anth and the flush



In article <[email protected]>,
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:

> The usual from someone who swears by the scientific
> method. I will know. The point is you won't and you will
> still be parroting assumptions that is doesn't work. I
> will find out.

No, the point is that your methodology will not allow you to
"find out," nor is a sample size of one likely to give a
definitive answer.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do
|you inconvenience me with questions?"
 
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 01:17:54 -0000, "Anth" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I can repeat the experiment many times. If I don't get
>anything coming out then the argument that it is a chemical
>reaction is refuted in my case.

Yes, it is refuted in YOUR case. That is a case sample of
1. This really proves nothing except that it does not do
this in ALL cases. Maybe it causes a chemical reaction in
most people creating the illusion that they have stones
when they really don't. Unless you repeat the experiment
with a number of people you are just speculating and not
really proving it.

>If stones do come out, each time, then that gives credence
>to the fact that it is a chemical reaction, in which case I
>can get them analysed in a lab to see what they are.

This is true. YOu can get whatever comes out to be analyzed.

If stones come out each time then it could still mean you
have stones and lots of them. Although personally I think
it is all bunk especially if "stones" of significant size
come out. The duct is not big or distensible enough to
allow this to happen without serious consequences like
severe pain or rupture.

Aloha,

Rich

-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance
 
I can repeat the experiment many times. If I don't get
anything coming out then the argument that it is a chemical
reaction is refuted in my case. If stones do come out, each
time, then that gives credence to the fact that it is a
chemical reaction, in which case I can get them analysed in
a lab to see what they are. Access to a scanner would be the
best bet, which is a luxury that I don't have. Anth

"Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:eek:rac-
[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The usual from someone who swears by the scientific
> > method. I will know. The point is you won't and you will
> > still be parroting assumptions that
is
> > doesn't work. I will find out.
>
> No, the point is that your methodology will not allow you
> to "find out," nor is a sample size of one likely to give
> a definitive answer.
>
> --
> Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
> |
> |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do
> |you inconvenience me with questions?"
 
On a personal basis I prove it. Anth

<Rich.@.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 01:17:54 -0000, "Anth"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I can repeat the experiment many times. If I don't get
> >anything coming out then the argument that it is a
chemical
> >reaction is refuted in my case.
>
> Yes, it is refuted in YOUR case. That is a case sample of
> 1. This really proves nothing except that it does not do
> this in ALL cases. Maybe it causes a chemical reaction in
> most people creating the illusion that they have stones
> when they really don't. Unless you repeat the experiment
> with a number of people you are just speculating and not
> really proving it.
>
>
>
> >If stones do come out, each time, then that gives
> >credence to the fact
that
> >it is a chemical reaction, in which case I can get them
> >analysed in a lab
to
> >see what they are.
>
> This is true. YOu can get whatever comes out to be
> analyzed.
>
> If stones come out each time then it could still mean you
> have stones and lots of them. Although personally I think
> it is all bunk especially if "stones" of significant size
> come out. The duct is not big or distensible enough to
> allow this to happen without serious consequences like
> severe pain or rupture.
>
> Aloha,
>
> Rich
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> The best defense to logic is ignorance
 
I had my gallbladder Ultrasounded for stones and found it
was clear after 5-6 flushes. I never had it scanned before
the flushes.

My wife had her gallbladder diagnosed full and after 5-6
flushes had it out after a few severe attacks months
later. Her gallbladder was rock hard with scar tissue.
Stones were not discussed at that point. She flushed many
very large stones during her flushes. All medics agreed
that once a gallbladder becomes defective it will not stop
filling with stones.

Do it. It cleans your liver and feels great.
Gallbladder? Maybe.

"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Did they scan the gall bladder and find stones then
> no/reduced stones
after
> the flush? Did you get the stones sent off to a lab?
> Cheers Anth
>
> "Gymmy Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > We had absolutely no problem with this flush. It worked
> > and caused no discomfort except the hunger for the day.
> > A couple bouts of diarrhea in
> the
> > late morning and it was basically over except a good
> > healthful feeling
or
> > cleanliness.
> >
> > Many stones came out each time but my wife's gallbladdar
> > was so hard
they
> > thought she had cancer. Biopsy on it proved hardened
> > with scar tissue
from
> > so much abuse to it. The stones destroyed it. The stones
> > IMO are from
the
> > liver mostly and this is excellent for your health to
> > cleanse your liver anyway.
> >
> > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > We'll see. Anth
> > >
> > > "Gymmy Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:5pydnfIONJRWRtrdRVn-
> > > [email protected]...
> > > > Most of stones for us came out after resuming normal
> > > > eating again.
> > Don't
> > > > wory, you can't miss them because of their turquoise
> > > > colour.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > (and on top of that I added 8floz of celery juice
> > > > > 20:42) Anth
> > > > >
> > > > > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > > > > message news:[email protected]
> > > > > dram.net...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
 
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The usual from someone who swears by the scientific
> method. I will know. The point is you won't and you will
> still be parroting assumptions that is doesn't work. I
> will find out. Anth
======================
How will you know Anth? I can't picture a normal rational
person picking through their purged bowel contents
(diarrhea) in a toilet bowl looking for tiny stones or a
sandlike substance. If you do or don't find them how will
you know if you removed them or not? Or removed all of them?
This also goes for these "parasites" no one seems to know
the names of.

In any case please wear disposable gloves if you're going to
spend time handling your feces.

Kim
 
Cool I will bear that in mind thanks! Anth

"Gymmy Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:YrOdnZqMBpIaF9fdRVn-
[email protected]...
> I had my gallbladder Ultrasounded for stones and found it
> was clear after 5-6 flushes. I never had it scanned before
> the flushes.
>
> My wife had her gallbladder diagnosed full and after 5-6
> flushes had it
out
> after a few severe attacks months later. Her gallbladder
> was rock hard
with
> scar tissue. Stones were not discussed at that point. She
> flushed many
very
> large stones during her flushes. All medics agreed that
> once a gallbladder becomes defective it will not stop
> filling with stones.
>
> Do it. It cleans your liver and feels great.
> Gallbladder? Maybe.
>
>
> "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Did they scan the gall bladder and find stones then
> > no/reduced stones
> after
> > the flush? Did you get the stones sent off to a lab?
> > Cheers Anth
> >
> > "Gymmy Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > We had absolutely no problem with this flush. It
> > > worked and caused no discomfort except the hunger for
> > > the day. A couple bouts of diarrhea
in
> > the
> > > late morning and it was basically over except a good
> > > healthful feeling
> or
> > > cleanliness.
> > >
> > > Many stones came out each time but my wife's
> > > gallbladdar was so hard
> they
> > > thought she had cancer. Biopsy on it proved hardened
> > > with scar tissue
> from
> > > so much abuse to it. The stones destroyed it. The
> > > stones IMO are from
> the
> > > liver mostly and this is excellent for your health to
> > > cleanse your
liver
> > > anyway.
> > >
> > > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > We'll see. Anth
> > > >
> > > > "Gymmy Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:5pydnfIONJRWRtrdRVn-
> > > > [email protected]...
> > > > > Most of stones for us came out after resuming
> > > > > normal eating
again.
> > > Don't
> > > > > wory, you can't miss them because of their
> > > > > turquoise colour.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > > > > message news:[email protected]
> > > > > dram.net...
> > > > > > (and on top of that I added 8floz of celery
> > > > > > juice 20:42) Anth
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > > > > > message news:[email protected]
> > > > > > ildram.net...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
 
Well apparently according to alt med folklore it comes out
with your pee. To my knowledge I don't have any stones,
there was arguments raised on here that the cleanse is
nothing more than a chemical reaction in the body. I want to
find out. Anth

"Kim" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:-vidnbG_R8xDX9fdRVn-
[email protected]...
>
> "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > The usual from someone who swears by the scientific
> > method. I will know. The point is you won't and you will
> > still be parroting assumptions that
is
> > doesn't work. I will find out. Anth
> ======================
> How will you know Anth? I can't picture a normal rational
> person picking through their purged bowel contents
> (diarrhea) in a toilet bowl looking
for
> tiny stones or a sandlike substance. If you do or don't
> find them how
will
> you know if you removed them or not? Or removed all of
> them? This also goes for these "parasites" no one seems to
> know the names of.
>
> In any case please wear disposable gloves if you're going
> to spend time handling your feces.
>
> Kim
 
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 06:47:19 -0000, "Anth" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Well apparently according to alt med folklore it comes out
>with your pee.

Why do you want to take the chance that whatever you take is
going to result in your peeing out some chemical reaction
from what you ingest?? Is your judgement always this
impaired??

>To my knowledge I don't have any stones, there was
>arguments raised on here that the cleanse is nothing more
>than a chemical reaction in the body. I want to find out.

Let's see. You don't think you have any stones. The only
reason you are doing this cleanse is to see if it is more
than just a chemical reaction? Lord have mercy.

Aloha,

Rich

>Anth
>
>"Kim" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:-vidnbG_R8xDX9fdRVn-
>[email protected]...
>>
>> "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > The usual from someone who swears by the scientific
>> > method. I will know. The point is you won't and you
>> > will still be parroting assumptions that
>is
>> > doesn't work. I will find out. Anth
>> ======================
>> How will you know Anth? I can't picture a normal rational
>> person picking through their purged bowel contents
>> (diarrhea) in a toilet bowl looking
>for
>> tiny stones or a sandlike substance. If you do or don't
>> find them how
>will
>> you know if you removed them or not? Or removed all of
>> them? This also goes for these "parasites" no one seems
>> to know the names of.
>>
>> In any case please wear disposable gloves if you're going
>> to spend time handling your feces.
>>
>> Kim
>>
>>
>

-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance
 
In article <[email protected]>, Rich.@. wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 06:47:19 -0000, "Anth"
> <[email protected]> wrote:

> >To my knowledge I don't have any stones, there was
> >arguments raised on here that the cleanse is nothing more
> >than a chemical reaction in the body. I want to find out.
>
> Let's see. You don't think you have any stones. The only
> reason you are doing this cleanse is to see if it is more
> than just a chemical reaction? Lord have mercy.

Indeed. And Anth had the gall (pun intended) to take me to
task for supposedly not understanding statistics and the
scientific method. As you say, Lord have mercy....

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do
|you inconvenience me with questions?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back