Guest guest Posted February 20, 2002 Report Share Posted February 20, 2002 In considering the claims made on this forum, the one that I understand to be most prevalent is that each of us (or perhaps 80 percent of the population) has cholesterol stones in our livers. I therefore wonder about two things. First, since they are not identifiable in ultrasound, it should follow that we have lots of these stones in our gall bladders too, without their appearing on unltrasonograms. And there comes my next wonder: it seems to me that although these stones, despite their numbers, cannot be seen by conventional imaging methods, wouldn't it be obvious to expect that in autopsies the liver and gall bladder of the deceased would have lots of stones. And if this is so, how could it be that medical science remains unaware of the fact that the stones are formed in the liver rather than in the gall bladder? Has anyone any thoughts on my wonderment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2002 Report Share Posted February 20, 2002 Hi, A simple internet search brought these links: http://www.ssat.com/97ddw/ddw93.htm http://www.pulsus.com/Gastro/13_06/neuh_ed.htm http://www.dcmsonline.org/jax-medicine/march99/ultrasound.htm (an interesting article about ultrasound) http://www.uptodate.com/html/AGA_topics/dec_01/abstrcts/Abstrx5/3150695.htm http://ceiba.cc.ntu.edu.tw/surg/course/unit22/ (may have to download program to view) http://www2.ktarn.or.jp/~o-ring/linkpage/99ORpoint.htm http://www.kumc.edu/instruction/medicine/pathology/ed/ch_14/c14_s43.html http://www-cdu.dc.med.unipi.it/eates4/Invitedspeaker/Ultrasonography/Filauro.htm It seem that the medical profession is definitely aware of the possibility of stones in the liver. Adrienne --- " Ira L. son " <laser@...> wrote: > In considering the claims made on this forum, the one that I > understand to be most prevalent is that each of us (or perhaps 80 > percent of the population) has cholesterol stones in our livers. > > I therefore wonder about two things. First, since they are not > identifiable in ultrasound, it should follow that we have lots of > these stones in our gall bladders too, without their appearing on > unltrasonograms. > > And there comes my next wonder: it seems to me that although these > stones, despite their numbers, cannot be seen by conventional imaging > > methods, wouldn't it be obvious to expect that in autopsies the liver > > and gall bladder of the deceased would have lots of stones. And if > this is so, how could it be that medical science remains unaware of > the fact that the stones are formed in the liver rather than in the > gall bladder? > > Has anyone any thoughts on my wonderment? > > __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2002 Report Share Posted February 21, 2002 Debra, I also believe stones form in the liver as soft cholesterol balls that usually pass with regular digestive function anyway. You just can't see the toxins as balls in a normal stool. Some stones roll down into the gb and can get stuck in the walls of the gb. They can calcify and become harder and bigger. This is what happens if you have a bad diet and your liver or gb is slow, sluggish, diseased, genetically,etc. The stones in the gb can then become dislodged and float. They can block the mouth of the gb and cause severe colic pain when the bile is trying to extract. Blockage of a duct is not the only reason stones will form. If your bile consistancy is bad, genetic history, bad diet, weight gain or loss, many reason that your body is sluggish in it's normal function can cause gb stones. I have passed over 2,000 soft, cholesterol stones out of my liver and gb. I have a 1cm calcified stone in my gb that is still causing colic. My wife, who has had no pain or stones on ultrasound, has passed over 100 soft stones in two flushes. She didn't get any on the third flush so she is assuming she is now clear and her bile, liver, gb, diet, is all functioning to the best of her bodies ability. Have you done a flush to see what you get out? Couldn't hurt. Can only improve your liver function. 90% of people over 40 should get something out in a flush. 5% of these people have calcium gb stones. 2% of these people have pain from the stone(s) sometime in their lives. These are the 'general' statistics that I've read. Doesn't mean you have them. You may or may not. My wife never thought she did until she flushed some out. Her body would have probably done it for her. The flushing only did it faster for her. Good luck in your search for better health. Barry. > > Yes, the medical community is aware of stones in the liver. I never said I > didn't believe they formed there, only that they formed when there was some > other form of blockage. > > " Definitive treatment should aim for complete elimination of bile stasis and > removal of all stones. " > > This was from one of the links, which I glanced at. Bile stasis, or > non-flowing bile, is caused by some type of blockage. Stagnant bile can > form stones. > > Another one I glanced at was talking about tumors being the cause of > blockage. I just don't believe that stones form in the liver in a system > where everything is flowing as it should. A stone lodged in the bile duct > could lead to stones forming in the liver. If everyone has stones in their > liver, why didn't I have any? > > Debra > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2002 Report Share Posted February 21, 2002 Ira, I agree with you in most things. The majority of people getting stones out here in flushing are soft, liver, cholesterol stones. The body does this anyway at a slower rate. Calcium, hard, colic, stones in the gb is a different animal altogether. Most of what you read on here is people speeding up the process of liver cleansing which is the reason you here about hundreds and thousands of stones coming out. The liver ducts are very numberous and can hold hundreds of these soft balls of toxic cholesterol. They come out with normal body function anyway unless you have a fatty, sluggish, or diseased liver, or your diet sucks and you are producing faster than your liver can eliminate. Or, your body is functioning well enough to eliminate the toxins in the bile in a more liquidy state. I think these blobs of cholesterol (stones as we probably call them) are considered by the general medical practice as regular liver function. The " stones " they usually refer to are gb stones. Most of the medical world that I know of considers these toxin balls to come with the bile from the liver and roll down into the gb. They exit the gb as well unless they stick to the wall and calcify,etc. I have also heard some opinions that the stones are only formed in the gb. Calcified stones probably are. Cholesterol, toxin waste balls (stones) are formed in the liver. Also, these soft cholesterol stones break down very easily. Apple juice will make them very soft and 'passable'. I think if an autopsy is done, you would only see mushy stuff in the liver but I'm not so sure because I've never done one. :-) Anyway, understanding the bile, stones, sludge, toxins, balls, calcium, cholesterol, will probably help you to understand the general picture. I hope this helps you in some healthy way. Barry. > In considering the claims made on this forum, the one that I > understand to be most prevalent is that each of us (or perhaps 80 > percent of the population) has cholesterol stones in our livers. > > I therefore wonder about two things. First, since they are not > identifiable in ultrasound, it should follow that we have lots of > these stones in our gall bladders too, without their appearing on > unltrasonograms. > > And there comes my next wonder: it seems to me that although these > stones, despite their numbers, cannot be seen by conventional imaging > methods, wouldn't it be obvious to expect that in autopsies the liver > and gall bladder of the deceased would have lots of stones. And if > this is so, how could it be that medical science remains unaware of > the fact that the stones are formed in the liver rather than in the > gall bladder? > > Has anyone any thoughts on my wonderment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2002 Report Share Posted February 21, 2002 <<<<<>>In considering the claims made on this forum, the one that I understand to be most prevalent is that each of us (or perhaps 80 percent of the population) has cholesterol stones in our livers.<< I don't believe this. (Just my opinion.) A cholangiogram showed both my liver and bile ducts to be 100% stone-free. I believe a person could have a few stones in the liver if there was a blockage someplace else, but I still can't buy the hundreds and thousands of sotnes theory. Again, just my opinion, not trying to offend anyone who believes otherwise. Debra>>>>>>>>> I believe the actual way this works is that of the patients who die from some form of cancer 80% of them had gallstones. I would like to re-find that information if anyone happens to have what site pointed to that fact. Dale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2002 Report Share Posted February 21, 2002 Sorry Adrienne, my mistake. Debra _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2002 Report Share Posted February 21, 2002 Barry, My cholangiogram showed my liver to be stone-free. I have no problems, and have a different opinion about it anyway. Debra _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2002 Report Share Posted February 21, 2002 >>I believe the actual way this works is that of the patients who die from some form of cancer 80% of them had gallstones.<< But Dale, don't you think that most people have gallstones? I think that most people probably do have gallstones, just with no symptoms. So the above statistic would not be surprising. 80% of people with cancer probably still have their tonsils, too. Debra _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2002 Report Share Posted February 21, 2002 Debra, Glad to hear you are problem free and have an opinion of your own. What are you doing in a Gallstone cleanse site? Barry. > > > Barry, > > My cholangiogram showed my liver to be stone-free. I have no problems, and > have a different opinion about it anyway. > > Debra > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2002 Report Share Posted February 21, 2002 Barry, Wasn't it you I explained this to about two weeks ago? If not, it is in the archives not long ago. I don;t want to bore folks on the list who have heard it, more than once. Debra _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2002 Report Share Posted February 21, 2002 Yes Debra, As I just said to Adrienne, I remember now. You don't believe that we are getting stones out with these flushes and you are here to help people to recover from gallbladder surgery. Right? Sorry for the misunderstanding. Be Healthy. Barry. > Barry, > > Wasn't it you I explained this to about two weeks ago? If not, it is in the > archives not long ago. I don;t want to bore folks on the list who have > heard it, more than once. > > Debra > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2002 Report Share Posted February 21, 2002 " D B " <fairyflight@...> wrote in Digest Number 985: > A cholangiogram showed both my liver and bile ducts to be 100% > stone-free. That's certainly good to learn. Is a cholangiogram the same thing as ERCP? >I believe a person could have a >few stones in the liver if there was a blockage someplace else, but >I still >can't buy the hundreds and thousands of sotnes theory. An ERCP does not go into the liver and hence could not identify any stones that might be there. Thus, the jury is till out. ----------------------- IRA L. JACOBSON ----------------------- mailto:laser@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2002 Report Share Posted February 21, 2002 Adrienne McLaughlin <adriennelynn1@...> wrote in Digest Number 986: >If you'll look at my previous post, I was responding to Ira's >question >about stones in the liver, not specifically to what you posted. If >you'll read the articles carefully, you'll see that the opinion is >that >stones are formed in the liver, for whatever reason. I was not >trying >to state otherwise. Let me restate the cause of my wondering. I repeatedly see the claim that stones are formed in the liver; not in the gall bladder. And that they flow into the gall bladder from the liver. And that organized medicine is not aware of this fact. (Although Adrienne has indeed supplied a list of websites that seem to deny this claim, I think that by and large it is claimed that the medical profession regards stones as being formed in the gall bladder, and that intrahepatic stones are another thing entirely and are rarely found.) So I wonder if it wouldn't be obvious to the medical establishment, from observing the results of autopsies, that livers are full of stones that do not show up on ultrasonograms. The fact that they are still unaware of this fact cause me to wonder who is right. ----------------------- IRA L. JACOBSON ----------------------- mailto:laser@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2002 Report Share Posted February 21, 2002 Debra sent the following text in Digest Number 987: >My cholangiogram showed my liver to be stone-free. I have no >problems, and >have a different opinion about it anyway. Debra, Are you sure you are referring to a cholangiogram? As far as I know, they don't go into the liver and hence can't show anything that is in there. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Some palindromes: " A man, a plan, a canal: Panama. " " Stressed? No tips? Spit on desserts! " T. Eliot, top bard, notes putrid tang emanating, is sad. I'd assign it a name: gnat dirt upset on drab pot-toilet. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Ira L. son <laser@...> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2002 Report Share Posted February 23, 2002 Stones would not show up on the machine unless they were calcified (hardened). I personally have gotten rid of over 2300 stones..and am still cleansing. ----- Original Message ----- From: " Ira L. son " <laser@...> <gallstones > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 1:07 AM Subject: Re: Just a thought > " D B " <fairyflight@...> wrote in Digest Number > 985: > > A cholangiogram showed both my liver and bile ducts to be 100% > > stone-free. > > That's certainly good to learn. Is a cholangiogram the same thing > as ERCP? > > >I believe a person could have a > >few stones in the liver if there was a blockage someplace else, but > >I still > >can't buy the hundreds and thousands of sotnes theory. > > An ERCP does not go into the liver and hence could not identify any > stones that might be there. > > Thus, the jury is till out. > > > ----------------------- > IRA L. JACOBSON > ----------------------- > mailto:laser@... > > > > Learn more from our experience, more then 200 liver flush stories: > http:///messages/gallstones-testimonials > > Liver Cleanse Recipe: > http://www.CureZone.com/cleanse/liver/ > > Images: > http://CureZone.com/image_gallery/cleanse_flush/ > http://CureZone.com/image_gallery/intrahepatic_stones/ > > Post message: gallstones > Receive no-mail: gallstones-nomail > Subscribe: gallstones-subscribe > Unsubscribe: gallstones-unsubscribe > > Web Sites for more information: > http://CureZone.com/gallstones/ > http://www.liverdoctor.com/ > http://www.sensiblehealth.com/ > http://www.cyberpog.com/health/index.htm > http://www.relfe.com/gall_stone_cleanse.html > > Group page: gallstones > > To change your subscription to digest (receive up to 25 e-mails in just one single e-mail, once a day) send blank e-mail to: gallstones-digest > > To change your subscription to NO-MAIL send blank e-mail to: gallstones-nomail > > To change your subscription to NORMAL (receive each message separate) > send blank e-mail to: gallstones-normal > > You are receiving this email because you elected to subscribe to the Gallstones group on 's groups. By joining the list you agree to hold yourself FULLY responsible FOR yourself! > Have a nice day ! > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2002 Report Share Posted February 24, 2002 " Alice M. Haney " <nightbird@...> satted in Digest Number 992: >Stones would not show up on the machine unless they were calcified >(hardened). I personally have gotten rid of over 2300 stones..and am >still >cleansing. I'm not sure what sort of machine you're referring to. The original poster was discussing a cholangiogram, which would certainly show all stones, of whatever type. And I was referring to an ERCP, which also certainly would detect any stones. ----------------------- IRA L. JACOBSON Today's Quote " Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel. " --- Zuheir Muhsin, late Military Department head of the PLO and member of its Executive Council, Dutch daily Touw, March 1977. (Quoted by Joan s in " From Time Immemorial, " p. 137) ----------------------- mailto:laser@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2002 Report Share Posted February 24, 2002 >>What is a cholangiogram<< I am behind on my mail, so I apologize if this has been answered already. It is a procedure wherein dye in put into the bile ducts, intrahepetic ducts, etc., and then an x-ray is done to see if there are any stones in the system. It is done during surgery, so it is something none of you will be encountering, except as a very last resort. If it comes to that, it is an important procedure. Debra _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2002 Report Share Posted February 24, 2002 >>Stones would not show up on the machine unless they were calcified (hardened)<< This may be true of some tests, but not a cholangiogram, which is what I was referring to. Debra _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 Thanks,Debra! D B <fairyflight@...> wrote: >>What is a cholangiogram<< I am behind on my mail, so I apologize if this has been answered already. It is a procedure wherein dye in put into the bile ducts, intrahepetic ducts, etc., and then an x-ray is done to see if there are any stones in the system. It is done during surgery, so it is something none of you will be encountering, except as a very last resort. If it comes to that, it is an important procedure. Debra _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2008 Report Share Posted December 19, 2008 Great quote. Thanks for sharing . xoxo I think we complicate the most simple things because we think there should be something more to the stuff that is so important. And the more important, the more simple.....usually. hehe Love,Stefanie>> > > > > "No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We> ourselves must walk the path."Just a little thought from our dearest Buddha Who would think the simplest things in life could ever get so complicated?! :)LOve to all the group> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.