Not everyone thinks I'm wrong.

I have never said that flushing was bad, just that I cannot find any viable evidence that it produces stones.
At present, as I've said before, I tend to think that the oleic acid in olive oil causes some reaction (possibly in the small intestine) that results in cholesterol being precipitated in "stone" form. Some MDs I've talked to tend to think that could be valid, especially as stearic acid has been shown to affect cholesterol interchange between the body and small intestine. There is also some evidence to support my theory on CureZone's, sadly underused, cholesterol forum, where before and after cholesterol levels have been recorded. Plus, the few stories I've read of stones being tested say they were entirely, or almost entirely, composed of cholesterol. That is not true of any "real" Gallstones - the definition of so-called "cholesterol" ones is stones with more than 50% cholesterol.
The fact that people stop producing stones after several flushes would be easily explained by cholesterol being reduced to levels where such precipitation cannot occur.
I am not doing any disservice. The disservice is being done by those who make money out of convincing people they are expelling bile stones, instead of seeking the real reason that a Liver Flush is beneficial to many people. Mainstream medicine might take the flush very seriously if the focus was on cholesterol reduction and not gallstones.
Come on ALL YOU WHO BELIEVE I'M WRONG. Dont any of you find it odd that Clark, Moritz, Chang et alia, who claim their methods produce Gallstones have NEVER tested their theory?



Tweet