Something I've always wondered... Re: Sad truth: liver flush with that colon cleanse?

...if you believe this is true (as you obviously do), when there are many people claiming it is not true and your hypothesis isn't valid---

But since you brought up surgery why don't you mention that "liver flushing" can cause real gallstones to lodge in a duct leading to pancreatitis and requiring emergency surgery?  Funny how the "liver flush" supporters never warn people of this real danger.

--- and you are aware (as you obviously are) that the CureZone Liver Flush forum (and liver flush poll) is a huge compendium of liver flush experiences (which documents the empirical data of  thousands of liver flush experiences)...

Then why don't you simply compile the data from the forum/poll and offer solid evidence of how many liver flushes ended with a gallstone stuck in a duct,  that lead to pancreatis and/or required emergency surgery?  With 528 pages on the Liver Flush forum (with about 15 flush experiences per page, more or less), that's the empirical data from nearly eight thousand liver flushes - so the truth about the alleged risk IS out there.   Certainly, the time you would spend doing that would be far less than the time you've already spent here.  And of course, no statement or hypothesis from anyone is valid with evidence to support it.

You continue repeating that liver flush supporters don't warn people of the very real risks...yet even with reports from thousands of flushes at your fingertips, you've never provided any type of solid proof or empirical evidence of the alleged risks you purport...only the anatomical & physiological possibility.

In any debate (or court, or laboratory), when someone makes a claim of something being true (a hypothesis) and another person challenges it, then the person who made the original claim carries the 'burden of proof' ...they must provide evidence their claim is true.  If they will not (or cannot) they lose the debate, or they are laughed out of the debate, court or laboratory.  You have been challenged to provide evidence that supports your claim regarding the alleged risks of liver flushing many times.

I cannot speak for any other person, but I've been posting on CZ for over six years, and even before I had an ID and started posting I spent several hours weekly (sometimes daily) systematically reading the archives of the Liver Flush forum.  I started at the beginning, and in only a few months I had read the full contents of every post up through page 150.  Then I switched to reading only the posts wherein the subject line indicated a liver flush had actually been done by the poster, and continued on through around page 300 (which at that time, was the entire forum).  Since then, there have been another 238 pages of liver flush experiences, which I have read sporadically.  Why did I do all this reading?

Because even though my mother-in-law had cured herself of Stage IV liver cancer via Dr. Kelley's protocols (liver flushing every week or bi-weekly) and even though I'd read Moritz's books and the writings of many other healers that supported liver flushing, and studied the anatomy & physiology of the liver & gallbladder, I wanted to know the truth of any & all risks, benefits, and various issues (not hypotheses, not allegedly validated theories*).  And I want to know it before I continued on my healing journey and before I offered suggestions to others regarding liver flushing & their health....and certainly before I entered into debate (and even more certainly, before I would egoically & publicly accuse others of ignorance on the subject). 

What I found in reading thousands of liver flush experiences (to the best of my recollection), were these general things--

--virtually every person that chose to liver flush had reason to believe (either from observation of their own body & symptoms, or from a physician's observation of the same, or from imaging test/s) they had issues of biliary stones, congestion, or other compromise of the liver and/or gallbladder.  So virtually all people that choose to liver flush did so with pre-existing liver/gallbladder compromise. 

--I found no reports of anyone doing a liver flush that needed emergency surgery afterward.  There are cases of people choosing to go to the ER (after or during a flush) due to the effects of Epsom Salts, or experiencing nausea/pain.  No immediate surgery was required.  However, several people were advised to have their gallbladder removed, and the majority of those had already been advised that previously.

--I found no confirmed cases of pancreatitis being caused by a liver flush (although I recall a handful of people that were dealing with the symptoms of pancreatitis before flushing and some afterward). But of course, only imaging tests could confirm whether a 'stuck stone' was the cause - and whether or not it was caused by liver flushing.

--I found many reports of people having discomfort or symptoms that led them to believe or assume that a 'stone was stuck' somewhere in the biliary tract after a liver flush.  The majority of people were advised to do another flush (or take epsom salts, or both--or did so on their own), and this typically resolved the originally reported issue.  I saw no reports of anyone requiring surger to remove a 'confirmed' stuck stone (whether it was pre-existing or allegedly caused by liver flushing - or not)

---> I am quite aware that my recollection and the summarization of what I recollect is not  "quantitatively precise" and my summary does NOT show the probability of risk (or what happened that people didn't report), and that I haven't read all the reports.  It's simply a summary by someone that DID read the reports of 4000-6000 actual liver flush experiences, with the purpose of learning and recognizing potential risks & benefits.  The summary above has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you have empirical data & evidence to support your hypothesis.

*From wikipedia on theories - "A hypothesis is a prediction which has yet to be tested, while a theory is a prediction-making conceptual framework that is consistent with data."  And as any science-minded person knows, that is empirical data...in the case of liver flushing, that would be what really happens in the real world with real people when they liver flush.

You have been challenged many times on this forum to present evidence that supports your hypothesis and opinion (which you consistently claim to be a proven theory) - that "liver flushing" can cause real gallstones to lodge in a duct leading to pancreatitis and requiring emergency surgery?  Funny how the "liver flush" supporters never warn people of this real danger  While you have offered evidence that your hypothesis is an anatomical & physiological possibility, you have not utilized the empirical data readily available to you that could determine the truth of your hypothesis.  Certainly, you can not expect any person (no matter what you deem their IQ or ability to reason critically or rationally) to accept your hypothesis as valid or factual....when you haven't presented empirical data that supports it.  Particularly when that empirical data IS available to you.

Just to be clear, I am addressing only your statement/hypothesis that I have quoted above.  I am not addressing the size of biliary ducts; composition of 'stones'; what you assume about me or my knowledge base; what you think of Kelley, Moritz, Clark or other healers that suggest liver flushing; the anatomy or physiology of the liver; saponification of oil; or any other 'liver flush' issue.

If you have empirical data that proves there IS a risk, then when/if you choose to offer it in support of your hypothesis, please remember to include the statstics that show the probability.  People do have to go to the ER (and even die) because they risked drinking water or risked walking along a busy street or in a thunderstorm.  All 'procedures'  that we do (or have done) to our body involve some level of risk...it's the probability of the risk that is the determining factor when making a choice.