage of multiple cholesterol gall-stones after self-treatment with olive oil and lemon juice.

It is estimated that Gallstones are present in approximately 15% of adult females and 6% of adult males, and its prevalence increases with age. Although it is generally agreed that there is a need for surgical treatment, in patients with cholelithiasis who develop complications, the treatment of 'silent stones' is controversial.

At present, the application of drug treatment of cholelithiasis is relatively expensive and limited, usually for those unfit for surgery, with small radiolucent stones, and without history of complications.

Other methods of treatment of gall stones have also been described. Kurtz and Classen have reported that treatment for common bile duct stones may include endoscopic removal and lithotripsy, and gallstone dissolution by irrigation procedures.

CASE REPORT
The patient, a 32-year old Indian male, insurance salesman, had a 3-year history of epigastric pain and colicky right hypochondrial pain whenever he took fatty meals. Physical examination was unremarkable and a barium meal study showed no evidence of gastro-oesophageal reflux or hiatus hernia, and no evidence of gastric or duodenal ulcer. However, the plain abdominal X-ray revealed multiple radio-opaque gallstones.

The patient was advised surgery for cholelithiasis, but was not enthusiastic about the idea. He returned the following day with news that he had attempted a self-cure for the gallstones using olive oil and lemon juice. According to him, after fasting from noon, he took one pint of olive oil and lemon juice at 7 p.m. He then went to sleep on his right side. At about 2 - 3 a.m., the following morning, he felt a churning sensation in the abdomen. At 5 a.m. he passed out oily stools which he collected in a strainer. Upon washing the stools, he found numerous smooth stones.

Analysis of two of the stones showed them to be greenish, smooth and soft, measuring 15 x 12 x 5 mm and 10 x 6 x 3 mm, respectively.

The stones were found to consist entirely of cholesterol.

TREATMENT

P.Airola in his book How to Get Well has described an 'oil cure' for removal of gallstones, using raw natural unrefined vegetable oils of olive, sunflower or walnut, while Roberts has prescribed a specific dosage of 1 pint of olive oil and the juice of 8 to 9 lemons. The patient is required to take 4 tablespoonfuls of olive oil followed by 1 tablespoonful of lemon juice at 15-minute intervals. This is to be started in the evening after fasting from lunch time, and the gallstones are expected to be passed out within 24 to 48 hours.

This form of treatment has been largely promoted by non-physicians, but a doctor from Canada (Kotkas L.J.) has reported that 95% of cases he saw this treatment used on passed out gallstones.

This treatment is non-invasive, and numerous stones measuring up to 15 mm could be passed out. As the olive oil cure could perhaps prove to be a relatively inexpensive alternative to costly conventional drug treatments, it is suggested that controlled and supervised studies could be considered to explore the safety and efficacy of this mode of treatment for gallstones.

****

http://www.naturalhealthlibrarian.com/ebook.asp?page=Gallbladder%20Flush

The Lancet Volume 365, Number 9468 16 April 2005

Could these be Gallstones?

A 40-year-old woman was referred to the outpatient clinic with a 3-month history of recurrent severe right hypochondrial pain after fatty food. Abdominal ultrasound showed multiple 1-2 mm gallstones in the gallbladder.

She had recently followed a "liver cleansing" regime on the advice of a herbalist. This regime consisted of free intake of apple and vegetable juice until 1800 h, but no food, followed by the consumption of 600 mL of olive oil and 300 mL of lemon juice over several hours. This activity resulted in the painless passage of multiple semisolid green "stones" per rectum in the early hours of the next morning. She collected them, stored them in the freezer, and presented them in the clinic (figure).

Microscopic examination of our patient's stones revealed that they lacked any crystalline structure, melted to an oily green liquid after 10 min at 40oC, and contained no cholesterol, bilirubin, or calcium by established wet chemical methods.1 Traditional faecal fat extraction techniques2 indicated that the stones contained fatty acids that required acid hydrolysis to give free fatty acids before extraction into ether. These fatty acids accounted for 75% of the original material.

Experimentation revealed that mixing equal volumes of oleic acid (the major component of olive oil) and lemon juice produced several semi solid white balls after the addition of a small volume of a potassium hydroxide solution. On air drying at room temperature, these balls became quite solid and hard.

We conclude, therefore, that these green "stones" resulted from the action of gastric lipases on the simple and mixed triacylglycerols that make up olive oil, yielding long chain carboxylic acids (mainly oleic acid). This process was followed by saponification into large insoluble micelles of potassium carboxylates (lemon juice contains a high concentration of potassium) or "soap stones". The cholesterol stones noted on ultrasound were removed by surgery (figure).

Figure: Semi-solid green "stones" passed per rectum (top)
and surgically removed cholesterol gallstones (bottom)

A search of the internet reveals many health websites promoting so-called "gall-bladder flushing" or "liver cleansing" regimes. Some quote a Correspondence letter published in The Lancet3 on the subject. The 1-day purge usually consists of an overnight fast, then eating apples in the morning, taking only herbal tea through the day, and then in the evening a warm mixture of olive oil (2/3 cup) and fresh lemon juice (1/3 cup). Patients are instructed to then lie on the right side (although some say the left). It is claimed that the next morning the gallstones will pass in the stool.

We have shown that these flushing regimes for expelling gallstones are a myth, and that the claims made by some are misleading. The appearance of a letter in an establishment journal has been used to legitimise this practice for some time and the record should now be set straight.

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.
*Christiaan W Sies, Jim Brooker

Clinical Biochemistry Unit, Canterbury Health Laboratories, PO Box 151, Christchurch, New Zealand (CWS); and Gastroenterology Department, Waikato Hospital, Hamilton, New Zealand (JB)

1 Steen G, Blijenberg BG. Chemical analysis of gallstones. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1991; 29: 801-04. [PubMed]

2 Varley H. Practical clinical biochemistry, 4th edn. London: Whitfriars Press, 1967.

3 Dekkers R. Apple juice and the chemical-contact softening of gallstones. Lancet 1999; 354: 2171.

****

http://www.mgwater.com/dur01.shtml

THE MAGNESIUM WEB SITE
Magnesium Research (1994) 7, 3/4, 313-328

J. Durlach*,V. Durlach†, P. Bac‡, M. Bara§ & A. Guiet-Bara§
*SDRM, Hôpital St. Vincent-de-Paul, Paris, France; †U62, Clinique Médical, CHRU, Reims, France; ‡Laboratoire de Biologie Animale, Faculté de Pharmacie, Chatenay-Malabray, France; §Laboratoire de Physiopathologie du Développement Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Groupe Interactions cellulaires, Paris, France

ABSTRACT

Summary: Two different types of therapy with magnesium are used: physiological oral magnesium supplementation which is totally atoxic since it palliates magnesium deficiencies by simply normalizing the magnesium intake and pharmacological magnesium therapy which may induce toxicity since it creates iatrogenic magnesium overload. Primary and secondary magnesium deficiencies constitute the sole indication of physiological oral magnesium therapy. It is therefore necessary to be well acquainted with the clinical and paraclinical pattern of magnesium deficit and to discriminate between magnesium deficiency due to an insufficient magnesium intake which only requires oral physiological supplementation and magnesium depletion related to a dysregulation of the control mechanisms of magnesium status which requires more or less specific regulation of its causal dysregulation. Physiological oral magnesium load constitutes the best tool for diagnosis of magnesium deficiency and the first step of its treatment. Physiological oral magnesium supplementation (5 mg/kg/day) is easy and can be carried out in the diet or with magnesium salts, with practically only one contra-indication: overt renal failure. Specific and aspecific treatments of magnesium depletion are tricky using for example magnesium sparing diuretics, pharmacological doses of vitamin B6, physiological doses of vitamin D and of selenium. In order to use the pharmacological properties of induced therapeutic hypermagnesaemia, high oral doses of magnesium (> 10 mg/kg/day) are advisable for chronic indications and the parenteral route is suitable for acute indications. There are 3 types of indications: specific (for the treatment of some forms of magnesium deficit i.e. acute), pharmacological (i.e. without alterations of magnesium status) and mixed--pharmacological and aetiopathogenic--(for example complications of chronic alcoholism). Today pharmacological magnesium therapy mainly concerns the obstetrical, cardiological and anaesthesiological fields. The main indications are eclampsia, some dysrhythmias (torsades de pointe particularly) and myocardial ischaemias. But it is now difficult to situate the exact place of the pharmacological indications of magnesium. Magnesium infusions can only be envisaged in intensive care units with careful monitoring of pulse, arterial pressure, deep tendon reflexes, hourly diuresis, electrocardiogram and respiratory recordings. High oral magnesium doses besides their laxative action may bring latent complications which may reduce lifespan. There may remain some indications of the laxative and antacid properties of non soluble magnesium, particularly during intermittent haemodialysis. Lastly local use of the mucocutaneous and cytoprotective properties of magnesium is still valid, in cardioplegic solutions and for preservation of transplants particularly.

MORE on the study from CZ posts

http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=597126

http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=771663#i

****

http://www.yourhealthbase.com/archives/engfeb00.html

ABSTRACTS

Apple juice cure for gallstones

HAARLEM, NETHERLANDS. Dr. R. Dekkers a Dutch medical doctor and chemical engineer describes a novel method of removing gallstones. His wife apparently tried it with good results. She drank one liter of apple juice daily for six days and on the 7th day she drank a cup of olive oil just before going to bed. She lay on the left side during the night and the next morning found soft gallstones in the stool. The stones were recognized at the university hospital as fatty gallstones. Dr. Dekkers suggests that the stones can be more easily collected if an oral dose of magnesium sulfate (Epsom salt) is taken at noon on the 7th day and the evening meal is skipped.

Dekkers, R. Apple juice and the chemical-contact softening of gallstones. The Lancet, Vol. 354, December 18/25, 1999, p. 2171 (correspondence)

****

MISC. ALTERNATIVE GB METHODS

http://www.chem-tox.com/gallstones/index.htm

In a study published in the British Medical Journal, it was shown that vegetarian women had a much lower incidence of gallstones than non-vegetarian women.  Of the 632 non-vegetarians, overall occurrence of gallstones was 25%.  Vegetarians had only half as many problems, with only 12% being found to have gallstones.

A 1979 dietary survey reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found whole wheat flour intake was low in the diet of subjects with gallstones.

A study strongly linking diet and gallstone formation was published in the journal Lipids. Researchers studied the direct effects of meat and vegetable proteins on gallstone formation in test animals.   Gallstone incidence was greater among animals fed meat proteins. 

"Bile acid concentrations within the vegetable protein fed groups were significantly higher than within the meat protein fed groups.  The meat protein fed animals showed a significantly higher percentage of cholesterol in the bile fluid.  As the percentage of cholesterol increased in the bile, the percentage of bile acids was found to decrease....
"Upon administration of a diet containing vegetable protein (in the form of soybeans), gallstones were dissolved."

*****

Unable to find the actual studies but below are honorable mentions, and one excerpt from a study found.

http://www.chem-tox.com/gallstones/index.htm

J. C. Breneman, "Allergy elimination diet as the most effective gallbladder diet," Ann All 1968; 26: 83-7.

H. Necheles, et al. "Allergy of the gallbladder," Am J Dig Dis 1949; 7: 238-41.

Excerpt

http://www.newhope.com/nutritionsciencenews/NSN_backs/Jan_00/gallstone.cfm

Tuzhilin S, et al. The treatment of patients with gallstones by lecithin. Amer J Gastroent 1976;65:231-5

"Studies show as little as 300 mg of lecithin per day can raise lecithin levels in the bile."

****

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1324835

Copyright © British Journal of General Practice, 2004.

Is biliary pain exclusively related to gallbladder stones? A controlled prospective study

Background: The uncertainty around true clinical manifestations of gallbladder stone disease is in contrast with the unanimous recommendation that only symptomatic gallstones should be treated.

Aim: To evaluate the relationship between biliary pain, other gastrointestinal symptoms and gallstones.

Design of study: A pragmatic, prospective cohort questionnaire study.

Setting: Seventy-five general practices in Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Method: All patients suspected by their general practitioner (GP) to have gallstone disease underwent ultrasound examination of the upper abdomen. Using a self-administered questionnaire, the presence of 11 gastrointestinal symptoms was assessed at inclusion and after 1 year. Likelihood ratios (LRs) for the presence of gallstones and symptom relief rates after 1 year were calculated. The mean difference in health status at inclusion and after follow-up was calculated for patients without gallstones, for patients with gallstones who were operated on and for patients with gallstones who were not operated on.

Results: In total, 61% of the patients with gallstones diagnosed by ultrasound scan reported biliary pain, as did 45% of the patients without gallstones (LR = 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.05 to 1.71). Patients operated on for gallstone disease did not show significant relief of biliary pain compared to patients not operated on for gallstones or patients without gallstones (87%, 63% and 83%, respectively). Health status improved in all patients. The mean improvement in health status did not differ between the three patient groups. GPs were able to discriminate between patients with high and low probability of gallbladder stones by ultrasound examination (53% versus 23%). This selection, however, did not predict the outcome of cholecystectomy.

Conclusion: Neither biliary pain nor any other gastrointestinal symptom was consistently related to gallstone disease. Therefore, the indication for elective cholecystectomy cannot be based on the presence of biliary pain alone. Relief of biliary pain in patients operated on for gallstones should not simply be attributed to a successful cholecystectomy.

****

Against Flushing or "Stones"

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=93

Poster 1

"The original claim was that gallstones are being eliminated. Now that you realize that's impossible, you're trying to salvage the argument by saying they're really sort of "pre"-gallstone material.

My objections, in brief,

1. There is no evidence that substances build up and congest the liver.
2. The liver can't contract - it has no muscle fibers.
3. The bile is not formed to clean out sludge from the liver; it is formed to aid in digestion.
4. The theories of the flushers are not compatible with everything else we know about body physiology.
5. The alleged benefits and many testimonials are compatible with what we know about human psychology and placebo response.
6. There is no evidence from controlled studies that these flushes result in any improved outcome compared to placebo.
7. The kind of "evidence" presented by the flushers is the same kind of "evidence" that any quack can offer for whatever he's selling; it won't stand up in court.

To understand these objections, you have to understand quite a lot about human anatomy, physiology, psychology, the scientific method, and the many sources of human error that allow us to fool ourselves and jump to false conclusions."

Poster 2

"But, hey, perhaps you could educate me. Show me high quality scientific and clinical trial evidence indicating that:

1. Show that substances build up and congest the liver "just like the sludge in a car's oil filter" (I do so love specious alt-med analogies)

2 Demonstrate that liver flushes result in "powerful contraction" of the liver to remove that sludge. Ultrasounds of the liver showing sludge before and no sludge after (or less sludge after) flushes would be mandatory."

My observations, comments, questions, and personal opinions:

To Physicians:

Here's an interesting comment from a physician on the same blog of a poster.

"First, how about if all the medical persons who are taking part in this Blog, do actually check whether it works or not ?"

"That's not how it works. It's up to the person making the claim to provide evidence. We are not the ones making the claim, and we have no reason to think it's even remotely plausible."

Another comment by the same poster:

"You talk of no money for testing. Let me ask you this: if liver flushes were adequately tested in multiple double-blind studies and were shown to be ineffective, would you stop using them?"

My questions are….

In the first comment, I have to ask, what kind of person is this who is involved in science that isn't willing be curious scientifically that" something" else might be going on? If a double-blind study PROVED that it worked, would you open your mind or still call people "quacks",  use intimidation, humiliation or whatever suits you in the moment?

In my personal opinion, to put the onus on the patient to "prove" that problems exists looses the respectability of the doctor's profession, especially when a patient has symptoms of continual pain that isn't psychosomatic [I realize this wasn't your patient, but you get the point, because this is the MAJOR complaint that is continually overlooked]. Aren't doctors supposed to FIND the problem? – worldwide, we've all been brainwashed to believe this by your very own medical establishments. The above attitude points to the very reason why people seek out alternative methods – doctors don't care anymore if it's not a quick fix within the 5 minute office visit along with the prescribed medication that's suppose to work --  no matter what, only because the pharmaceutical company says so.  If it doesn't work, dope them up with psycho meds and live with the problem.

Below is a perfect example of the so-called "delusional" people after a 50 year "discovery". These poor people along with hundreds were humiliated and dismissed by the very doctors they trusted.  Up until this study, doctors were SURE they were right with their scientific knowledge and testing – guess what, the profession was wrong to make those people suffer.  How about it, are you willing to open up your mind to the possibility that "something" else might be going with people's symptoms  that you don't understand, other than "psychosis" or the "power of suggestion"? Please read the below article carefully.

http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=749795#i

Unfortunately, doctors do follow some bad science as if it were the changing tides.  It's okay to drink "x" amount of cups of coffee…. ooops, don't drink that amount because….. switch back again. Take this estrogen, because…. ooops,  breast cancer…. yes, no, yes, no…. yes, but go ahead and take the medication.

I do find it problematic when doctors are completely close-minded believing that they have ALL the answers. There is plenty of evidence throughout history that doctors didn't ALWAYS get it right with "proven" anatomy (as stated above), science and pathology behind them which has been going on for centuries.  If something changes, I would have to say it is bad science or laziness, because good science is solid, without changing the science every year. 

The flushing/enema protocols have been obscured by physicians even when your own science was put to the test showing positivity. How about  that? Is it not pertinent because medical practice has been more about doping people up (long-term) and surgeries, rather than finding real cures with doctoring?

If there is something for me and others to learn about, I'd like to seem them, please. If there is true honesty, what or why were the above publications very hard to track or not available? Gallbladder surgery is the second largest operation behind knee surgery. Why? What's going on? I'm curious.

To CZ Members:

I'd also like to say that I find it problematic that certain "members" or "clicks" exist and that, it is difficult to have legitimate open questions or concerns about certain practices without being ripped to shreds, back-stabbing  or banned. How is that any different than what the medical community is doing on this alternative health site? Better yet, how will you grow or learn anything when the mindset is only one way? Curiosity always leads to learning and growth.

What if the doctors are right (in this instance) -- what if what you're seeing is only olive oil and not "stones" which was conducted in a chemical analysis? Can you see how a chemical process can take place within the body, without them being actual GB "stones"? I know that some people have shown a very clear picture of flukes, claiming that they came from the liver – maybe it did or maybe it didn't. How do you really know that it came from the liver with a flush, because flukes CAN live in the intestinal tract and other parts of the body - what if it was flushed from the intestines instead? I know that people have seen flat yellowish material stating that they are flukes, but what if it is something else that is being sloughed off that is a different problem? I'm actually curious and interested in knowing what is what. How about you?

Jessesmom has made some good contributions on this Forum about liver functions. She made 2 very good posts recently (I thought) on the subject.
http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1242597#i
http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1245695#i

Given some of the research that is presented, I'm inclined to believe that there maybe some merit to flushing. Whether or not the "stones" are real or not is questionable to me. However, people have found relief from flushing with the pains that they've been experiencing and for this reason, I'm inclined to believe that "something" is going on. Therefore, why are people still having problems with pain in that area when surgery was suppose to fix the problem?

Anymore thoughts on this subject, anyone?