Re: No one's looking for stones here.

hi Chiron, no vitriol from me, but I do advise caution. If someone has a lot of small stones, I'm sure this liver/gallbladder flushing could be usefull. If the stones in the gallbladder are larger, (large enough to block the bile duct), this protocol could prove very dangerous. A lady I know personally, had large gall stones, she didn't do a liver/gallbladder flush as such, but she did consume a large amount of olive oil to try and deal with what she thought was constipation. The contractions of the gallbladder, due to the oil consumption, caused a large, irregular shaped stone, to lodge in the bile duct opening, this caused terrible pain, and she ended up having to have emergency surgery. Luckily for her, she did not have her gallbladder removed, but the stone was removed, and the other stones pulverised with sonic pulses.

Anyway, this story is just to let others know that this is not something to mess around with, unless you know that you only have very small stones. It would certainly give more credibiltiy to the protocol if the people doing it actually had evidence of the stones being in the liver/gallbladder in the first place, and then not being detectable afterwards.

If people are continuing to get 100's of stones out after every flush, (or what they think are stones), they need to seriously look at their diet.

Anecdotal evidence is always unreliable, although it can be useful once a protocol has been proven to work. I think much of the vitriol comes from those who want to believe this protocol works, and take it personally when their results and anecdotal evidence is questioned. They get upset because they think they are being called liars, this is not the case. There stories are merely being examined and questioned.

spud Tweet