I always appreciated your open mindedness and well cultured intellect. In fact, the phrasing of your questioning alone often speaks as much as any answer could. Still, I feel there are excellent points you bring up about the liver flush stones that have yet to be adequately addressed by myself or anyone else for that matter- and it would benefit all concerned to contemplate the following extrapolation I have derived regarding this conundrum:
Saponification of oil can and does, indeed, occur in a liver flush. And the strong similarity in appearance as well as constituency between a genuine intrahepatic stone and a saponified stone is downright confounding for even the most intelligent and experienced of flushers. In fact, I will admit it first here that there hasn't been a single flush where I did not question the origin of the stones. It is human nature to inquire and a very good quality to cultivate.
Unfortunately, there are a few scientific "studies" that have gone viral as evidence against the authenticity of the intrahepatic stones. One of these, which many subsequent "studies" were based off of, if you may remember, involved a fat, unhealthy average american lady who did no preparation, no fasting, and no epsom salt prior to drinking a flush potion. Chances are her gallbladder was totally blocked like most americans, and there was NO chance in hell of her getting out anything from her liver let alone gallbladder with that regimen. However, she managed to release large bright green blobs and sent them off to a lab, to be verified as saponified oil. So what happened here? I will discuss it a little further down.
Now- regarding Dusan's dyeing experiment: First off, I have nothing but the highest respect and admiration for Dusan for his willingness and open-mindedness to perform the experiment. It shows genuine humility and earnestness. But I disagree with his conclusion that it proves the liver flush stones form in the intestines. What he should have concluded was that his stones-on that particular flush- formed in his intestines. Afterall- 8 months had passed since his last flush. There are many causes for biliary obstruction, but I know for myself and others that until the main problem is resolved, 8 months is way more than enough to result in biliary obstruction. In fact I start to get reduced bile flow and impaired digestion after 2 weeks. So how is this relevant to saponification of oils? Well here is a huge irony:
Bileemulsifies fats andprevents saponification of oil in the intestines!!!
So if you have impaired bile flow like the fat american woman, or have had chronic biliary obstruction like Dusan then don't flush for 8 months, when you finally do drink the potion it is going down the hatch with minimal bile release and chances are it will not get emulsified and therefore saponify.
Now this appears to challenge the popular notion of "Not releasing any more stones proves that the oil mixture does not and CANNOT saponify". But was this argument ever true to begin with? Let's consider this: Flushers who reach the stage of "not releasing stones anymore" have been consistently preparing, desludging, and flushing out their livers and gallbladders for many months, sometimes years. So they have adequate bile flow to emulsify the oil flush mitxure and prevent saponification. However, there is another occurence when no stones are released: the failed flush. In this instance, adequate preparation has been done to stimulate bile flow, but the flush is not enough to remove any obstruction. I had this happen on flush 4 after a 6 month layoff: I clearly saw bile released into the toilet, but no stones. And there certainly was still obstruction in my liver at that point.
So here we have a conundrum of logic: on the one hand, flushers using the fact that they release no stones even while drinking the oil mixture as evidence that the flush oil cannot saponify, and on the other hand, scientists using the fact that oil can saponify as evidence that the liver flush stones are formed in the intestines. I really wish more people would stop and really think for a moment. There would be a lot less debating and more meaningful communication. Anyway- To me the obvious reason this occurs is due to the bile release emulsifying the fats and preventing saponification.
So in conclusion, the oil mixture can and does saponify during a flush. However it is highly variable and dependant on bile flow and the viscocity of the bile. You could get dirty, mucusy thick bile released during a flush and be incapable of emulsifying the oil and end up getting out liver stones as well as saponified stones...or mostly saponified stones and no liver stones... or all liver stones and no saponified stones. Or you could get our plenty of clear bile and no stones if you are free and clear. Or plenty of dirty bile and no stones. As a perfect example to compare the two types of stones, take my first flush: innumerable sticky, small, hard brown stones released until 11 am. I decided just for the hell of it to take another entire 10 ounce flush mixture. I had no bile left to deal with the oil mixture. The result? 7 hours later I released large, soft, bright green stones, which I clearly concluded were saponified oil and not of intrahepatic origin. It wouldn't have taken a scientific study to figure that out.
As for the rest of the stones in all the other flushes? Well, as I said before, there isn't a flush that goes by when I don't question the origin of the stones. And that's probably as it should be. Sometimes there's not a shadow of a doubt that they are intrahepatic, for example when I am passing clear water then suddenly feel a contraction in my gallbladder, and 5 minutes later pop out a bunch of stones with completely different colors.
What I am absolutely sure of is that something was blocking my bile from flowing, and after flushing out that something, my bile is once again flowing. Hell, it might as well be those damn little things.