CureZone   Log On   Join

Re: [gallstones] 9th flush--challenge to Barry by tslate ..... Liver Flush Support Forum

Date:   3/14/2009 4:22:30 PM ( 14 years ago ago)
Hits:   3,059

The only reason 100% of the people who think that the stones are olive oil presume a few things.

One that the OO (Olive-Oil) makes it through the digestive trac without absorption. Somehow any other time all oil seemingly gets digested and doesn't come out in little green balls. I've never seen little green balls unless I do a flush.

Another issue is that the OO (Olive-Oil) that is used to cause a reaction in the GB/Liver to force "stones" out somehow is the OO (Olive-Oil) just drunk. This is highly unlikely considering the backup in the GB/Liver. Why would anyone assume it's the OO drunk the night before, it doesn't have time to get through processing? Plus if the Liver/GB is clogged up how does that oil just drunk get through all the sludge and form those balls so quick? That would presume that 1 or 2 flushes and everyone's sparkling clean. Why the different amounts of stones all the time? After one gets started then the amount of stones coming out should equal the amount of OO going in.

The final issue is that they're predominately green. If they weren't green then no one would ever suggest they were OO. Rarely does anything come out the color it went in except those foods high in chlorophyll such as spirulina and chlorella or foods just swallowed and not digested properly.

Assuming that the stones are green is like using coconut oil instead and then having all the stones come out white. Besides that most OO is a pale dull green, hardly the very bright green most of the green stones come out in. Of course then someone will say that's a chemical reaction, but then it's convenient to say the chemical reaction must go from pale OO green to bright stone green and not proven.

Personally for me the "science" behind proving that the stones are OO is extremely thin and always seems to come from those who have a vested interest in it not working and who always need a billion dollars worth of "studies" to prove something. So where's the billion dollar studies proving it's wrong? Yet one poorly written article by some pseudo-scientist seems to placate the doubters. Where's the beef?!


<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.16 sec, referred by