CureZone   Log On   Join
Edited
 
  Views: 3,218
Published: 17 years ago
Status:       R [Message recommended by a moderator!]
 
This is a reply to # 412,373

Edited


One of the causes of bad Science occurs when you take accurate data and manipulate it in order to draw false conclusions. This is precisely what you are now doing with the information that I have presented you. (And worse still when you use it to throw up in the face of someone who has been kind enough to provide you with the links to the scientific data that answers some of the questions you have asked!)

AGAIN we have the issue of semantics and how the medical community defines gallstones...CALCULI. These are calcified cholesterol stones that are readily diagnosed during ultrasound. The medical community is also quick to point out that many people have 'silent' Gallstones which are asymptomatic and therefore would not be tested for nor diagnosed. These Gallstones would not be included in the percentages cited for Gallstones among the general population. Furthermore, MOST of the stones (not necessarily gallstones...also liver stones ie., intrahepatic lithisasis) that people describe passing during a Liver Flush are non-calcified stones. These soft stones do not have the density that allows them to be viewed with ultrasound. The Mayo clinic article even acknowledges the existence of soft stones that form within the ducts (which you have claimed could not possibly exist based on your pig cuttings). Since these stones are not found during an ultrasound and are often asymptomatic or produce symptoms that cannot be accounted for with routine gallstone screening tests, these stones would also not be included in the gallstone percentages that Mayo cites.

I am unaware of anyone at CureZone claiming that 100% of people have gallstones. I also do not recall anyone at CureZone claiming that 100% of people have any kind of stones (including non-calcified stones, liver stones , intrahepatic stones, intrahepatic lithiasis, pigment stones). Although the reports of many people's experiences with Liver Flushes would suggest that the incidence of these stones is quite high...even when the stones eliminated during a Liver Flush have been asymptomatic. Since you said that "we have curezoneites claiming 100% of people have stones" would you please provide the supporting links for this statement.

As I suggested in a previous post, the medical community uses the misnomer of 'health' care to describe their services. The more fitting term would be 'sick' care. Allopathic medicine generally is not concerned with preventive medicine. This is not a Conspiracy theory...it is a fact and is readily born out by the services that they provide and those that are covered by the health insurance industry. On the other hand, the information provided at CureZone is for the purpose of natural healing and also maintaining health and preventing disease. Given the medical communities track record for curing disease (name one?!!!) and their lack of interest in maintaining wellbeing and preventing illness...I most certainly do NOT trust them with my health! They don't even have a definition of health beyond the absence of disease!!!

One of the most basic premises of true and good Science and experimentation is objectivity, and beginning with a question and a null hypothesis, and then looking at ALL the data when drawing any conclusions. Based on some of your previous posts (and particularly the last one) it appears that you started your scientific inquiry with a conclusion rather than a question...and now you are looking for information to support your position while dismissing the data that challenges your predrawn conclusion. I have no problem with your questions and attempts to find answers, and in fact welcome them as they add to the process of discovery. However, I do have a problem when you make false statements, selectively dismiss scientific data, and clearly show your subjective bias!

You've asked for scientific evidence...so you be the scientist! In all the time that you have spent butchering a pig, talking to doctors and posting your doubts about stones...you could have done a simple experiment for yourself. DO A Liver Flush (and use a non-green oil such as walnut or macadamia nut so that you can't draw the erroneous conclusion that the green stones are congealed olive oil!)...gather your own data...keep an open and objective mind...and then come back with your questions or doubts!!!

©†ƒ……•™¼‡_Original_Message_¾€š½ž¢«»¬ï°©

One of the causes of bad Science occurs when you take accurate data and manipulate it in order to draw false conclusions. This is precisely what you are now doing with the information that I have presented you. (And worse still when you use it to throw up in the face of someone who has been kind enough to provide you with the links to the scientific data that answers some of the questions you have asked!)

AGAIN we have the issue of semantics and how the medical community defines gallstones...CALCULI. These are calcified cholesterol stones that are readily diagnosed during ultrasound. The medical community is also quick to point out that many people have 'silent' gallstones which are asymptomatic and therefore would not be tested for nor diagnosed. These gallstones would not be included in the percentages cited for gallstones among the general population. Furthermore, MOST of the stones (not necessarily gallstones...also liver stones ie., intrahepatic lithisasis) that people describe passing during a liver flush are non-calcified stones. These soft stones do not have the density that allows them to be viewed with ultrasound. The Mayo clinic article even acknowledges the existence of soft stones that form within the ducts. Since these stones are not found during an ultrasound and are often asymptomatic or produce symptoms that cannot be accounted for with routine gallstone screening tests, these stones would also not be included in the gallstone percentages that Mayo cites.

I am unaware of anyone at CureZone claiming that 100% of people have gallstones. I also do not recall anyone at CureZone claiming that 100% of people have any kind of stones (including non-calcified stones, liver stones, intrahepatic stones, intrahepatic lithiasis, pigment stones). Although the reports of many people's experiences with Liver Flushes would suggest that the incidence of these stones is quite high...even when the stones eliminated during a liver flush have been asymptomatic. Since you said that "we have curezoneites claiming 100% of people have stones" would you please provide the supporting links for this statement.

As I suggested in a previous post, the medical community uses the misnomer of 'health' care to describe their services. The more fitting term would be 'sick' care. Allopathic medicine generally is not concerned with preventive medicine. This is not a Conspiracy theory...it is a fact and is readily born out by the services that they provide and those that are covered by the health insurance industry. On the other hand, the information provided at CureZone is for the purpose of natural healing and also maintaining health and preventing disease.
Given the medical communities track record for curing disease (name one?!!!) and their lack of interest in maintaining wellbeing and preventing illness...I most certainly do NOT trust them with my health! They don't even have a definition of health beyond the absence of sickness!!!

One of the most basic premises of true and good science and experimentation is objectivity and beginning with a null hypothesis, and then looking at ALL the data when drawing any conclusions. Based on some of your previous posts (and particularly the last one) it appears that you started your scientific inquiry with a conclusion already drawn...and now you are looking for information to support that conclusion while dismissing the data that challenges your pre-drawn conclusion. I have no problem with your questions and attempts to find answers, and in fact welcome them as they add to the process of discovery. However, I do have a problem when you are making false statements, selectively dismissing scientific data, and clearly showing your subjective bias.

You've asked for scientific evidence...so you be the scientist! In all the time that you have spent butchering a pig, talking to doctors and posting your doubts about stones...you could have done a simple experiment for yourself. DO A LIVER FLUSH (and use a non-green oil such as walnut or macadamia nut so that you can't draw the erroneous conclusion that the green stones are congealed olive oil!)...gather your own data...keep an open and objective mind...and then come back with your questions or doubts!!!

 

 
Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


 

Donate to CureZone


CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with https://www.netatlantic.com


Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2021  curezone.com

2.281 sec, (5)