Re: Sure, but some of yesterday's got wiped off.....

I agree about the low probability that pre-formed stones exist as we know them, in high quantity, in the liver due to the space available. However, it may not be a situation of either all one or the other. It is possible some stones may be pre-formed before the flush, while others are waiting for the flush, in order to be drawn out and be formed.

I don't agree, however, with the reasoning that if you don't like the scientist then that's a valid reason not to test the theories of that scientist.

The character/intelligence quotient (I.Q.)/moral courage or motivation of that scientist is not being tested here. What is being tested are the scientific underpinnings of the Liver Flush and its role in forming the stones.

Those who are researchers, supposedly in the alternative field, who could test the Liver Flush on volunteers can't do it because Hulda Clark has a bad name. Well, did they hear she has a bad name from their friends? Or did they decide for themselves that she is a bad name after they read her lengthly books on her research? Or both possibilities?

And none of their fellow researchers has a bad name? How does one get a bad name? Do you stop reading that researcher's work because now he has a bad name? Does it depend on how closely that researcher's work is related to yours whether you consider it bad or even read it? Would you try to influence that researcher's work if word got out that it contradicted your work? What if you couldn't get the researcher to change his mind, what do you do then? Do you start name-calling as in .. Hulda Clark is a very bad name..? Are you hoping the name-calling will catch on, perhaps?

It was sort of enlightening to read that you perceive the reason for the very bad name to be "not because of the liver flush, but because of the Cure for Aids, Cancer and All Diseases Books" Hulda Clark wrote. This latter part is why Hulda Clark has a bad name in medical circles in France you say, and her writing of many books directly prevents researchers in medical circles from testing her Liver Flush theory, or someone else's, on volunteers.
You mean if she wrote less books, then it would be O.K. to test the liver flush theory? You mean after those researchers in the medical circles you are talking about, read all Hulda Clark's books, then they no longer were able to test the liver flush theory on volunteers?

Well, why?

Thousands and thousands of scientists have developed and tested theories that others call over-reaching or theorizing beyond the data or too general in parts, perhaps. But why should that stop a group of reasearchers in medical circles in France from putting part of that (over-reaching) theory to a test on volunteers? It does not make sense.

What would make sense is if, during the test on volunteers, the researchers found out something that contradicted a previous belief(s). People are not anxious to find that out and they protect themselves from it. The easiest way is to continually find reasons why you cannot run the liver flush test on volunteers. All the while maintaining that some aspect interests you. If a researcher in the medical circles, in France, can see ahead of time that if he runs the liver flush test (or any test)
then some of his previous results are going to be cast into doubt, how motivated (emotionally or morally) is he going to be to do the liver flush test? Why not find a scapegoat and blame it on someone else, like Hulda Clark, and not do the flush test? That's the easy way out. But not scientific.

You protest over and over in your posts that you are honestly interested in scientifically determining some aspects of it (liver flush), but you associate with researchers in medical circles who have delayed the scientific investigation you want based on invalid reasons. And you agree with their invalid reasons. This common situation reminds me of the old adage, "Birds of a feather, flock together."

Because the status quo, in France or anywhere, can take a very long time to do something, I hope you live long enough. Tweet