"...you still don't understand a post worded as to be comprehensible by someone with a secondary school education." Oh, really? How does your statement lend support to your argument that Liver Flushing produces green feces? Got any empirical proof?

If you were in a high school Science class and the teacher gave you the assignment to show whether or not the results of a test were obtained through the method meeting that of the gold standard (that you usually talk about), you would give reply after reply without answering the question? What if you were the teacher, how would you like the non-responsive answer that you gave to someone else, given to you? Would you tell yourself you don't understand high school level posts, or would you begin to think the non-responsive answer is an example of someone trying to bluff their way through something?

Now you are trying another bluff. You said that the control was not needed because that is required only in assessing an intervention. Give me some references for this on the internet where everyone can read it. I want to know on what basis you are making this statement. What authority is proclaiming this principle that you want to use (in this case)? Do you have any favorite supporting examples for this statement on when you use control?

You have a lot of assumed assumptions operating in the Lancet example for you to infer from the woman's surgery and subsequent lab tests that all green excreted matter is feces, and somehow... this leads to the conclusion that Liver Flushing does not work (does not get rid of stones).

Is surgery an intervention? And how would one determine this? Ask you? Take a poll?
Look at the definition of the gold standard in scientific investigations? Is surgery an example of the definition of the gold standard in scientific investigations? These are all unaswered questions that you have made assumptions for to suit your end result rather than to suit the requirements of meeting that highly touted gold standard of Science in medicine.

Is the doctor performing the surgery a scientist when he does the gallbladder surgery? Do scientists do surgeries (in this case)? And when the surgery is over he goes back to being a doctor? Your method of extracting the real gallstones, according to you, was surgery, not the scientific method. Unless you think surgery is the scientific method. No one knows if the comparison of Gallstones came from the same woman, the Lancet article doesn't say. Now, unless you know the woman involved or the writers, or the surgeon, you don't know either. And this is supposed to be a Science article? Nothing is to be assumed in science especially facts over which there is a great deal of controversy. There is a great deal of controversy over what stones are expelled during a liver flush.

You and the writers of the Lancet article want to decide this WITHOUT an experiment that meets the gold standard of science. If your method isn't any good, your results aren't any good. And then you cannot generalize to what other people's Liver Flush results might be. It is a logical fallacy to infer that the results this woman got from her Liver Flush is what millions of other people would get if they did a liver flush. She is only one person not a representative sample. Do you remember that part, from your study of the requirements for scientific investigations meeting the gold standard since you made claims to being erudite?

There are other problems with your conclusion that other people have painstakingly pointed out. She or the writers decided to give a very small amount of detail on how she followed the Liver Flush instructions from day to day. And she didn't finish doing the liver flush. These are two of the major problems that prevent you from generalizing to everyone.

There wasn't any mention of how long the green sample were exposed to air before they
were frozen. So no one knows, it could have been any amount of time. Is that right?
I've read these liver flush stones have to be exposed to weak, winter sun, before being frozen was that mentioned in the Lancet article as having been done?

Why wasn't the woman's green feces, you like to call it, compared to:
1. someone's results who knew how to do a liver flush
2. someone's results who didn't do any liver flush

You said the controlled trial is used in intervention to asses therapy. What does that mean? Doctors intervene with surgury, is that a therapy? And please don't answer that surgery is surgery and therapy is therapy. Therapy sounds like it could be a cure for something. Is surgery a cure for something? If so, what would be some examples of cures surgery has achieved?

Can I just compare the results of two different processes, surgery and liver flushing, not knowing what I got (without adequate controls to help compare what I have obtained) and tell people that I know these results have scientific validity? You appear motivated to think so because you agree with the Lancet conclusion.

If you had been listening during your secondary education while in science class you would have heard the instructor explain the experimental method as the cornerstone of science and the importance of being objective.


definitions for those who find it useful:
empiricism..the philosophical doctrine that sensory experience is the only source of ..............knowledge
............the forumualtion of scientific laws by the process of observation and ..............experimentation

erudite....learned
...........deeply read
...........scholarly

intervene..to come or be between
...........to happen in the meantime
...........to interfere
...........to interrupt
...........to interpose

painstaking..carefully laborious