CureZone   Log On   Join
Re: Bad Science
 
greenie Views: 3,233
Published: 17 years ago
 
This is a reply to # 412,374

Re: Bad Science


I do not feel that I have in any way misrepresented the research you or anyone else has presented. But that aside let us continue.

First I do not knwo where you get the idea the ultrasound will not detect soft stones. Soft stones, especially hundreds or thousands of them will be readily identified by ultrasound. A CT scan will detect primarily calcified stones but even then soft stones are identifiable via this method. For scientific proof of this here is one site (from amongst many) that describe how different stone types can be detected. So you are incorrect in stating that soft stones will not be detected and any conclusions you are drawing from this assumption will also be wrong.

http://www.learningradiology.com/archives04/COW%20124-Gas%20in%20gallstones/g...

You are also reading what you like into the material presented when you state:

"These Gallstones would not be included in the percentages cited for Gallstones among the general population"

The 10% figure for prevelance of Gallstones is readily available on many many sites. This data is gathered from many many ultrasounds being conducted...not just in searching for gallstones. Ultrasounds of the liver would be just one instance in which gallstones would be detected (if present) or not detected if not present. Silent gallstones are jsut as easily detected as ones causing an attack.

I ahve never claimed that liver and duct stones do not form or do not exist. I ahve observed that it is quite physically impossible for teh number of stones people claim to have passed to phsyically fit into these ducts. The volumes and capacities do not match. If these ducts become congested the bile (which is a detergent) would quickly cause problems close to life-theatening...so having them (the ducts)filled to capicity is quite unlikely. Also consider the lack of autopsy verification for the claims of hundreds and thousands of stones contained within the liver. Providing information that gallstones a=can reach the size of a glof ball does not indicate that stones of this size are capable of passing through the common bile ducts. A stone of 8 mm is sufficient to block these ducts.


As for people believing that 100% of people have galstones read the forums present on curezone and tell me if you have ever seenon indicating that a liver fuhs is probalby not necessary since only 10% of people have them. Nope everyone must do a flush cause you have stones...that is 100% by inference.

As to the color of stones passed. here is a website which describes them very well. Notice that cholesterol (pure) stones are white not green as indicated at curezone. I see reports of green pure cholesterol stones being passed but where are the white ones? Your statment of using a non-colored oil is flawed. First bile salts are very colored and that color is green. Once the contents of the gallbladder (bile) mix with any oil consumed it will be green. Do the experiment yourself...I have andthe oil turns bright green. The only way to determine if the stones were forming in teh gut is to use an oil soluble dye, not beet juice, but an oil soluble dye such as carmine or one of the "lake" type dyes in any color of your choosing. To conduct this experiment in any other fashion would lead to erronious conclusions beoing drawn and this has been done many times and reported here on curezone.

http://www.studentbmj.com/back_issues/0301/education/56.html

I read and evaluate all information. I think you hsould consider what motivation and conclusions you ahve drawn from posting about "megacolon" which by your own admission is a very rare event. yet from that info you wish to conclude that since a colon ahs been documented to do this (albeit rarely) therefore all organs and ducts can do this....very bad science!

http://www.studentbmj.com/back_issues/0301/education/56.html

I started this line of questioning with real observations of liver histology. These observations led to the conclusion that the liver and gallbaldder cannot hold the nubmer of stones reported to have been passed. The line of questioning took me to a anatomy lab where we observed 5 human corpses dissectd to show the liver and gallbladder. This re-enforced the conclusion that there is not suficient capacity to hold 100' and 100's of stones of the size reported here. Simply finding reports of gallbladders holding this number of stones and then extrapolating that to the general population is very poor science.

Look at the supplied websites and tell me what you think is wrong with them.
 

 
Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend
Alert Moderators
Report Spam or bad message  Alert Moderators on This GOOD Message

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

2.938 sec, (3)