Some truths about liver flushing - Epsom salts questions

[Guest guest]

I respectfully disagree that intrahepatic stones are rare, and I also disagree

that pure oil goes directly into the liver.

 

Yes the oil (like most food/nutrition) DOES go into the hepatic portal

artery/system directly to the liver, but not before it has been mixed with bile,

other digestive enzymes & gastric secretions and been digested/partially

digested. It's the stored bile in the liver released by the ingested oil that

causes the action of the flush you don't believe in, not the oil running through

the liver.

 

The liver would not have to contract for intrahepatic stones to be expelled,

anymore than a garden hose would need to contract for a dirt clog to be expelled

(from water pressure behind it) - it's the bile coursing through the biliary

network that pushes out the debris, biliary sludge and intrahepatic stones and

gallstones...the contraction of the gallbladder is an " assist " here, but not at

ALL necessary.

 

In fact, MANY people without gallbladders do liver flushes and get out stones,

liver flukes, and stones encrusted/embedded with liver flukes. These certainly

didn't come from the gallbladder, nor could they have possibly been randomly

formed in the digestive tract. When dissecting the older stones, one can

clearly see the layers, some with varying levels of calcification.

 

I have been reading the Liver Flush forum on Curezone daily for over 5 years,

and I have seen FAR too many test/lab results that conclusively prove what I am

saying to argue further (not to mention the works of Dr. Kelley). MANY people

over the years have flushed the gallbladder free of stones in the first few

flushes, confirmed it with HIDA scans and ultra sounds (and had the stones

analyzed), yet continued on to get hundreds/thousands of stones from their

livers (red, black, liver fluke encrusted & calcified), and seen consistent,

positive improvements in their symptoms and bloodwork...whether one chooses to

believe it or not.

 

Of course, cleansing debris from ANY organ isn't the only step required in

healing an organ - but it IS an integral step. It's not unscientific, it's a

simple as Gray's Anatomy & Guyton's Physiology:

http://www.docsutter.com/articles.php?cmd=view & id=39

 

Healthiest of blessings -

 

Unyquity

 

 

 

oleander soup , Mike Golden <goldenmike86 wrote:

>

> Intrahepatic stones are rare.  The people who report these green stones

following a flush report these things out of all proportion to the frequency of

intrahepatic stones.  Also, these commonly reported stones have been examined

and found to be acretions and not expressed from the liver.

> You are wrong about two other things.  One...there is no mechanism for the

liver to express stones like the gall bladder does.  The gall bladder is

contractile.  The liver is not.  Two....EVERYTHING we eat goes through the liver

first via the portal vein.  This is called the portal hepatic system.  In fact,

I will be talking about it next week in the college physiology course which I

teach.  Oils do pass through it directly from the organs of digestion.  Those

oil do not, though, benefit the liver in any way in its ability to function.

>  

> If you want to improve liver function you have to decrease the work load on

the liver temporarily and , at the same time provide dietary substrate that

supports both Pase One and Phase Two detoxification pathways.  This, correctly

done, will improve liver function over the course of two weeks.  This is

verifiable by various clearence tests (caffeine clearence, for example). 

Following this there will often be a dramatic improvement in health and

function.

>  

> This approach is actually based on real science and not simplistic notions

concerning liver function.

>  

> There was a time when patients and doctors alike claimed subjective health

benefits via a purging type approach.  This went on for a long time and it

seemed to be based on " common sense " .  Unfortunately it was both simplistic and

nonproductive.  It was called bloodletting. Look it up.

>  

> Mike

>

>