You said, " I explained the scientific approach - analyse them" LOL
You have rejected the scientific approach. You take something (a result) regardless of how carelessly it was produced and test it with some chemicals in a lab and say to everyone you have met the gold standard of science?
Oh, wait. You changed the wording from gold standard to scientific approach. Is this something different from a controlled experiment? Is the scientifc approach different from the gold standard or does the scientific approach use the gold standard?
If it's not meeting the gold standard, by definition your conclusion is not a scientific fact.
Those who have done a Liver Flush have seen what they swallow because they prepared it and then see they what comes out (end result). Since they can't see with their eyes what goes on in the body in between these 2 points, they analyze it, compare notes and do lab tests. They construct a theory as to what happens between the 2 points (in and out) by using the related information on body reactions from people who use the flush often or from experts who spent years developing it.
You, on the other hand, want someone to believe your competing theory and Lancet's on blind faith. The Lancet got some empirical evidence by testing the results of an alleged Liver Flush improperly done. What theory is being tested here? That you can control the kind of stones/or non-stones you get by doing a partially carried out liver flush? And then have blind faith that you will get the same result (no testable stones) with a correctly followed through liver flush?