but conclusive of what? If i recall, the Lancet bit does not account for over 25% of the material examined... and, how is that different than individual lab reports showing bile/cholestrol ect in the "stones"? Because it comes from the lancet its entitled to some sort of deference or credibility whereas individual reports, including reports of calcified stones are not?
there does seem to be a bit of a double standard here, regardless of the control group issue, and much remains unexplained. Like I mentioned to you before... what of cases such as my mother in law who expelled "stones" even though she was too weak to take the oil dose (and didn't)... in short, i find the lancet article interesting, but hardly conclusive of anything.
Alert Webmaster & Moderators|
Already alerted! Already alerted!
1 of 1 (100%) readers agree with this message. Hide votes What is this?
How do you feel about this message?
Hide this question
|DISCLAIMER Information available on this page and on CureZone is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended as a substitute for the advice provided by a healthcare professional or any information contained on or in any product label or packaging. You should not use the information on CureZone for diagnosing or treating a health problem or disease, or prescribing any medication or other treatment. Answers, comments and opinions provided on CureZone are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. CureZone does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in messages, comments or articles on CureZone. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms and those published here. Read more ...|