Re: gallstones are formed in the liver

[Guest guest]

Hi:

From claudiameydrech:

- - - - - - - - - -

> However, Hulda says gall stones are formed in the liver. " At the

> very center of each stone is found a clump of bacteria... suggesting a

> dead bit of parasite might have started the stone. "

I hope you will forgive this question from a natural skeptic, but one who has

done many flushes, so at least got past my skepticism about that :-) Who did

the studies to determine that there is a bit of a parasite or bacteria inside

each of the stones?? I must admit that that seems just a bit " out there " for

me, but I am open to learn and would love to be directed to proof of this.

- - - - - - - - - - -

I too fall into the realm of skeptics regarding 's parasite claims.

However, I have come to the conclusion that the believers are believers and

nothing can or will change their minds while I'm on the other end of the

spectrum and nothing but sound laboratory analysis will change mine, and just

let it sit there. No study has ever produced the parasites that

alludes to.

As to the bacteria within the stone, there is laboratory evidence for that.

At http://www.nature.com/nsu/010524/010524-12.html you will find a story

about the American Society for Microbiology General Meeting, in Florida, in

May 2001 where the idea was presented that Typhoid 's gallstones were the

reservoir for the typhoid epidemic in NYC 100 years ago. The site

http://www.surgery.ucsf.edu/research/pathoph.html is a page where two

physicians from the Dept of Veterans Affairs discuss the fact that analysis

has found bacteria in gallstones.

Since my " healing crisis " during flush #16, I have become a firm believer

that there are also many poisons and bacteria trapped in the liver and

gallbladder that are flushed with the methods reported on this list. My

chills and shivers without fever, followed by a significant fever (101.5)

were simply too short-lived (less than 8 hours) to be viral or the normal

bacterial infection type. I had several other symptoms too including a break

out on my nose and lip that were similar to other healing events that I have

experienced with juice fasting and other internal cleansing. (I even broke

out with a full blown boil on my leg within 4 days of beginning to take grape

seed extract. The only other boil I ever had was when I was 9 years old.) I

think that the poisons and bacteria that are released during a flush are

often overlooked and considered to be more important in the colon flushes.

Yet it is the liver that filters these poisons from our bodies. It is easy

to understand how they can also be trapped in chaff and stones that are

retained by either the gallbladder or liver. Anyway, just another personal

lesson for me. As Barry has said, each of us is an individual and we are

each unique so our experiences with these flushes and their methodologies can

be different.

's successful method of gallstone and liver flush has become quite

popular, and regardless of her premises behind it, it works and it works very

well.

Jay

[Guest guest]

i have to take things that hulda clark says with a grain of salt. while it might

be true that bacteria are inside stones, bacteria are also ever-present in our

bodies. they are also ever-present on this planet.

i am not a disbeliever in flushes or that parasites are very common. just a

skeptic when it comes to her deductive process.

[Guest guest]

Hi Jay,

Regarding your healing crisis after #16 (wow), do you mind sharing with me what

you are suffering from ?

Also, can you repost your post that describes your healing crisis or send it to

me directly? I think I missed that one.

>

> From: JayTownsend@...

> Date: 2002/05/11 Sat AM 11:32:32 EST

> gallstones

> Subject: Re: gallstones are formed in the liver

>

> Hi:

>

> From claudiameydrech:

>

> - - - - - - - - - -

> > However, Hulda says gall stones are formed in the liver. " At the

> > very center of each stone is found a clump of bacteria... suggesting a

> > dead bit of parasite might have started the stone. "

>

> I hope you will forgive this question from a natural skeptic, but one who has

> done many flushes, so at least got past my skepticism about that :-) Who did

> the studies to determine that there is a bit of a parasite or bacteria inside

> each of the stones?? I must admit that that seems just a bit " out there " for

> me, but I am open to learn and would love to be directed to proof of this.

> - - - - - - - - - - -

>

> I too fall into the realm of skeptics regarding 's parasite claims.

> However, I have come to the conclusion that the believers are believers and

> nothing can or will change their minds while I'm on the other end of the

> spectrum and nothing but sound laboratory analysis will change mine, and just

> let it sit there. No study has ever produced the parasites that

> alludes to.

>

> As to the bacteria within the stone, there is laboratory evidence for that.

> At http://www.nature.com/nsu/010524/010524-12.html you will find a story

> about the American Society for Microbiology General Meeting, in Florida, in

> May 2001 where the idea was presented that Typhoid 's gallstones were the

> reservoir for the typhoid epidemic in NYC 100 years ago. The site

> http://www.surgery.ucsf.edu/research/pathoph.html is a page where two

> physicians from the Dept of Veterans Affairs discuss the fact that analysis

> has found bacteria in gallstones.

>

> Since my " healing crisis " during flush #16, I have become a firm believer

> that there are also many poisons and bacteria trapped in the liver and

> gallbladder that are flushed with the methods reported on this list. My

> chills and shivers without fever, followed by a significant fever (101.5)

> were simply too short-lived (less than 8 hours) to be viral or the normal

> bacterial infection type. I had several other symptoms too including a break

> out on my nose and lip that were similar to other healing events that I have

> experienced with juice fasting and other internal cleansing. (I even broke

> out with a full blown boil on my leg within 4 days of beginning to take grape

> seed extract. The only other boil I ever had was when I was 9 years old.) I

> think that the poisons and bacteria that are released during a flush are

> often overlooked and considered to be more important in the colon flushes.

> Yet it is the liver that filters these poisons from our bodies. It is easy

> to understand how they can also be trapped in chaff and stones that are

> retained by either the gallbladder or liver. Anyway, just another personal

> lesson for me. As Barry has said, each of us is an individual and we are

> each unique so our experiences with these flushes and their methodologies can

> be different.

>

> 's successful method of gallstone and liver flush has become quite

> popular, and regardless of her premises behind it, it works and it works very

> well.

>

> Jay

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> However, Hulda says gall stones are formed in the liver. " At the

> very center of each stone is found a clump of bacteria... suggesting a

> dead bit of parasite might have started the stone. "

I hope you will forgive this question from a natural skeptic, but

one who has done many flushes, so at least got past my

skepticism about that :-) Who did the studies to determine that

there is a bit of a parasite or bacteria inside each of the stones??

I must admit that that seems just a bit " out there " for me, but I am

open to learn and would love to be directed to proof of this.

Thanks so much!!!!!

L. Meydrech, CN

http://nutritionist.tripod.com/gallbladder.html ~ My Flushes

http://nutritionist.tripod.com ~ Journey to Health & Auctions

" A cheerful heart is good medicine " Prov. 17:22a

[Guest guest]

new_man85@... writes:

> Anyone without a gallbladder want to do some research?

>

I nominate Barry. Anyone second that nomination?

rachel~

[Guest guest]

Cool. It's official. Barry is our guinea pig.

Now quick, before he gets online and reads messages, let's decide exactly

what sort of testing we're going to put him through.

rachel

In a message dated 5/11/2002 6:49:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

royal@... writes:

> I second it

>

> Lorraine/Canada

>

[Guest guest]

Barry.

I was kidding.

rachel

In a message dated 5/11/2002 9:21:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

barry91162@... writes:

> Wow, 2 nominations for me?!?! Thanks and Lorraine. I feel

> honored to be the designated post-surgery flusher but I think a

> couple of people in here have already done that.

[Guest guest]

,

Apparently, Dr. is willing to study and research in areas that most

other researchers dismiss without any study. I can't personally prove or

disprove her research, but both my wife and I have had from 50 to 500

gallstones per flush for 4 flushes each so far. That is proof to me of

hundreds of gallstones needing removing. Keep us posted as to how your

experience relates to her conclusions which are based on 500+ flushes she

has supervised for her patients.

Similarly, from what I've heard reported by those who had their gallbladders

removed and did flushes, they get the same " gallstones " out in large numbers

without the gallbladders. This confirms her conclusion that is based on her

research that " gallstones " come from the liver. Autopsies and liver

surgeries are the only way to detect stones in the liver. For this reason

it's no surprise that everyone doesn't know a lot about the stones in the

liver. The people that know a lot about them are the people without

gallbladders that flush and get lots of stones. There's not a lot of those

people around either, but I've heard of a few without gallbladders who got

stones, but I've not heard of anyone without a gallbladder who tried

flushing and didn't get any stones. This supports Hulda 's conclusion

also. Most who don't have gallbladders don't flush. Without flushing they

don't know if they have stones or not.

Anyone without a gallbladder want to do some research?

Vince

>From: " L. Meydrech " <claudiameydrech@...>

>

>Thanks for your reply, and the others. I looked at those

>links you provided...I don't doubt that there is bacteria

>involved with gall stones, anywhere in the body where

>there is something that doesn't belong there is a great

>host for bacteria. I was just wondering about the idea that

>each stone started with a little bit in the middle, that is

>hard to prove to me.

>

>I DO agree with you that the flush is great and does

>great things for clearing out the liver, and whatever stones

>there are there. I am still a little skeptical about people

>passing literally hundreds or thousands of them, that

>is a bit new to me, but I'll have to see what happens

>with me as I doe some more cleanses over the summer.

>

> L. Meydrech

>eBay ID: claudias_corner_auctions

>Visit my current auctions:

>http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/claudias_corner_auctions/

>http://nutritionist.tripod.com

>

_________________________________________________________________

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

[Guest guest]

<I nominate Barry. Anyone second that nomination? >

I second it

Lorraine/Canada

[Guest guest]

Thanks for your reply, and the others. I looked at those

links you provided...I don't doubt that there is bacteria

involved with gall stones, anywhere in the body where

there is something that doesn't belong there is a great

host for bacteria. I was just wondering about the idea that

each stone started with a little bit in the middle, that is

hard to prove to me.

I DO agree with you that the flush is great and does

great things for clearing out the liver, and whatever stones

there are there. I am still a little skeptical about people

passing literally hundreds or thousands of them, that

is a bit new to me, but I'll have to see what happens

with me as I doe some more cleanses over the summer.

L. Meydrech

eBay ID: claudias_corner_auctions

Visit my current auctions:

http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/claudias_corner_auctions/

http://nutritionist.tripod.com

> Hi:

>

> From claudiameydrech:

>

> - - - - - - - - - -

> > However, Hulda says gall stones are formed in the liver. " At the

> > very center of each stone is found a clump of bacteria... suggesting a

> > dead bit of parasite might have started the stone. "

>

> I hope you will forgive this question from a natural skeptic, but one who

has

> done many flushes, so at least got past my skepticism about that :-) Who

did

> the studies to determine that there is a bit of a parasite or bacteria

inside

> each of the stones?? I must admit that that seems just a bit " out there "

for

> me, but I am open to learn and would love to be directed to proof of this.

> - - - - - - - - - - -

>

> I too fall into the realm of skeptics regarding 's parasite claims.

> However, I have come to the conclusion that the believers are believers

and

> nothing can or will change their minds while I'm on the other end of the

> spectrum and nothing but sound laboratory analysis will change mine, and

just

> let it sit there. No study has ever produced the parasites that

> alludes to.

>

> As to the bacteria within the stone, there is laboratory evidence for

that.

> At http://www.nature.com/nsu/010524/010524-12.html you will find a story

> about the American Society for Microbiology General Meeting, in Florida,

in

> May 2001 where the idea was presented that Typhoid 's gallstones were

the

> reservoir for the typhoid epidemic in NYC 100 years ago. The site

> http://www.surgery.ucsf.edu/research/pathoph.html is a page where two

> physicians from the Dept of Veterans Affairs discuss the fact that

analysis

> has found bacteria in gallstones.

>

[Guest guest]

Wow, 2 nominations for me?!?! Thanks and Lorraine. I feel

honored to be the designated post-surgery flusher but I think a

couple of people in here have already done that. Adrienne is one.

She had to flush after surgery because a stone was left in the common

duct or something.

Let me explain my point of view again. I am quite certain that I will

get out many blobs, globs, balls of bile by the hundreds without the

gallbladder but I am also pretty certain that there will not be any

hard gallstones that are formed in the liver. The 'stones' that

everyone is talking about are in two categories for me based on

personal experience and hours and hours of study of testimonial and

medical information.

One is the 2,000 balls of bile (mixed with oil or not, doesn't matter

for this explaination and don't need to open that can of worms again.)

that I eliminated over 8 flushes. These balls (stones) are soft

throughout, without notable difference in center, and are made up of

mostly bile and cholesterol. These 'stones' in my opinion come from

the bile in the liver and will normally pass without stone formation

in regular bodily function and hardened stool. Fasting and flushing

makes those stones more viewable and in ball form. These balls of

bile do not cause colic pain and will not usually form hard

gallstones but in some cases they will form hard gallstones and could

add to the problem of existing gallstones within the gb. Different

bodily conditions will effect the number of balls eliminated in a

flush. Sometimes none and sometimes hundreds. These are coming from

the bile in the liver and gallbladder. Hard stones are not commonly

found in the liver. Autopsy reports have proven to doctors that when

the gb is full of gallstones while the liver is clear of 'hard'

stones that the calcification of calcium or cholesterol stones are

hardened mainly within the gb. Can't argue the facts there. The liver

will contain the bad bile that will create those stones but mainly

they are formed hard in the gb after the water is removed from the

bile by the gb itself or the organ itself is too sluggish to

eliminate the bile prior to stone hardening. This does not lessen the

fact that some small pigment stones and cholesterol stones can form

within the liver and then roll down into the gb but it is very rare

in autopsy reports.

Second is the hard calcium, pigmented, or hard shelled cholesterol

gallstone that is in the gb and causing colic pain while it tries to

exit. This in my opinion is the 'real stone' that is behind the pain

in our bilinary systems weither they are stuck in the gb or the

cystic or common ducts.

Because of these two definitions of 'stones' it is obviously

important to distinquish which you are battling against to correct

the problem of pain. First is to get out the gallstone and second is

to condition the bile so that those globs of bile you see in flushes

do not form into hard stones while in your body. Flushing can

accomplish both of these objectives.

I am not disclaiming the flush in any way. I eliminated a lot of bile

that was in the form of grainy sand, small pigment stones that were

black, a ton of sludge, and over 2,000 soft glob (stones) of bile

that could have very well formed hard within my gb. I believe in

gallbladder and liver cleansing but I also am aware of the

differences in gallstones and balls of bile from the liver. Both need

to come out but they both have different diagnostic principles.

They both have different potential problems based on the level of

their advanced developements. Both have different means of

elimination which can be quickened by a cleanse or left to exit with

regualr bodily processing. Study is required understand the

differences between the bile ball and the hard gallstone.

Good luck on the path for health and happiness.

Barry.

P.S. I plan on flushing twice a year to eliminate any stagnant bile

from the liver and common duct. Cleansing the liver is always good

weither you have gallstones or not, and with or without a gb. Those

balls of bile may still have bacteria that could deposit grain or

sludge within the liver or common duct.

> <I nominate Barry. Anyone second that nomination? >

>

> I second it

>

> Lorraine/Canada

[Guest guest]

Autopsy reports by the thousands have proven that when a gallbladder

is opened and stones have been found, in most cases the liver has

been found to be clear of any of these types of (hard cholesterol

stones). By the way, 90% of all 'hard' gallstones are cholesterol

based and not calcium based. Cholesterol and calcium gallstones show

up white on ultrasound, not just calcium gallstones.

The soft throughout, bile green, squishy balls or globs that you

call 'gallstones' need to be defined correctly. Those are bile

containing salts and mostly cholesterol. This is normal bile that you

will not normally see in a hard stool. BUT if you fast and flush,

this bile will be more evident in the form of globs or balls of bile

that you call stones.

My definition of 'stone' may be different from yours. Gallstones that

are hard shelled or hard throughout cholesterol, pigment, or calcium

are in my definition a 'stone'. These do not come out easily in a

flush and may remain within the gallbladder even though thousands of

bile balls have come out in a processed flush. These 'hard' stones

are also the cause of colic pain or gb attacks in most cases weither

they are small, big, or in the form of glainy sand within the cystic

or common duct.

The soft bile balls are not 'stones' in my terms of definition for

this purpose of discussion. Those soft, round, squishy, balls of bile

will normal pass in regular bodily function if the body is left alone

to work normally. They will not exit in the 'flush form' of balls but

in regular bile consistancy. The flush will help to form the round

shape that it exits in. This is in itself the nutshell of the whole

discussion on balls of bile being considered as a gallstone. Those

definitions have to be concluded personally by yourself with

experience and collective knowledge. Knowledge can be collected by

many sources or doctors but the best source is your own experience

and the testimonies of others experimenting with bile.

The hard, cholesterol, 1 cm gallstone that I have sitting encased in

glass on my coffee table as a conversational piece (just kidding) is

from my removed gallbladder and is nothing like what I have ever seen

in the thousands of soft balls of bile that I have eliminated in

flushing. This 'gallstone' was the cause of my colic pain. I have not

had an attack since it has been eliminated even though I am sure I

can still change the consistancy of my liver bile by flushing out my

bile in the forms of globs of bile...but why? If my body will

normally do that on it's own then I will let it. If I have no more

pain then I can surly think of something better to do on a Friday

night. haha Mind you, I will still flush twice a year to clean out my

liver bile to make sure that if my bile is not healthy it will not

form crystals or grainy sand stones, or sludge within my common duct.

You always need to determine what is best for your own personal

health, happiness, and pain free living. You must define the problem

correctly that is ailing you and battle the problem with the right

weapons. Good luck in your search for knowledge that will lead you to

this goal of health, happiness, and pain free living.

Barry.

> " Some people believe that small stones are formed in the liver and

then

> drop down into the galbladder. I believe most of the gallstones are

> formed in the gallbladder and not the liver. It does happen that

the

> liver does produce stones but it is more rare. "

>

> Barry,

>

> I know you've had your gall bladder removed and you probably got

your

> information from the doctors who did it. If what they told you is

> correct, you should get no more stones when you flush.

>

> However, Hulda says gall stones are formed in the liver. " At

the

> very center of each stone is found a clump of bacteria...

suggesting a

> dead bit of parasite might have started the stone. " " As the stones

> grow and become more numerous the back pressure on the liver causes

it

> to make less bile. " " No stomach infection such as ulcers or

intestinal

> bloating can be cured permanently without removing these gallstones

> from the liver. "

>

> " This (procedure) contradicts many modern medical viewpoints.

> Gallstones are thought to be formed in the gallbladder, not the

> liver... The truth is self evident. People who have had their

> gallbladder surgically removed still get plenty of green, bile-

coated

> stones. "

[Guest guest]

Hi Rach,

I know you are kidding. By the way, how's the garden? Can you plant

yet or is the weather still bad? :-)

Barry.

> Barry.

> I was kidding.

> rachel

>

> In a message dated 5/11/2002 9:21:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> barry91162@y... writes:

>

>

> > Wow, 2 nominations for me?!?! Thanks and Lorraine. I feel

> > honored to be the designated post-surgery flusher but I think a

> > couple of people in here have already done that.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Barry,

I've so far intentionally stayed out of this discussion. We are all

certainly entitled to our opinion. Exactly what a stone is and isn't isn't

really a matter of opinion. The medical world has already defined the green

bile and cholesterol balls as stones. We can call them what ever we want,

but I don't think that will change the rest of the world's terminology.

There is more than one type, or composition, of stone. Some are more

calcium and some are more cholesterol. I'm not making this up . That's

what the rest of the world says. You've probably seen the pictures on

curezone.com of cutout gallbladders overflowing with green gallstones.

[link at the bottom of every post] They look identical to what I've gotten

out with my flushes, and mine were soft and easily crushed. There's no

doubt as you have so vividly described for this list that the calcium based

stones are much more problematic to deal with. I appreciate all the

information you've provided and I've learned a great deal from your first

hand accounts. My goal is to keep from having any problems with my

gallbladder and liver, and in the process have other health benefits too.

People like you willing to share your stories are helping a lot of others

who may or may not have already had problems. Thank you for that.

Vince

>The soft throughout, bile green, squishy balls or globs that you

>call 'gallstones' need to be defined correctly. Those are bile

>containing salts and mostly cholesterol. This is normal bile that you

>will not normally see in a hard stool. BUT if you fast and flush,

>this bile will be more evident in the form of globs or balls of bile

>that you call stones.

_________________________________________________________________

MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:

http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

[Guest guest]

Hi Vince,

Yes, the medical field has already defined what a gallstone is. They

say it is the hard throughout or hard shelled stone found inside the

gallbladder not the soft balls of bile eliminated in a flush. Once

again this is the definition of correct terminology and needs further

clarification. Obviously by reading your reply to me you haven't

understood the differences I was making in gallstone and bile balls.

One is formed by bad bile and is hard, and the other is formed by

flushing bile and is soft. Dig deeper into those differences to

further define the problem and solution.

And actually it is the cholesterol 'hard' stone which is the hardest

to deal with instead of the calcium stone because cholesterol is much

more common. 90% of hard gallstones are cholesterol and not calcium.

Everyone thinks the hard ones are calcium but calcium stones are much

more rare. Agnes even incorrectly labeled the pic of my removed

gallstone as hard calcium gallstone when it really is a hard

cholesterol gallstone. Can't believe everything you read on the

Internet. :-) The gallstone part was right.

Those hard stones seen pictured inside gallbladders are not the same

thing as a soft 'stone' you are flushing even though they are the

same color and shape. Those hard stones will come out 'hard' in a

flush and will never soften by dieting or the flushing method. This

has been my experience personally and also the research I have

collected from personal flush testimonies that back this opinion.

Some stones will soften but the hard cholesterol or calcified

gallstone do not in most cases.

Everyone has to reach their own personal understanding of what they

are flushing out, what causes pain, how to eliminate pain, and how to

make sure it stays out of our lives to live healthier, happier, and

pain free. Studying and breaking down the testimonies about these

different stones will help lead to the correct method of eliminating

colic gallstone pain. Also collecting data that has been gathered

over many years in the alternative medicine field and regular medical

field will help to understand how to combat the problem.

We all reach conclusions by personal experience with flushing,

knowledge collected from testimonies in flush sites, and yes, even

doctors who have studied for years on the subject.

I'm sorry if some terms get missunderstood in an indepth discussion

typed in a group. It's hard to understand everything that is

read in type and also even harder to try and convey an opinion some

times with typing.

Nevertheless, good luck with your search for the truth.

Be healthy and happy.

Barry.

>

> Hi Barry,

> I've so far intentionally stayed out of this discussion. We are

all

> certainly entitled to our opinion. Exactly what a stone is and

isn't isn't

> really a matter of opinion. The medical world has already defined

the green

> bile and cholesterol balls as stones. We can call them what ever

we want,

> but I don't think that will change the rest of the world's

terminology.

> There is more than one type, or composition, of stone. Some are

more

> calcium and some are more cholesterol. I'm not making this up .

That's

> what the rest of the world says. You've probably seen the pictures

on

> curezone.com of cutout gallbladders overflowing with green

gallstones.

> [link at the bottom of every post] They look identical to what I've

gotten

> out with my flushes, and mine were soft and easily crushed.

There's no

> doubt as you have so vividly described for this list that the

calcium based

> stones are much more problematic to deal with. I appreciate all

the

> information you've provided and I've learned a great deal from your

first

> hand accounts. My goal is to keep from having any problems with my

> gallbladder and liver, and in the process have other health

benefits too.

> People like you willing to share your stories are helping a lot of

others

> who may or may not have already had problems. Thank you for that.

>

> Vince

>

> >The soft throughout, bile green, squishy balls or globs that you

> >call 'gallstones' need to be defined correctly. Those are bile

> >containing salts and mostly cholesterol. This is normal bile that

you

> >will not normally see in a hard stool. BUT if you fast and flush,

> >this bile will be more evident in the form of globs or balls of

bile

> >that you call stones.

>

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:

> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

[Guest guest]

, I do not know about 1000 S plural. But after 8 flushes I

have personally passed in excess of 1000 stones. Dawn

300 at one time was the most.

I am still a little skeptical about people

> passing literally hundreds or thousands of them, that

> is a bit new to me, but I'll have to see what happens

> with me as I doe some more cleanses over the summer.

>

> L. Meydrech

>

[Guest guest]

Which brings up the question...has anyone out there flushed one of

these hard stones. I think mine have all been softies except flush 6?

which had the very firm clay type " stones " . Dawn

Agnes even incorrectly labeled the pic of my removed

> gallstone as hard calcium gallstone when it really is a hard

> cholesterol gallstone. Can't believe everything you read on the

> Internet. :-) The gallstone part was right.

>

> Those hard stones seen pictured inside gallbladders are not the

same

> thing as a soft 'stone' you are flushing even though they are the

> same color and shape. Those hard stones will come out 'hard' in a

> flush and will never soften by dieting or the flushing method. This

> has been my experience personally and also the research I have

> collected from personal flush testimonies that back this opinion.

> Some stones will soften but the hard cholesterol or calcified

> gallstone do not in most cases.

>

>

[Guest guest]

From: " barry91162 " <barry91162@...>

> Autopsy reports have proven to doctors that when

> the gb is full of gallstones while the liver is clear of 'hard'

> stones that the calcification of calcium or cholesterol stones are

> hardened mainly within the gb. Can't argue the facts there.

So according to the doctors, gallstones are really made in the gallbladder, from

calcium. And

the gallstones we get from flushing the liver are not really gallstones cause

they're made from

fat, not calcium, and (according to the doctors), real gallstones are made from

calcium. Or

coated with hard calcium by the gallbladder.... or whateverrr.r...........

Well that sounds like total BS to me.

Did you personally see these hard calcium " gallstones " from the gallbladder,

examine them, and

compare them with the so called " non " gallstones from your flushes?

And these " hard calcium gallstones " somehow got in there without medical

intervention, but won't

come out without surgery.... da da da daaa.......

My personal opinion is that you can't believe anything most doctors tell you,

including their so

called research, and these things are just more examples of that.

> and will never soften by dieting or the flushing method.

So, therefore, you need to have the doctors take them out. Right?

I believe in your good intentions, but I don't believe the doctors. I believe

they lied to you.

I believe the gallstones are dissolved with proper diet. I believe the

gallstones can be

flushed. And I believe many people have proven and continue to prove that they

are.

[Guest guest]

remember this....doctors are usually wrong more than

they are right. so who knows.

--- Rupp <jrupprun@...> wrote:

> From: " barry91162 " <barry91162@...>

> > Autopsy reports have proven to doctors that when

> > the gb is full of gallstones while the liver is

> clear of 'hard'

> > stones that the calcification of calcium or

> cholesterol stones are

> > hardened mainly within the gb. Can't argue the

> facts there.

>

> So according to the doctors, gallstones are really

> made in the gallbladder, from calcium. And

> the gallstones we get from flushing the liver are

> not really gallstones cause they're made from

> fat, not calcium, and (according to the doctors),

> real gallstones are made from calcium. Or

> coated with hard calcium by the gallbladder.... or

> whateverrr.r...........

>

> Well that sounds like total BS to me.

>

> Did you personally see these hard calcium

> " gallstones " from the gallbladder, examine them, and

> compare them with the so called " non " gallstones

> from your flushes?

>

> And these " hard calcium gallstones " somehow got in

> there without medical intervention, but won't

> come out without surgery.... da da da daaa.......

>

> My personal opinion is that you can't believe

> anything most doctors tell you, including their so

> called research, and these things are just more

> examples of that.

>

> > and will never soften by dieting or the flushing

> method.

>

> So, therefore, you need to have the doctors take

> them out. Right?

>

> I believe in your good intentions, but I don't

> believe the doctors. I believe they lied to you.

>

> I believe the gallstones are dissolved with proper

> diet. I believe the gallstones can be

> flushed. And I believe many people have proven and

> continue to prove that they are.

>

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

>>Autopsies and liver

surgeries are the only way to detect stones in the liver. <<

A cholangiogram (done during surgery) can also do this. I had one, and had

no stones in my liver.

Debra

_________________________________________________________________

MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:

http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

Since these are my statements you are commenting on I feel compelled

to tell you that you are incorrect on your replies. Don't get me

wrong, you are only missunderstanding what I have said.

First of all, most hard gallstones are not calcium. Calcium stones

are very rare. Less than 10% of hard gallstones removed from a

gallbladder are 'calcium' based. Over 90% of hard gallstones removed

from a gallbladder are cholesterol. That was one missunderstanding.

I'm sorry you didn't read all of my post.

According to the general medical field, gallstones are made 'hard' in

the gallbladder but start soft from the liver and then roll down into

the gallbladder. They get hard in the gb because of the stagnant

place that they sit and the bile is extracted of water by the gb. A

sluggish gb will also keep bile in the gb and the bile or soft base

of a stone will harden there.

The alternative medicine cleansers believe the stone starts hard in

the liver.

Either way, autopsy reports prove the general medical opinion vs. the

alternative medicine belief.

Decide for yourself. That is what individual opinion is good for.

Yes, I personal have my 1 cm hard cholesterol gallstone that was

removed from my gb. The stone is harder and more different than the

2,000 balls of bile that I have eliminated in 8 flushes. The only

thing maybe simular is the color. The texture is totally different.

They are both bile based but in different form and consistancy.

Surgery is not the only way to remove gallstones. Medication can

break down hard gallstones over a matter of months or years.

Lithotrispy can crush the stones by using ultrasonic sound waves.

Flushing can even remove hard gallstones. I flushed out around 12

small, black, hard pigmented stones on my second flush.

Whatever the method of removal, the fact has been proven that in 50%

of the cases (no matter which method you use) the gallstones will

reoccur within one year. Only the removal of the gb will reduce that

number down to .001% because of possible duct stone formation, or

liver stone formation post-surgery because of bad bile.

I don't believe any doctor lied to me. I got all of my information

from the Internet reports. Facts are there to be studied. No denied.

Flushing can in some cases remove hard gallstones. Dieting can

improve the possibility of slowing down stone formation. Flushing

does work. Dieting can slowly desolve some stones. Yes, yes, yes.

But there is more that needs to be studied if you want to do this

correctly. It is a lifelong lifestyle change that needs to be

constant to avoid reoccurance of gallstones. In some cases, dieitng

does not help in stopping the production of gallstones if the gb has

advanced beyond the level of repair, if the gb is producing stones as

a result of hereditary problems, if it is diseased, etc, etc.

I sure hope that you can keep your gb and live a happy and pain free

life. Avoiding the pain is why we are all here. Also to be happy and

healthy. Good luck on your search for health, happiness, and a pain

free life.

Barry.

> From: " barry91162 " <barry91162@y...>

> > Autopsy reports have proven to doctors that when

> > the gb is full of gallstones while the liver is clear of 'hard'

> > stones that the calcification of calcium or cholesterol stones are

> > hardened mainly within the gb. Can't argue the facts there.

>

> So according to the doctors, gallstones are really made in the

gallbladder, from calcium. And

> the gallstones we get from flushing the liver are not really

gallstones cause they're made from

> fat, not calcium, and (according to the doctors), real gallstones

are made from calcium. Or

> coated with hard calcium by the gallbladder.... or

whateverrr.r...........

>

> Well that sounds like total BS to me.

>

> Did you personally see these hard calcium " gallstones " from the

gallbladder, examine them, and

> compare them with the so called " non " gallstones from your flushes?

>

> And these " hard calcium gallstones " somehow got in there without

medical intervention, but won't

> come out without surgery.... da da da daaa.......

>

> My personal opinion is that you can't believe anything most doctors

tell you, including their so

> called research, and these things are just more examples of that.

>

> > and will never soften by dieting or the flushing method.

>

> So, therefore, you need to have the doctors take them out. Right?

>

> I believe in your good intentions, but I don't believe the

doctors. I believe they lied to you.

>

> I believe the gallstones are dissolved with proper diet. I believe

the gallstones can be

> flushed. And I believe many people have proven and continue to

prove that they are.

[Guest guest]

,

Well, they did help bring us into this world. haha

Individual cases with doctors can very well be wrong or an error can

surly occur. Medical procudures and understanding of organ function

is definitely based on years or research and study. Maybe the first

open heart surgery was a failure (mistake?) but now they are done

with skill based on experience and past knowledge.

Medical methods and limitations are based on fact usually. They don't

like to stick their necks out on theory. Doing that is really the

only way to advance medicine. Research for AIDS for instance is

continually being researched. Credit has to be given to the study,

research, etc. that the medical field is doing. This is what prevents

mistakes.

Anyway, be healthy and happy. Call a doctor only if you need too.

haha

Barry.

> > From: " barry91162 " <barry91162@y...>

> > > Autopsy reports have proven to doctors that when

> > > the gb is full of gallstones while the liver is

> > clear of 'hard'

> > > stones that the calcification of calcium or

> > cholesterol stones are

> > > hardened mainly within the gb. Can't argue the

> > facts there.

> >

> > So according to the doctors, gallstones are really

> > made in the gallbladder, from calcium. And

> > the gallstones we get from flushing the liver are

> > not really gallstones cause they're made from

> > fat, not calcium, and (according to the doctors),

> > real gallstones are made from calcium. Or

> > coated with hard calcium by the gallbladder.... or

> > whateverrr.r...........

> >

> > Well that sounds like total BS to me.

> >

> > Did you personally see these hard calcium

> > " gallstones " from the gallbladder, examine them, and

> > compare them with the so called " non " gallstones

> > from your flushes?

> >

> > And these " hard calcium gallstones " somehow got in

> > there without medical intervention, but won't

> > come out without surgery.... da da da daaa.......

> >

> > My personal opinion is that you can't believe

> > anything most doctors tell you, including their so

> > called research, and these things are just more

> > examples of that.

> >

> > > and will never soften by dieting or the flushing

> > method.

> >

> > So, therefore, you need to have the doctors take

> > them out. Right?

> >

> > I believe in your good intentions, but I don't

> > believe the doctors. I believe they lied to you.

> >

> > I believe the gallstones are dissolved with proper

> > diet. I believe the gallstones can be

> > flushed. And I believe many people have proven and

> > continue to prove that they are.

> >

> >

>

>

> __________________________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

Dawn,

For me the answer is yes and no. I did flush out around 12 small, 1-2

mm, black, hard, pigments stones on my 2nd out of 8 flushes. The 1 cm

hard cholesterol stone in my gb proven by 3 ultrasounds during the 4

months of flushing never did come out. Hereditary, sluggish, and

partially diseased gb didn't allow the stone to exit with flushing.

You have to check your body and personal progress with flushing.

This is the only way to know the results. Do you still have pain?

Do you still have a stone or stones in the gallbladder? Etc, etc.

I must say that after studying all of the posts in the group,

studying all of the testimonies found in the flush sites, studying

everything I could find on flushing results, that my data collected

was different than I had imagined when I entered the flushing method

world.

For instance, it seemed like everyone was eliminating hundreds of

soft bile balls in mostly every flush but the colic was still there

or reoccuring because of the hard gallstone still in the gb or the

reoccuring of stones because of bad dieting, etc. I soon learned that

it was a lifetime stuggle with strict dieting and flushing (possible

forever instead of the few times I thought) as a lifestyle change and

not only as a quick fix in a few flushes.

So, you have to decide for yourself what is the healthiest and

happiest, and most of all the quickest way to stay pain free for your

stay on this planet.

Eat (carefully), drink, and flush merrily (regularly). :-)

Read Dale'e reply. He has committed his dieting and flushing to a

lifetime of healthiness and happiness.

Barry.

> Which brings up the question...has anyone out there flushed one of

> these hard stones. I think mine have all been softies except flush

6?

> which had the very firm clay type " stones " . Dawn

>

>

> Agnes even incorrectly labeled the pic of my removed

> > gallstone as hard calcium gallstone when it really is a hard

> > cholesterol gallstone. Can't believe everything you read on the

> > Internet. :-) The gallstone part was right.

> >

> > Those hard stones seen pictured inside gallbladders are not the

> same

> > thing as a soft 'stone' you are flushing even though they are the

> > same color and shape. Those hard stones will come out 'hard' in a

> > flush and will never soften by dieting or the flushing method.

This

> > has been my experience personally and also the research I have

> > collected from personal flush testimonies that back this opinion.

> > Some stones will soften but the hard cholesterol or calcified

> > gallstone do not in most cases.

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

At 23:57 12.05.2002 +0000, you wrote:

>For me the answer is yes and no. I did flush out around 12 small, 1-2

>mm, black, hard, pigments stones on my 2nd out of 8 flushes. The 1 cm

>hard cholesterol stone in my gb proven by 3 ultrasounds during the 4

>months of flushing never did come out. Hereditary, sluggish, and

>partially diseased gb didn't allow the stone to exit with flushing.

Barry, there is one subject that may have never been discussed in this

forum, but that is a part of your unsuccessful attempt to remove the " big "

stone.

The shape of the stone.

If you examine the shape of your stones, you will see that they are not smut.

Those of you who haven't seen stones, I posted them here:

http://curezone.com/image_gallery/gallbladder_removed/default.asp?i=38 & n=39

http://curezone.com/image_gallery/gallbladder_removed/default.asp?i=39 & n=39

Try to put them inside one of those rubber balloons, filed with water,

(those long and thin balloons that look like a sausage when blown big) and

then try to squeeze them out with the pressure of water.

I tried it with marbles, and it worked.

Even though marbles are much bigger then the diameter of rubber balloon,

and even though balloon's force is able to hold marbles tight, once marble

is in place, it blocks water, and allows pressure to rise to the point

where water is able to push marbles forward, all until marble is outside.

It does take some pressure.

If you try that with your stones, I bet you will never push them out.

You want to bet? :-)

Water will be passing beside stone, because stones is extremely irregularly

shaped.

So, why are your stones shaped that way?

Because they are composed of many smaller stones? - smaller fragments? -

held together with cholesterol?

Have they been different before you started flushing? before you changed

your diet?

Is there any possibility that something in your bile started dissolving

stones, which resulted in the present shape?

If it is possible to dissolve stones, wouldn't it be logical that the first

parts to dissolve are the parts formed last?

And, parts formed last are parts that are holding together smaller fragments?

We just have to live with many questions with no answer.

You want to bet? :-)

best of health

Agnes

[Guest guest]

Hi Debra,

A cholangiogram as best as I can tell reading about it at Medline only

checks and detects stones in the Common Bile Duct (CBD) of the liver.

http://www.transmed.net/lapnet/roc.htm

Saying your liver has no stones in it because you have none in your Common

Bile Duct is like saying your yard is weed free because you have none

growing on your sidewalk. The liver is full of billiary tubing which all

dump into the common bile duct. According to Dr. Hulda , the billiary

tubing is where the stones form and then some of them roll out into the

common bile duct (which is a larger diameter). The bile flowing in the

common bile duct and into the gallbladder has no problem carrying the stones

into the gallbladder.

A flush according to the method, which requires a parasite cleanse

first, is the only way to test her conclusion that stones form in the liver

and livers are full of the stones (in the billiary tubing). This would

prove whether or not your doctor is correct that there are no stones in your

liver.

I'm glad you are trouble free since your surgery. That's what we are all

aiming for. Hopefully many of us can avoid surgery by learning more and

this list with everyone on it helps with that

Vince

>From: " D B " <fairyflight@...>

> >>Autopsies and liver

>surgeries are the only way to detect stones in the liver. <<

>

>A cholangiogram (done during surgery) can also do this. I had one, and had

>no stones in my liver.

>

>Debra

_________________________________________________________________

Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com