Thanks to all those that answered.
I know what you mean. I have obviously thought about several possibilities.
What I'm saying though does not denounce the fact that people have calcified stones from long term residence of the stones in gb and liver, that parasites and flukes may be present in some, that some who don't get stones may be not flushing them out OR do not have any OR are not reacting to the flush by producing them.... All of these are possibilities. ALL I'm saying is that perhaps the whole flushing procedure is for some folk a drastic procedure on the liver which reacts by producing stones... a surge in the cholesterol to cope with the flush.
This is not to denounce flushing either... if it's making some folk feel better, if it's removing old and calcified stones, if it's flushing out the sludge then all well and good. BUT I think we have to be aware of the possibility that some folk might be stimulating the liver/gb to produce stones when none are there. There is always a time when enough is enough. And that time might come sooner for some people and later for others. We have to be careful that we are not led to believe that we are necessarily doing good by continuing to flush... analogous to the idea that because washing our hands gets them clean and reduces germs we should be constantly washing our hands... obviously not.
There should in many cases come a time when the liver takes over and flushing is not necessary... so long as you are controlling diet and environment etc. For some, flushing once or twice yearly may always continue to be necessary.
If nobody here is open to the possibility that the action of flushing CAN result in stone formation, then well, what can I say.