I agree verysugar everything has been said and all these debates become a waste of time.

Gee, these are debate boards.  Why would anyone come to a debate board to debate?  Could it be that there is a lot of bogus information being presented about liver flushing so some people come here to post evidence that it is bogus to help protect people's health? For example, how many times have you seen the LF supporters tell people that if they have real gallstones that they can end up lodging one of these real stones in a duct leading to problems like pancreatitis and most likely requiring emergency surgery?  Why do the "liver flush" supporters do everything in their power to hide such facts?  Don't they care about other people's health and safety as i do?

And clearly there are plenty of people who do not think it is a waste of time since they are posting here.  Difference is why they are here.  There are people that come here to post evidence to help protect people's health and safety.  Then there are the LF supporters who refuse to post any real evidence to back their claims, but instead resort to repeated personal attacks and trying to get anyone who oppose them banned from the board so the facts cannot be presented.  Now that is a waste of time.

It is like religion and politics everybody sticks to their own believes.

Yes, the LF supporters have their own little cult.  And they feel that anyone exposing their religion with real evidence must be evil and driven off!  Another reason that the LF supporters are never banned for the continual personal attacks.  The moderator is clearly another LF supporter and they stick up for other cult members no matter what.  For example, it clearly states near the top of this forum "The first person to resort to name calling and personal attacks will be banned from this forum!".  Yet, verysugar just posted a personal attack against me and I doubt if very sugar is banned since they are a "liver flush" supporter.   If I would have posted the same attack the "liver flush" supporters would have been calling for my head because I keep posting irrefutable evidence against their religion!!!  So again, the more the "liver flush" supporters respond with attacks rather than evidence the more they validate my points including the fact that "liver flushing" is a scam and yet they will do anything to protect their cult beliefs.

 I read the article and I couldn't find a single proof against the Liver Flush in it.

It amazes me at how the "liver flush" supporters never seem to see any evidence against these flushes even when it is put right in front of them.  The author actually provided a lot of evidence against the flushes, and especially against the wild and fraudulent claims made by Hulda Clark.  Then the author even went in to the analysis of these so-called "stones", which again PROVED they were not real gallstones as has also been shown by "liver flushers" who had their green blobs analyzed as well by labs.  In those cases as well those blobs were shown to be saponified oil, not real gallstones:

What has been done, however, is a lovely little study that suggests just how much self-delusion is involved in liver flushes. Like the case of colon cleanses, when seasoned con men learn how liver flushes actually “work,” they will be likely to tip their hats in appreciation for such simplicity and perfection, a scam, where the remedy induces the “evidence” of its efficacy. But on to the case report to which I refer that a group in New Zealand contributed to the Lancet:

A 40-year-old woman was referred to the outpatient clinic with a 3-month history of recurrent severe right hypochondrial pain after fatty food. [Note: Here "hypochondrial" means "below the ribcage,' not "hypochondriac."] Abdominal ultrasound showed multiple 1-2 mm gallstones in the gallbladder.

She had recently followed a “liver cleansing” regime on the advice of a herbalist. This regime consisted of free intake of apple and vegetable juice until 1800 h, but no food, followed by the consumption of 600 mL of olive oil and 300 mL of lemon juice over several hours. This activity resulted in the painless passage of multiple semisolid green “stones” per rectum in the early hours of the next morning. She collected them, stored them in the freezer, and presented them in the clinic.

Microscopic examination of our patient’s stones revealed that they lacked any crystalline structure, melted to an oily green liquid after 10 min at 40°C, and contained no cholesterol, bilirubin, or calcium by established wet chemical methods. Traditional faecal fat extraction techniques indicated that the stones contained fatty acids that required acid hydrolysis to give free fatty acids before extraction into ether. These fatty acids accounted for 75% of the original material.

Experimentation revealed that mixing equal volumes of oleic acid (the major component of olive oil) and lemon juice produced several semi solid white balls after the addition of a small volume of a potassium hydroxide solution. On air drying at room temperature, these balls became quite solid and hard.

We conclude, therefore, that these green “stones” resulted from the action of gastric lipases on the simple and mixed triacylglycerols that make up olive oil, yielding long chain carboxylic acids (mainly oleic acid). This process was followed by saponification into large insoluble micelles of potassium carboxylates (lemon juice contains a high concentration of potassium) or “soap stones”.

In other words, the “stones” that liver cleansers are so proud of and go to such effort to strain their poo for after doing their flushes are not gallstones and were almost certainly the product of the actual flush itself! (Cue the con men tipping their hats in appreciation.) It makes perfect sense, if you think about it. These protocols usually involve fasting and then consuming up to a half liter or more of olive oil at one time. That could easily provide the conditions for this sort of reaction to take place. Neat, isn’t it? The very sign of “success” of the liver flush is something that has nothing to do with gallstones and everything to do with the results of the flush itself. Indeed, it’s quite clear that, even if you don’t have gallstones, if you do a liver flush and then look closely enough, you’ll find things in your stool that very much look like gallstones that are really due to saponified oil. Now I know (and you do too) why virtually every liver flush protocol includes large amounts of olive oil or similar oils plus epsom salts or orthophophoric acid and fruit juices. Unfortunately, I have not seen any more recent studies, and I’m not sure if any are really needed after the investigators discussed above conclusively showed that they could mimic these “stones” chemically.

So here we have solid proof that the blobs are not real gallstones, but the "liver flushing" must be affecting the vision of the "liver flush" supporters because they still cannot see the evidence even though it is put right there under their noses!!!

He kept bringing up ultrasound and how great a procedure it was in detecting gallstones. I know for a fact that it isn't so great.

Actually ultrasound is very good at picking up stones as small as 2mm.   Although sludge can be mistaken for gallstones with ultrasound.

Years ago my mother got diagnosed with colon cancer. After having surgery to remove the tumor, she had nine rounds of chemo because the doctors saw 'spots' on her liver, which they took for metastasis. Every month they would give her scans and ultrasounds to the liver to make sure the 'spots' didn't grow. Eventually, they gave up on the idea that they were cancer, however, they couldn't come up with an explanation for their existence. I didn't know anything about liver flushes and liver stones at that time, so I went along with the doctors. Now I know they were looking at calcified stones. The chances that a doctor looking at liver stones knows what he sees are nil. 

I have an extremely hard time believing any part of that story for several reasons.

For starters look at this ultrasound image of a tumor in the liver:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/medical/IM03871

Now look at this ultrasound image of the gallbladder:

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=138761&ref=...

Notice that 1.  It is very easy to distinguish between the liver and the gallbladder.   2. That it is very easy to distinguish between a liver tumor and a real gallstone.

Now you also mentioned scans.  Well CT scans are almost always used prior to MRIs.  So take a look at what a liver tumor looks like in a CT scan:

http://stjameshospital.adam.com/content.aspx?productId=39&pid=1&gid=0...

And this CT scan of REAL gallstones:

http://www.ajronline.org/content/185/5/1159/F1.expansion

Notice that 1.  It is very easy to distinguish between the liver and the gallbladder.   2. That it is very easy to distinguish between a liver tumor and a real gallstone.

Now maybe they also did an MRI.  So let's look at what a liver tumor looks like in an MRI:

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/courses/Bio111/MRI/liver1.GIF

Now, let's look at what gallstones look like with an MRI:
http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/257197/enlarge

Notice that 1.  It is very easy to distinguish between the liver and the gallbladder.   2. That it is very easy to distinguish between a liver tumor and a real gallstone.

Being that most patients have more than one doctor working on a case, you are expecting us all to believe that multiple trained doctors could not differentiate between a gallbladder and a liver and between tumors and gallstones on different tests when the differences are so obvious?!!!!  Sorry, but I don't buy it!

...if you believe this is true (as you obviously do), when there are many people claiming it is not true and your hypothesis isn't valid---

But since you brought up surgery why don't you mention that "liver flushing" can cause real gallstones to lodge in a duct leading to pancreatitis and requiring emergency surgery?  Funny how the "liver flush" supporters never warn people of this real danger.

--- and you are aware (as you obviously are) that the CureZone Liver Flush forum (and liver flush poll) is a huge compendium of liver flush experiences (which documents the empirical data of  thousands of liver flush experiences)...

Then why don't you simply compile the data from the forum/poll and offer solid evidence of how many liver flushes ended with a gallstone stuck in a duct,  that lead to pancreatis and/or required emergency surgery?  With 528 pages on the Liver Flush forum (with about 15 flush experiences per page, more or less), that's the empirical data from nearly eight thousand liver flushes - so the truth about the alleged risk IS out there.   Certainly, the time you would spend doing that would be far less than the time you've already spent here.  And of course, no statement or hypothesis from anyone is valid with evidence to support it.

You continue repeating that liver flush supporters don't warn people of the very real risks...yet even with reports from thousands of flushes at your fingertips, you've never provided any type of solid proof or empirical evidence of the alleged risks you purport...only the anatomical & physiological possibility.

In any debate (or court, or laboratory), when someone makes a claim of something being true (a hypothesis) and another person challenges it, then the person who made the original claim carries the 'burden of proof' ...they must provide evidence their claim is true.  If they will not (or cannot) they lose the debate, or they are laughed out of the debate, court or laboratory.  You have been challenged to provide evidence that supports your claim regarding the alleged risks of liver flushing many times.

I cannot speak for any other person, but I've been posting on CZ for over six years, and even before I had an ID and started posting I spent several hours weekly (sometimes daily) systematically reading the archives of the Liver Flush forum.  I started at the beginning, and in only a few months I had read the full contents of every post up through page 150.  Then I switched to reading only the posts wherein the subject line indicated a liver flush had actually been done by the poster, and continued on through around page 300 (which at that time, was the entire forum).  Since then, there have been another 238 pages of liver flush experiences, which I have read sporadically.  Why did I do all this reading?

Because even though my mother-in-law had cured herself of Stage IV liver cancer via Dr. Kelley's protocols (liver flushing every week or bi-weekly) and even though I'd read Moritz's books and the writings of many other healers that supported liver flushing, and studied the anatomy & physiology of the liver & gallbladder, I wanted to know the truth of any & all risks, benefits, and various issues (not hypotheses, not allegedly validated theories*).  And I want to know it before I continued on my healing journey and before I offered suggestions to others regarding liver flushing & their health....and certainly before I entered into debate (and even more certainly, before I would egoically & publicly accuse others of ignorance on the subject). 

What I found in reading thousands of liver flush experiences (to the best of my recollection), were these general things--

--virtually every person that chose to liver flush had reason to believe (either from observation of their own body & symptoms, or from a physician's observation of the same, or from imaging test/s) they had issues of biliary stones, congestion, or other compromise of the liver and/or gallbladder.  So virtually all people that choose to liver flush did so with pre-existing liver/gallbladder compromise. 

--I found no reports of anyone doing a liver flush that needed emergency surgery afterward.  There are cases of people choosing to go to the ER (after or during a flush) due to the effects of Epsom Salts, or experiencing nausea/pain.  No immediate surgery was required.  However, several people were advised to have their gallbladder removed, and the majority of those had already been advised that previously.

--I found no confirmed cases of pancreatitis being caused by a liver flush (although I recall a handful of people that were dealing with the symptoms of pancreatitis before flushing and some afterward). But of course, only imaging tests could confirm whether a 'stuck stone' was the cause - and whether or not it was caused by liver flushing.

--I found many reports of people having discomfort or symptoms that led them to believe or assume that a 'stone was stuck' somewhere in the biliary tract after a liver flush.  The majority of people were advised to do another flush (or take epsom salts, or both--or did so on their own), and this typically resolved the originally reported issue.  I saw no reports of anyone requiring surger to remove a 'confirmed' stuck stone (whether it was pre-existing or allegedly caused by liver flushing - or not)

---> I am quite aware that my recollection and the summarization of what I recollect is not  "quantitatively precise" and my summary does NOT show the probability of risk (or what happened that people didn't report), and that I haven't read all the reports.  It's simply a summary by someone that DID read the reports of 4000-6000 actual liver flush experiences, with the purpose of learning and recognizing potential risks & benefits.  The summary above has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you have empirical data & evidence to support your hypothesis.

*From wikipedia on theories - "A hypothesis is a prediction which has yet to be tested, while a theory is a prediction-making conceptual framework that is consistent with data."  And as any science-minded person knows, that is empirical data...in the case of liver flushing, that would be what really happens in the real world with real people when they liver flush.

You have been challenged many times on this forum to present evidence that supports your hypothesis and opinion (which you consistently claim to be a proven theory) - that "liver flushing" can cause real gallstones to lodge in a duct leading to pancreatitis and requiring emergency surgery?  Funny how the "liver flush" supporters never warn people of this real danger  While you have offered evidence that your hypothesis is an anatomical & physiological possibility, you have not utilized the empirical data readily available to you that could determine the truth of your hypothesis.  Certainly, you can not expect any person (no matter what you deem their IQ or ability to reason critically or rationally) to accept your hypothesis as valid or factual....when you haven't presented empirical data that supports it.  Particularly when that empirical data IS available to you.

Just to be clear, I am addressing only your statement/hypothesis that I have quoted above.  I am not addressing the size of biliary ducts; composition of 'stones'; what you assume about me or my knowledge base; what you think of Kelley, Moritz, Clark or other healers that suggest liver flushing; the anatomy or physiology of the liver; saponification of oil; or any other 'liver flush' issue.

If you have empirical data that proves there IS a risk, then when/if you choose to offer it in support of your hypothesis, please remember to include the statstics that show the probability.  People do have to go to the ER (and even die) because they risked drinking water or risked walking along a busy street or in a thunderstorm.  All 'procedures'  that we do (or have done) to our body involve some level of risk...it's the probability of the risk that is the determining factor when making a choice.