Re: you said chemical analysis was not good-re stones

In case you forgot, you tried to say that the test results of someone who posted Liver Flush results on the forum needed to be tested by microscopy before it meant anything.
You tried to imply the results of a chemical test on composition of Gallstones was worthless. That was YOUR point not mine. Your point was contested by others.

For you to say my point about microscopy not being done in the two studies I posted is obscure is a worthless comment. Now you want something else proven for you, something obscure, something not easily seen. It is easily seen that microscopy was not used in the 2 posted examples. Now it's my turn to ask you, can you follow a logical argument?

Part of doing that is remembering what you hotly contested in the posts following the photograph of stones following a liver flush.

You pride yourself on how much you know because of the training in your background compared to everyone else. Things are easily seen by you, that others can't, you said. You know most of your answers side step what is asked and so does everyone else. You frequently tell others they don't know what they are talking about, yet when a calarifying definition is asked in a post, suddenly the question is somehow obscure.

Since you imply these matters of understanding come to you easily, answer the question in the post you just responded to that asked,"Do you know under what specific conditons a microscopy test is called for?"

AND WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF USING VARIOUS LAB TESTS SUCH AS THE CHEMICAL ANALYSIS VERSUS THE ANALYSIS BY MICROSCOPY? Tweet