liver cleanse a hoax??

[Guest guest]

I read online that some people think the stones you pass from a liver

cleanse are really just the apple juice and olive oil forming a sort

of soap in your stomach. Has anyone had these stones analyzed to see

what is actually in them? I think it would be interesting to

actually see. I'm sure someone has an answer to this. I'm not trying

to disqualify a cleanse but it sure is interesting to see how

conventional and holistic medicines can disagree so much! I guess

all that matters is whether or not you feel better after you do the

cleanse. Charisse

[Guest guest]

I've heard this many times. I think if you search the archives at

www.curezone.com, you will see that people have tested this in a

variety of ways. The results for me were enough, I don't give it a

second thought anymore.

Conventional medicine does not dispute the existence of liver stones,

there is a word for it that I have no hope of spelling (intraphetic?

something like that), no real helpful treatment. I think they

surgically remove them... talk about unecessary.

At first I was unwilling to believe that modern medicine could

overlook something so simply as liver stones, and a treatment as

simple as doing a flush. but the more I got into health issues, the

more I realized that most modern medical treatments harm more than

they help, and rarely reach underlying issues. its like being caught

in the matrix.

g

> I read online that some people think the stones you pass from a liver

> cleanse are really just the apple juice and olive oil forming a sort

> of soap in your stomach. Has anyone had these stones analyzed to see

> what is actually in them? I think it would be interesting to

> actually see. I'm sure someone has an answer to this. I'm not trying

> to disqualify a cleanse but it sure is interesting to see how

> conventional and holistic medicines can disagree so much! I guess

> all that matters is whether or not you feel better after you do the

> cleanse. Charisse

[Guest guest]

I understand what you are saying. I am a doula and childbirth

educator and I have learned that just about every standard practice

that is performed on the pregnant and laboring woman by a

conventional dr is exactly that -a standard that they learned in

school that has no research to back it up. In fact there are

numerous studies out there saying we interfere in the birthing

process too much and are putting women in danger (our overly high c-

section rates are one example). And the drs just refuse to practice

evidence based medicine and I don't understand why? It's like they

are blind to anything except what they learned in residency. It is

very frustrating. I tend to think conventional medicine has it's

place -I just wish there were more drs that had a more balanced point

of view. As for me -I am trying some acid reduction pills which I

know goes against everything in the way of natural medicine. However

it is working. My stomach has been MUCH better and so have my bowel

movements. I don't think it will be the entire answer for me. I

still need to revamp my diet. I have cut back on the sugars and

carbs but not cut them out completely yet. And I'm sure I've got an

overgrowth of yeast in my system but I'm trying to take it one day at

a time. I am too frightened yet to do the liver cleanse. I bought

s Moritz' book and have read it. Some of it makes sense to me

and other parts of it seem a bit extreme. In otherwords I don't buy

it entirely but I guess I'll never know until I try it. However the

idea of downing so much apple juice and olive oil makes me want to

vomit just thinking about it so I'm just so leery. I may just try the

diet first and then adding lots of probiotics. If that doesn't help

then maybe some Primal Defense (even though I've heard killing the

candida is not the answer). But I think it just sounds less harsh

then the cleanse. If that doesn't work then I'm going to try

colonics although I've got a friend who scared me about those too.

I'm a wimp I guess! Charisse

[Guest guest]

I agree with you very much about modern medicine. I don't think

doctors set out to be closed minded or to harm people. They are

exposed to a great deal a liability, and any deviation from " the

standard of care " could subject them to legal problems and worse.

Therefore, they learn from early on not to think for themselves. it

is really sad, but I understand how it happens. they slowly close

their mind to the point that they will not even consider something

challenging, something outside the norms... its a tragic loss.

re your health issues. I hope you make some headway. its a learning

process for all of us. Just over a year ago, I would not have

considered a liver flush. but having done it (after almost

everything else failed) I am a true believer. You have an advantage

in that you already know what many people cannot bring themselves to

believe, and that is, much of modern medicine does more harm than

good. from that point, you can only work upward in the right

direction.

it took me while, but i learned to trust myself and my body. i now

firmly believe that almost any condition can be healed naturally if

we just give the body the chance. Liver stones, however, are a great

impediment to such a recovery. I hope you will continue to consider

it, and if you ever feel right about it, give it a try.

g

> I understand what you are saying. I am a doula and childbirth

> educator and I have learned that just about every standard practice

> that is performed on the pregnant and laboring woman by a

> conventional dr is exactly that -a standard that they learned in

> school that has no research to back it up. In fact there are

> numerous studies out there saying we interfere in the birthing

> process too much and are putting women in danger (our overly high c-

> section rates are one example). And the drs just refuse to

practice

> evidence based medicine and I don't understand why? It's like they

> are blind to anything except what they learned in residency. It is

> very frustrating. I tend to think conventional medicine has it's

> place -I just wish there were more drs that had a more balanced

point

> of view. As for me -I am trying some acid reduction pills which I

> know goes against everything in the way of natural medicine.

However

> it is working. My stomach has been MUCH better and so have my

bowel

> movements. I don't think it will be the entire answer for me. I

> still need to revamp my diet. I have cut back on the sugars and

> carbs but not cut them out completely yet. And I'm sure I've got

an

> overgrowth of yeast in my system but I'm trying to take it one day

at

> a time. I am too frightened yet to do the liver cleanse. I bought

> s Moritz' book and have read it. Some of it makes sense to

me

> and other parts of it seem a bit extreme. In otherwords I don't buy

> it entirely but I guess I'll never know until I try it. However the

> idea of downing so much apple juice and olive oil makes me want to

> vomit just thinking about it so I'm just so leery. I may just try

the

> diet first and then adding lots of probiotics. If that doesn't

help

> then maybe some Primal Defense (even though I've heard killing the

> candida is not the answer). But I think it just sounds less harsh

> then the cleanse. If that doesn't work then I'm going to try

> colonics although I've got a friend who scared me about those too.

> I'm a wimp I guess! Charisse

[Guest guest]

* I understand what you are saying. I am a doula and childbirth

educator and I have learned that just about every standard practice

that is performed on the pregnant and laboring woman by a

conventional dr is exactly that -a standard that they learned in

school that has no research to back it up. In fact there are

numerous studies out there saying we interfere in the birthing

process too much and are putting women in danger (our overly high c-

section rates are one example

They do it partly because of training but also because they are very libel

for what they do. People are getting so sue happy that few doctors can

afford to practice obstetrics.

[Guest guest]

Hi Charisse,

I agree completely. I am very frustrated with conventional medicine

and wanted to find a panacea in alternative medicines. I've found some

things that make a lot of sense and seem to work and others that are

useless. What it comes down to for me is that I think we have to take

an informed an critical look at anything we do to our bodies.

The health care industry -- both conventional and alternative -- is

shaped both by capitalistic profits and cultural values. For an OB/GYN

performing a child birth, the conventional approach is more

profitable. However, it also supports the cultural values of the

medical field that the all-knowing physician is " operating " on the

passive patient. This gives power to the doctor and removes it from

the mother, who becomes a mere object. This preserves the status of

the doctor. However, it's also rooted in misogyny, since the inception

of the practice came when doctors (virtually all male at the time)

challenged the practice of childbirth by female mid-wives (which

involved the active participation of the mother).

But, alternative practitioners often suffer from the same cultural

bias. Since it has been promoted on this list, I'll use the example

of 's web site which includes articles from the naturopath

Wong. condemns estrogen, claiming " estrogen dominance

is a problem today for both sexes and all ages " while promoting

testosterone cream in a different article for penis enlargement. Funny

.... if estrogen is so hazardous to our health, why do women live

longer than men on average? I believe it's just another case of

blatant misogyny, just like the doctors around the turn of the 20th

century who promoted clitoridectomy or hysterectomy to cure the

irrational emotionality of women. After all, " hysterectomy " was named

after " hysteria, " the intense emotions that were to be removed along

with the ovaries. Like these earlier cases, Wong argues that estrogen

" making you fat, increasing body fat mostly from the waist down while

decreasing lean muscle mass " (i.e. the female form is inferior to the

male),

" creating depression and PMS style mood swings all the time " (i.e.

another return to the concept of hysteria -- or that women are not as

rational as men) and " causing sexual dysfunction " (i.e. the " assumed "

stronger male libido is inferior ... a bias supported by his other

article on increasing sex drive and penis length in men).

Sorry to get on a soap box here. It comes from years of doctoral

studies in sociology. However, I think it highlights that we need to

take a critical look at all healthcare claims, regardless of whether

they come from a medical doctor or a alternative health care provider.

Leesh

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:03:23 -0000, charchar1974 <charchar1974@...> wrote:

> I understand what you are saying. I am a doula and childbirth

> educator and I have learned that just about every standard practice

> that is performed on the pregnant and laboring woman by a

> conventional dr is exactly that -a standard that they learned in

> school that has no research to back it up. In fact there are

> numerous studies out there saying we interfere in the birthing

> process too much and are putting women in danger (our overly high c-

> section rates are one example). And the drs just refuse to practice

> evidence based medicine and I don't understand why? It's like they

> are blind to anything except what they learned in residency. It is

> very frustrating. I tend to think conventional medicine has it's

> place -I just wish there were more drs that had a more balanced point

> of view. As for me -I am trying some acid reduction pills which I

> know goes against everything in the way of natural medicine. However

> it is working. My stomach has been MUCH better and so have my bowel

> movements. I don't think it will be the entire answer for me. I

> still need to revamp my diet. I have cut back on the sugars and

> carbs but not cut them out completely yet. And I'm sure I've got an

> overgrowth of yeast in my system but I'm trying to take it one day at

> a time. I am too frightened yet to do the liver cleanse. I bought

> s Moritz' book and have read it. Some of it makes sense to me

> and other parts of it seem a bit extreme. In otherwords I don't buy

> it entirely but I guess I'll never know until I try it. However the

> idea of downing so much apple juice and olive oil makes me want to

> vomit just thinking about it so I'm just so leery. I may just try the

> diet first and then adding lots of probiotics. If that doesn't help

> then maybe some Primal Defense (even though I've heard killing the

> candida is not the answer). But I think it just sounds less harsh

> then the cleanse. If that doesn't work then I'm going to try

> colonics although I've got a friend who scared me about those too.

> I'm a wimp I guess! Charisse

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/24/04 12:07:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

charchar1974@... writes:

> I read online that some people think the stones you pass from a liver

> cleanse are really just the apple juice and olive oil forming a sort

> of soap in your stomach.

I read the response, which says: composition of cholesterol and bile salts,

etc

Still, one would have to wonder why these liver stones are never seen by

trauma surgeons, e.g. The " cleanse " might very well remove some harmful

substances

(as might a " cleanse " by IP6 chelation to remove excess iron), but it would

have to be answered if the stones were there before the " cleanse " , and where

they were before they left the body.

[Guest guest]

well, thanks for such a reply, . Different strokes, I suppose because

I actually enjoy looking through Medline.

So I just looked but find that the *phrase* of " liver stones " does not

appear. BUT, I do quickly come up with an article, on complications in liver

transplants, which does mention that stones in the liver do exist:

Abdom Imaging. 2004 Mar-Apr;29(2):189-202.

Complications of orthotopic liver transplantation: imaging findings.

Boraschi P, Donati F.

PMID: 15290945

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed &

dopt=Abstract & list_uids=15290945

http://tinyurl.com/4ag4a

" These complications mainly include biliary strictures, stones, and

leakage... " etc.

So, such a thing exists; but at this point it's not known what the size or

composition is, or how they relate to the stones that come out from a " liver

cleanse " .

Anyways, looking some more turns up the phrase " intrahepatic lithiasis " , with

intrahepatic = in the liver, and lithiasis = the condition from forming

stones. That leads to an interesting page, partly in Thai and partly in

English:

http://www.md.chula.ac.th/surgery/collective/pdf/20040708.pdf

You can partly make out what the page says.

On a page 1 is a figure mentioning that the cholesterol type of liver stone

is very similar in composition to gall bladder cholesterol stones.

It even looks like they mention worms as a possible contributing cause.

Removal seems to be done with surgery, inserting tubes, or sometimes blasting

the stones with sound waves (as with kidney stones).

The references are mostly oriental (something with diet?). But not this one:

Surg Today. 2000;30(4):319-22.

Intrahepatic lithiasis: a Western experience.

di Carlo I, Sauvanet A, Belghiti J.

PMID: 10795862

http://tinyurl.com/6yry9

Notice this: " Intrahepatic lithiasis (IHL) is a very rare disease in

Europe... " .

(btw, resection = removal)

So, that all surprises me. They very obviously do exist. But there is that

" very rare " aspect in the west (at least in Europe).

Also, the seeming prevalence in the orient. In the end, is the liver flush

dealing with liver or gall bladder stones?

Btw, I'd say along with you that some things are snake oil - but not

automatically everything

P.S. there are no matches for:

Intrahepatic lithiasis epsom

Intrahepatic lithiasis olive

Intrahepatic lithiasis dissolve

Intrahepatic lithiasis soften

Intrahepatic lithiasis expel

Intrahepatic lithiasis excrete

Can you suggest any others to try?

In a message dated 9/27/04 10:58:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

johngrellner@... writes:

> This is an important question. I have seen medline references to

> surgical procedures to remove stones from the liver, rather than the

> gallbladder. I don't have the constitution or patience to search in

> medline for them, but you might take a look. If there are surgical

> procedures to remove the stones from the liver, then some docs must

> obviously believe they exist.

>

> One of my pet theories is that the stones don't exist as stones in

> the liver, but rather as very small particles that form clumps only

> when the bile ducts or small intestine after the flush. If you look

> closely at the stones, they appear composed of waxy sand. In the

> form of small particles, they would go unnoticed in the liver. This

> is consistent with Chinese medicine which has a specific diagnosis

> for " sand " in the gallbladder with liver congestion. You obviously

> have a scientific background and apparently an open mind. I'm sure

> many here would be grateful for your analysis of the issue. I for

> one still am curious how the flush works, but know that it does based

> on my own repeated experience.

>

> Finally, I realize the term " snake oil " doesn't appear in the pdr,

> and probably is silly, but nonetheless, find it appropriately hits

> the target in this case. I've learned to rely on my experience and

> common sense on that issue, as unscientific as it might be. But,

> that certainly doesn't mean I don't appreciate someone, from a

> scientific standpoint, calling into question the " scientific " claims

> constantly batted around here in support of the old oil… certainly

> makes for interesting reading. thanks.

>

> g

>

>

>

>

>

> >>I read online that some people think the stones you pass from a >

> >Still, one would have to wonder why these liver stones are never

> seen by

> >trauma surgeons, e.g. The " cleanse " might very well remove some

> harmful substances

> >(as might a " cleanse " by IP6 chelation to remove excess iron), but

> it would

> >have to be answered if the stones were there before the " cleanse " ,

> and where

> >they were before they left the body.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

This is an important question. I have seen medline references to

surgical procedures to remove stones from the liver, rather than the

gallbladder. I don't have the constitution or patience to search in

medline for them, but you might take a look. If there are surgical

procedures to remove the stones from the liver, then some docs must

obviously believe they exist.

One of my pet theories is that the stones don't exist as stones in

the liver, but rather as very small particles that form clumps only

when the bile ducts or small intestine after the flush. If you look

closely at the stones, they appear composed of waxy sand. In the

form of small particles, they would go unnoticed in the liver. This

is consistent with Chinese medicine which has a specific diagnosis

for " sand " in the gallbladder with liver congestion. You obviously

have a scientific background and apparently an open mind. I'm sure

many here would be grateful for your analysis of the issue. I for

one still am curious how the flush works, but know that it does based

on my own repeated experience.

Finally, I realize the term " snake oil " doesn't appear in the pdr,

and probably is silly, but nonetheless, find it appropriately hits

the target in this case. I've learned to rely on my experience and

common sense on that issue, as unscientific as it might be. But,

that certainly doesn't mean I don't appreciate someone, from a

scientific standpoint, calling into question the " scientific " claims

constantly batted around here in support of the old oil… certainly

makes for interesting reading. thanks.

g

> > I read online that some people think the stones you pass from a >

> Still, one would have to wonder why these liver stones are never

seen by

> trauma surgeons, e.g. The " cleanse " might very well remove some

harmful substances

> (as might a " cleanse " by IP6 chelation to remove excess iron), but

it would

> have to be answered if the stones were there before the " cleanse " ,

and where

> they were before they left the body.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Jerr-

that was a great post, and pretty much exhausts my mainstream medical

knowlege. What I find most interesting is that modern modicine finds

the existence of the stones rare. From the holistic standpoint, I

believe them to be very very common. They mystery is why the

difference in opinion? If you could solve that, you would have done

everyone a great service. It sounds like an area that researchers

might try and explore since there apparently is so little info out there.

Thanks again for the obvious large amount of time you spent

considering this.

g

> well, thanks for such a reply, . Different strokes, I suppose

because

> I actually enjoy looking through Medline.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Jerr-

as a follow up, i post a message that was posted in the liver flush

forum at www.curezone.com, you may find it interesting: ( you can

find the original here: http://www.curezone.com/forums/m.asp?f=447 & i=8391)

I just got my lipid panel back - I am in shock. I'm also going to post

this in the neglected Cholesterol and Triglyceride support forum/

As background, my 5/24/04 lipid panel had my total cholesterol at 253

and my triglyceride level at 1285. For a guy who just turned 36, this

obviously sucks. This was while I was on medication too; I've taken

Lipitor, Tricor, Gemfibrizol, Niaspan, etc. and watched my

trigylceride levels get progressively worse.

I continued to take Tricor with no change in life style through late

June, when I decided to do my first liver flush. The week prior to the

flush, I stopped taking the triglyceride medication as part of the

preparation. After the flush, I decided not to take it anymore. My

weight started to normalize, and I modified my diet to encourage

healthy and regular bile flow.

A non-fasting blood test for liver and pancreatic function in August

had shown my triglyceride level had dropped to 900. I thought this was

great, but was not firmly convinced that I was on the right track

because my TG's have bounced all over the place.

I went for a blood test on 9/23/04, and just got the results back. My

triglycerides are down to 433, and my total cholesterol is now 179.

Just to recap, using my flush on 6/25/04 as the mile stone, my weight

dropped about 17 pounds, my triglycerides dropped 852 points, and my

total cholesterol dropped 74 points all in the space of about 3

months. This was from 1 flush, modest dietary changes and from

following some of the great advice in this forum. I now entirely

confident that the liver flush works, and that my triglycerides will

be completely normalized by the end of this year. THANKS EVERYONE!!!

Rotgut

PS: My doctor told me I had a genetic disorder and that medication was

the only way I'd bring my TG's down. Even the doctor that got my

latest test results back saw fit to make fun of the liver flush

concept, and said I should take medication to bring them down to

normal levels. MORONS!!! These guys are purportedly good doctors too.

-

>

>

>

> > well, thanks for such a reply, . Different strokes, I suppose

> because

> > I actually enjoy looking through Medline.

> >

> >