Re: Your hypothesis on the liver flush….

Dear Mark,

You have come here and done a half-hearted attempt to "understand" what's going on, and then offered your well-researched theories as to what is going on, in an attempt to discredit this procedure. I've seen it before, and I'll likely see it again.

Consequently, I have little to no patience with you. If you're trying to understand something, then try studying it. Study means LOOK AT. It doesn't mean "think about". It doesn't mean come here and offer a veiled attack in the guise of feigning "interest in study".

That's complete BS, and your attempts to act all offended is just your way of trying to play it off. I know your type. Yes, you have one, and it's not my fault you play right into the stereotype. If you want to stop being thought of as a little weasel, then stop acting like one.

For the record: I have seen (i.e. looked at) Gallstones come out of my derriere after full fledged gall bladder attacks. I know what they look like, and how they feel. This was well before I knew anything about doing flushes.

I have since gotten the same kinds of stones (plus others whose origins I do not know, and which could very well be related to your "cholesterol gobs", except for the dark green, pea-like quality, which suggests concentrated bile, not mere cholesterol) from doing the liver/gall flush.

I don't have to believe anything about it. I know what my real gall stones look like. I know that there were other ones, too. The first "genuine" gall stones that I got came from my third flush. My first two did not produce (that I could tell...) any of these types of gall stones, but they did produce other things, particularly tan and green... things...

No, I didn't test them. I'm not trying to prove it or disprove it. I'm not trying to believe it or not believe it. I'm doing it and observing the results.

> John, I’m sorry, I could not afford the camera and scope. Do you
> believe from experience and reading other’s opinion that the Epsom
> salt does this very thing? You do or you would not use it, as I
> will assume you have. So why are you attacking my approach on
> things that we agree on? Lighten up a little. I must have struck
> a cord with you for some reason.

My assertion, from my personal experience, is that I passed gall stones similar in size (1 to 2 cm in diameter) without pain on my third flush which looked just like the gall stones (both in size and appearance) from my gall stone attacks last year.

I also passed some rather larger things which I could not call gall stones. When I broke one apart, it was quite hard on the outside, but I had no idea what the contents were on the inside. It looked like sand. For all I know, it was extremely well dried feces.

The Epsom Salts seem to have been the basis for it. I am not going to do a flush without the Epsom Salts , as I have no desire for an attack. Perhaps merely having sufficent bile stored is enough to lubricate the ducts enough to flush the stones out, and the Epsom Salts have little to do with it. I don't know.

> Sir, this is a simple piece of common sense.

It was once "common sense" that the world was flat. Then it was "common sense" that the Sun orbited Earth, and Earth was the center of the universe. And so on. Common sense? Please.

> Your body releases hormones based on a stimulus. If you release a
> large amount of hormone, it will have a larger impact on its
> target.

Granted. I have no argument with this.

> If you believe that you gut was meant to take even a half a cup of
> fat in one huge dose you truly mistaken.

Good to know that you still have that finger on God's pulse.

> Eat a whole cup of Sugar and see what it does to you.

Thanks, but I'll pass. Then again, show me where in nature you can find a cup of sugar. Meanwhile, I can get quite a large portion of fat from a number of animals.

> It’s simple John, hormones are released in proportion to what
> stimulates them and this impacts the target to a similar degree.

And your point was that you don't *believe* it's a good idea. And, given all the wonderful research you've done, you must truly know!

> “Huge” means anything greater than the normal average does with a
> normal meal that one may eat.

No, "huge", as taken from dictionary.com, means:

"Of exceedingly great size, extent, or quantity. See Synonyms at enormous."

You were trying to use hyperbole as a scare tactic, and now that I've called you on it, you're trying to play it off.

You have no idea how much is released. Nor do you know what the specification is for the device (i.e. the human gall bladder). And even if it isn't "good", no one professionally recommends doing it more often than once every two weeks, anyway.

You can do more muscular damage by beginning a weight training program.

> John, its really simple, eating a cup of fat in one gulp is not
> good.

Hmmm... but having your gall bladder removed is? Eating a couple of Bacon Ultimate Cheeseburgers from Jack In The Box is?

> It would take you several really fatty meals to get that kind of
> response in the digestive system.

Excuse me, but have you ever had a gall bladder attack?

> Not to mention the mixture of all the other food makes it
> impossible for you to get any kind of hormone release that you get
> from gulping a huge dose of fat at one time like in the flush.

Sir, if you find yourself dying from malaria, you might be interested in some quinine. You might not like the taste, and I highly advise eating it daily for the rest of your life, but if you've got malaria, it's not such a bad idea!

Likewise, if you've got some gall stones to remove, consuming 1/2 cup of olive oil once every two weeks on an empty stomach for a couple of months HARDLY seems like the threat you make it out to be.

> The system was not meant to work that way John.

Again, good to know that you have the human blueprint available for refernce.

> Lets not loose tract of common sense.

Practice what you preach. Then again, if what you preach really is "common sense", I'd rather be insane.

> I can drink 12 beers on a good night (or bad). If I took the pure
> alcohol for those 12 beers and gulped it at one time it would
> probably kill me (that would be the same as me drinking over 7
> shots of grain alcohol at one time).

And yet I've managed to drink 1/2 cup of olive oil straight, three times now, and I live to tell the tale. Your analogy is WAY off. You're comparing seven shots of grain alcohol to 1/2 cup of olive oil?

> Well if I fast for a day or more, and then eat a load of oil and
> then eat nothing for some time after that, what do you think is
> going to pass out your ass? Would you think maybe oil perhaps?
> Do this test, scoop some out and feel it and smell it. That is
> all the testing I needed, its olive oil. My nose is
> my “scientific equipment”. Try it, its fun!

Well, while I have to agree it's probably fun, wouldn't all that bile actually help to digest some of the olive oil? I mean, as long as we're talking common sense...

> John, this system is a constant flowing system. It may slow a bit
> but never stops. The liver needs the bile acids to keep the
> cholesterol in a liquid state. If they are lacking in the liver
> you will get coagulation of cholesterol. Its not a “stop and go”
> system as you suggest above. It constantly flows and it takes
> time to replace the lost bile acids. And during this time the
> stones form when the bile acids are low and then stops when the
> system has equalized again. The liver is constantly producing and
> releasing the bile.

The gall bladder is a stop and go system. To my knowledge, the liver is not, so on this point we agree. But then why, suddenly, have you seemingly "run out of bile salts" such that you have cholesterol just dropping out of solution?

How did your hypothetical liver suddenly run out of bile salts just because of a flush? It's always producing bile, right? The liver must have some reasonable way of fashioning or acquiring these bile salts on a regular basis, despite the constant concentration of bile going on in the gall bladder.

If I've just dumped every bit of gall releasing hormone (whatever it's called) into my system, and this influenced the liver, such that the liver just dumped a bunch of the bile it was holding at a faster than normal rate, then wouldn't the liver kinda have to work up to having enough "bile pressure" to get that flow going again?

So these hypotehtical cholesterol gobs... which are now in the liver... have less pressure pushing them out after this massive surge of bile flow from the hypothetical liver itself... suggesting that the cholesterol gobs would only further gum up the liver, thereby slowing down the release of bile further, until enough pressure was built up to push them out, or enough bile salts we re absorbed to dissolve the cholesterol gobs.

I mean, heck, "common sense" can lead us down any number of paths!

The fact is, you've done two flushes and a bunch of thinking to attempt to discredit the flush.

> John, my timing is not way off. You will see I said 1 to 2 days.
> This is a good indication as this it how long it takes to pass the
> stones. Let me restate the time frame so there is no confusion.
> Several hours (6 to 8) to 2 days. Sorry for not being more
> detailed.
>
> Let me clarify.
>
> 10 PM: fat is eaten. Bile is discharged and mixes with oil and
> juice within an hour (which is being very generous here since it
> is a liquid and needs very little digestion and passes out of the
> stomach quickly, probably within 20 minutes)
>
> With little in the digestive tract, the mixture flows through the
> intestines and will do it rather quickly.
>
> 1 AM: the oil has probably made it a good way through the system
> and has coated the intestine to a degree. So within 3 hours the
> bile system is now lacking bile acids that did not get re-
> absorbed.
>
> The blood that circulates from the ileum to the liver goes there
> really fast, so you can assume that by 1 am that there is now a
> lack of bile acids in the liver and that the gobs are starting to
> form.

No, I cannot assume this. YOU assume this. Nevertheless, they are now IN THE LIVER, not out in the small intestine. Being gobs, as you call them, and not water soluble, to boot, they probably aren't going anywhere fast.

> 2 AM: The stones are forming and are passing through the ducts
> making their way to the GULL and the common ducts.
>
> 3 AM: The stones are passed into the intestine and are making
> their way to daylight (the toilet).
>
> 6 AM: Some stones are probably have made their way into the
> colon. Remember all this time, there is still a lack of bile
> acids because of the oil film which by now is probably starting to
> decline and some re-absorption is taking place. So stone
> formation in the liver by this time is already declining. The
> blood carrying the bile acids (or really lack there of) has been
> through the liver many times by now.

OK, so, basically, you're asserting that these stones can be formed in five hours. To establish this data as a theory, I suggest you test this one.

> 8 AM: You first bowel movement shows some stones. You may get
> lots or a few. It depends on how things went in the guts.
>
> 10 AM till 24 hours later: The system has cleared and bile acids
> are now being reabsorbed well and the body has most likely
> attempted to replace them naturally.

"most likely" -- this is another way of saying "let's assume". You're just making guesses here. In fact, you're making tons of them all throughout your argument.

> You will get the last of the stones passing out during this time.
> Everybody is different. There is not one person that will follow
> this exact schedule. This is merely to demonstrate how it can
> happen and how I believe it happened for me.

You are welcome to believe whatever you like. There may be merit to your argument. But since you want to feign "scientificness", you need to test it. From a stone in five hours. Start.

> If you question my timing, for me, after a fast I can eat nothing
> but Watermelon and pass it on an empty gut within 2-3 hours. So
> if you question my timing on the stones traveling through and
> empty gut, this is my scientific proof. The Watermelon seeds and
> some pulp sure looked like they were from the Watermelon I ate. I
> did not taste it or try to plant the seeds to see if a watermelon
> would grow from them however. So, now that I think of it maybe my
> scientific study lacks factual data and I cannot conclude that it
> was truly the seed and pulp from the watermelon. It must have been
> something else that I did NOT eat. Rats, I though I had something
> going with that study! Sorry, just trying to add a little humor.

The only thing that has ever resulted in green things from me was unchewed peas, and liver flushes. You haven't adequately explained the green "stones" (or gobs or whatever). Calcified bile? Congealed bile? Well, then, you haven't adequately explained the function of the epsom salt, which acts as a laxative by drawing water to the intestines (unless the label or my Epsom Salt is lying to me). Given that the bile is concentrated by the gall bladder by removing water, shouldn't adding water to the system restore the bile to its less bilious state? I know when I go in the morning, the diarrhea I have is far more than the cup of fluid (half cup oil, half cup grapefruit juice) than I drank.

It's just common sense, after all...

> How can you accept the information of the “older texts” you
> mention as did they give you scientific proof and scope the liver
> and ducts to get and absolute, concrete time frame on how long it
> takes a stone to form?

The word "even" here is used to suggest that the old texts and the new and everyone and his mother gets that these stones don't form overnight (although there may be some substance we could consume to cause it to occur...).

> You deny my opinion and knowledge of this topic yet you blindly
> accept their opinion without any merit or data to support it?

Blindly? No merit? No data to support it? Show me a gall stone which forms in six hours.

> John, I could say something nasty about you right now, but instead
> I’ll resort to “you need to put your foot in your mouth and
> practice what you preach.”

Hmmm... YOU're the one who tried to offer your "thinking" about the topic to explain why flushing is dangerous and doesn't work. You're the one who wanted to act all "scientific" about it.

I don't have all the answers. I don't even have all the questions. But I certainly don't reject something because I can "explain" why it "can't work". I've read too much history to know that hubris is exactly the thing which impedes human progress.

> If you re-read my post, I explain that calcified stones TAKE A
> LONG TIME TO FORM. It is not beyond reason to think that the
> little soft stones could be made in several hours?

No, it's not unreasonable at all. But you're discouting MY EVIDENCE as well as the evidence of a number of posters to these forums of *genuine* gall stones which have come out -- some even laboratory tested. Unless they're all lying... in which case, maybe so are you. Who do I trust? People whose observations coincide with mine, or those of someone who's trying to foment, covertly, under the guise of "scientific thought", worry over the safety of the procedure?

Your theory doesn't explain my gall stones. It might very well explain the Tic-Tac sized ones. Your theory says that the 2 cm stones should hurt like hell coming out, and yet there they sit, in my toilet, hexagonal as you please.

> You can produce semi-solid mucous balls in you throat and sinuses
> in several hours. I believe that your liver is totally capable of
> producing these soft stones. I think it is very possible.

That's nice, but you're THINKING, not LOOKING. Mucus is not cholesterol... is it?

> John, I am fully aware that your body can compensate very well to
> things. If you get a duct obstruction that is well inside the
> liver, that portion of the liver will not function well but the
> remainder will take on the duty of cleaning the blood etc. But,
> if you get a major or total blockage in the common bile duct, you
> will get very sick in a short period of time. No ifs, ands, or
> butts (ha ha, get it). Call you local liver/biliary doctor and
> inquire for yourself.

Yeah, if you happen to get a stone stuck in your biliary tract and happen to block the pancreatic duct, you're in a world of deep hurt.

No argument there.

But, then again, the assertion from the "other side" is that this major blockage is the basic cause behind allergies. In other words, the body DOES show symptoms of this major difficulty -- but "modern medicine" does not recognize it for what it is, being focused on treating symptoms and not causes.

> Again “foot in mouth” applies to your comments here. I mentioned
> that God designed this system so that it will function very, very
> well and overcome adversity as you mention. But, you then deny
> the ability of the liver to function normally on its own without
> intervention from you and your flushes?

You deny the ability of the system to operate without modern medicine and its drugs? Modern medicine and its operations? Modern medicine and its radiation?

"God helps those who help themselves."

First of all, could you please ask God to come by and straighten me out on my doubt that you are as chummy with Him as you seem to think you are? And if you wouldn't mind, I'd really like a copy of the human blueprint you keep refering to.

Second, the liver probably functions just fine on its own until environmental toxins start fouling up the system. That's my opinion; it has no particular basis in fact. That the bile system has a means of eliminating the stones at all is a testament (no pun intended) to the strength of the system.

But, yeah, sometimes, the body needs a little help.

I don't believe in waiting around for God to solve my problems.

> You contradict yourself here. Can it over come adversity or not?

Yes, it can, with help. But that wasn't the point. You were arguing that a 50% blockage should result in massive awareness by the organism that something is wrong. I showed both via "common sense" and by analogy that a 50% blockage, achieved gradually over time, wouldn't necessarily make the being aware of what's going on. I further asserted that the liver would continue to operate to the best of its ability under those circumstances, which wouldn't be great, but would still be "functioning". You have attempted to twist my meaning.

> Can it clear its self normally or not? Does it really require
> your help? I believe that in some cases that it may because if
> the organ is diseased or extremely abused it will not function as
> intended.

And on this point, we agree. Environmental toxins are my hypothetical villain here, although parasites might be the villain's sidekick.

> But it is my opinion that these cases are not that common and that
> the liver will not ”filled” with stones in a majority of
> individuals.

Based on what? What is the basis for your opinion? Your own bias, two flushes, and ignoring the posts and other data provided on this web site?

> People with extreme allergies may have blockages in certain
> portions of the liver and I mentioned that in my last post. It is
> possible. But I don’t believe the flush will loosen those
> blockages.

And those allergy sufferers who have eliminated their allergies after having done these useless flushes are pleased to know your opinion, I'm sure.

>The herbs may be capable of breaking them down if they are stuck in a duct.
>
> If you block the flow of bile from the liver, you are going to
> have more than allergies. A partial blockage could give allergy
> symptoms and flushing could help, I never denied this. I just
> don’t think these stones back all the way up into the liver like
> that.

Based on what fount of knowledge do you make this claim? WHAT ON EARTH gives you this opinion, besides personal bias? You have no idea, personally, what causes allergies, but you can certainly discuss in great detail what doesn't!

> Have some people doing the flushes actually had worst symptoms? I
> believe I have read several posts here that they have. This may
> be because you end up forming more stones behind one that may be
> stuck due to the bile acid drop in the newly produced bile.

Lot's of "I believe". Your hypothesis might actually have some merit, and some portion of the stones might in fact be caused by the process of flushing itself. But you're a LONG way from validly proclaiming yourself an expert, as you haven't accounted for a long list of additional data.

> Yes, I will direct you to it. It’s on the first Liver Flush
> page. Just scroll down and you will see it. This raises a
> question. How many “healthy” non-diseased livers have you seen
> loaded with stones? Surely the medical community (which I’m not
> to found of) would establish this in its dissecting of 100’s
> of “healthy” livers for students and research in the past. How
> come they never report or document that they found loads of stones
> plugging up what they though were healthy livers? How come many
> diseased livers that are dissected almost regularly do not show
> hundreds of stones in all the ducts? As these diseased livers
> would most likely have more stones in them than a normal healthy
> liver, right? It just does not add up.

Hmmm... how closely do they examine the liver during an autopsy when the cause of death was clearly a bullet to the brain, or old age, or cancer? Really no point, is there?

Do psychiatrists warn parents that Ritalin has a known side effect of suicidal tendencies when coming off the drug (you have to go to older version of the Physician's Desk Refernce, BTW, to see this -- conveniently, newer editions have it removed) before encouraging parents to feed it to their kids?

Do surgeons warn patients of the possible dangers of gall bladder surgery before hauling patients off to get their gall bladders ripped out of them? Hell, my doctor told me fourteen months ago that I would have to have my gallbladder out. Nyah, nyah. I asked him if there were alternatives. He said that with any alternative, the stones would just come back, and he mentioned, really, only a pulverizing procedure which breaks up the stones (which he discouraged), and described some studies on some drugs which were used to try to soften the stones, but which didn't have much success.

Do the winners of wars ever focus on the atrocities they've committed in their historical accounts?

> John its all in design. The birth canal was DESIGNED to stretch
> like that so your analogy is a poor one. I don’t think God for-
> saw “golf balls” coming down the pike. And if he did, he would
> have compensated by leaving out all the nerve cells! Ouch!
> Stone that cause great pain in passing through the common duct and
> gull are the size of a marble. They cause great pain. Some
> people use flushes that do not use EPSOM salt, the supposed duct
> dilator. They claim to pass very large stones with no pain. This
> is nuts, just ask someone that has had an acute GULL / common duct
> blockage. I’ll bank my IOTA on the pain that people suffer from
> with acute attacks.

I have suffered the pain of acute attacks. I passed gall stones then. I've passed gall stones recently without pain.

But, again, I'd really like to see your human blueprint. And, while you're at it, if He would have compensated by leaving out all the nerve cells, could you please ask Him why he didn't compensate by eliminating the pain-bearing nerve cells in the cervix and vagina?

Oh, wait, it's that whole "penalize woman" thing, right? It's that whole "woman is responsible for all our problems" bull shit, right?

Again, you presume to know the will of God, here, which is very entertaining, but not getting us anywhere.

In any case, I notice you didn't reply to my request that you visit http://www.goatse.cx/ to see how wide a man could stretch his anus for you. Surely, your common sense dictates that a man shouldn't be able to stretch his anus that wide, since no feces to be removed from it would ever come out that large, and yet there he is doing it (and how gross it looks!). So... the anus can be opened that wide, but the biliary tubing simply cannot, all because you have the human blueprint and know better than the rest of us what the system is capable of. Gotcha.

> John, you are batting without a bat. I mentioned nothing about
> knowing God’s will but merely gave him the glory for make a
> masterpiece, the human body and all its systems.

You've implied that you know God's will several times, actually.

> The % I used is merely an estimate. If you are not satisfied with
> this estimate, you can help me provide proof. I’ll shove a wedge
> in your common bile duct so that you only pass 50% of your bile
> and then we will wait to see how long it take for you to get
> sick. Then we can share this scientific data with everyone. You
> up for that?

Um, you're Sam Scientist here, shove your wedge up your own bile duct.

> Yes severe symptoms take a while to show up. But, you must
> realize that most people have been conditioned by themselves and
> doctors to ignore or suppress the bodies warning signs. Again you
> disgrace the wonder of our bodies that God has given us. People
> go years with minor pain and just ignore it. I do it myself. If
> you LISTEN to your body and not just take a drug to cover up the
> symptoms, you will hear its warnings. They are called symptoms.
> People go tired and with little energy for YEARS, then when they
> suddenly get diagnosed with a disease they say they never saw it
> coming. What a crock. The lack of energy for 30 years was a
> symptom. They just ignore it like most of us do. Listen to your
> body and it will tell you it has problems.

Yes, like fatigue, allergies, eczema, digestion problems, etc., etc., etc.

I do not disgrace anything. You disgrace yourself by feigning knowledge of God's human blueprint, of His very will, and a half-assed effort to discredit something you know very little about and have experienced very little of yourself.

> John, thanks again for all the insults. It is nice to know the
> real you. It seems that you have a problem with considering
> others opinions that differ from your own. I’m not interested in
> quibbling with you about how you believe my opinions are so far
> gone. I can back them with references on chemistry, pictures, and
> literature that I have read that enable me to form my opinions.
> I did not pull them out of thin air. My intention is pass
> information to others and learn more about this issue.
>
> For all those who are interested I will create a reference sheet
> and e-mail to you at your request.

Your whole effort was an insult; you deserved nothing less.

The real me is not afraid to speak my mind or stand up to an attack.

Then again, the real me isn't afraid to look at something, or to find out.

Your whole effort in coming here and "doing a flush" was to try to prove it wrong.

You have failed.

Your methodology wouldn't pass muster in a first year Chem course, let alone out in the open.

=-John-=
Tweet