<<<"If you choose to believe that your lab work was 100% accurate (when lab work is notoriously inaccurate, particularly imaging of 'soft' tissue and objects) and base your beliefs on a few Liver Flushes and that particular lab work, then that's what you choose to do & believe. In my opinion, that's not NEARLY enough of anything to have any type of solid foundation for theorizing & basing a belief/opinion (and certainly not for insisting to others that you "know" the "truth")">>>

You have no idea that my lab work was inaccurate, and no evidence at all that any lab work is "notoriously inaccurate". You are basing your opinion on the opinion of others, which weakens your statements.

I have never insisted I know the "truth", this is what others here do, but I do not. I believe in experimentation, where I am informed of all possible outcomes, then choose for myself to experiment, for my own learning. I don't have any interest in proving this protocol wrong, I got the results I got, and they just happen to disagree with the claims of the protocol pushers.

What is enough, to make an informed foundation for theory, in your opinion, may be vastly different to what is enough for others to form an opinion, so this argument is irrelevant. I happen to think that doing this protocol, as per the instructions given on the support forum, several times, is more than enough to base an opinion on.

A person does not need to keep doing a protocol for ever, to know that the claims are false. I gave this protocol a fair go, and I know that the claims are false, (perhaps due to the ignorance of those that promote this, and not outright dishonesty). To keep doing the same thing, and expecting a different result, is just a plain waste of time.



<<<<"...but perhaps in your opinion it is enough. That's your right & choice. Your experience would be particularly inconclusive if your purpose in doing the flushes originally was to "disprove liver flushing" (which I thought I'd read previously, but perhaps I didn't, or someone else wrote it). If you say your experience was 100% for learning, then I have no reason to believe otherwise.">>>

My experiment was for my own learning, I was prepared to see if the claims made by the pushers of this protocol had some substance. I am sure some people do feel better when the cause the gallbladder to contract and expel stale bile or bile sludge, but as for expelling hundreds of stones, some, I've seen posted, were as big as golf balls, or even baseballs. This is a false claim, and anatomically impossible, (not unlikely, but impossible), to have come from the gallbladder or liver. To promote this as truth, is wrong.

I don't blatantly dismiss this protocol, but the false claims, and some totally ridiculous claims, plus the very nasty personal attacks, by some of the proponents, give this protocol very little credibility. Even though this protocol may do some people some good, the conduct of those promoting it, and the outright dismissal of the very real risks some people face if they proceed with this protocol, is likely to turn a lot of people away from even trying it.

Even those that may benefit from getting rid of stale bile, and bile sludge.

Trying to discredit those who simply have a different opinion, by trying to make out there is a financial agenda, or even by using a condition a person may have, to suggest they are not credible, is a low act. When these tactics are used by people who claim to know the "truth", it detracts from the topic of discussion, and shows that the person using these tactics, is more about promoting their own ego, or their own personal grudges, than actually discussing a topic in a civil manner.


spud

<<<"Unfortunatley the "liver flush" supporters have no desire for real testing to be done because then they would have no excuses left when it is proven to be quackery.">>>

This is unfortunate indeed, if a protocol cannot stand up to scrutiny, then it needs serious looking at. People who put forward theories and protocols, (if they are genuine in their desire to really help people), would welcome debate, experimentation, results that differ from others, and scrutiny. No one with any conscience at all, would advocate a protocol, that has no basis in basic biology or anatomy, and could potentially cause a lot of harm.

If the protocol really does what it's advocates, claim it does, then they would not fear scrutiny. They would also welcome those who advise caution, and provide full and adequate warnings, for those who may have serious complications when trying this protocol.

We see the pharmaceutical industry, promoting and pushing products and treatments, without proper testing, or false claims, and with inadequate, or no warnings of the side effects or possible consequences. I would hate to see alternative medicine go the same way.

spud

See this post :

//www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1752396#i


These flushes, however you do them, do not work. What people are passing, are not gallstones.

I recommend that people do some study and research on how the body actually works, and study some basic anatomy, that way they wont be conned by these bogus protocols, and potentially do some real damage to themselves. This study should be from sources outside of promotional sites.

spud