Monday, 19 May 2014

Introduction

 
This blog is about the inadequacy of ultrasound and blood tests for diagnosing liver stones and how this is related to misdiagnosis, as well as my personal experience of chronic mercury toxicity and it's connection to Recurrent Pyogenic Cholangitis (RPC) or chronic Liver Stone Disease. 

This blog is not just about me and RPC. It actually concerns everyone, since liver stones are far more common than most realize and the technologies used to diagnose them are inadequate and border on fraudulent.

For those who say very large (sometimes huge) and numerous liver stones do not exist or cannot pass through the ducts of the liver etc., then you need to read, "Intrahepatic Stones : A Clinical Study", found at the link in the menu above. The opposite of what you say is true. You also need to read the refutation of the article by Peter Moran, "The Truth about Gallbladder and Liver Flushes", wherein he thinks he is disproving the stones to be real, when in fact, he proves they are real. It is found further down this page under "The Truth about the Hulda Clark Liver Flush". You could read the rest of the page, as well, since you are only bleeting the lies of the medical mafia, and are quite ignorant about the entire topic.

Make no mistake, this is no joke. There are thousands of people doing the liver cleanse or flush (both words are talking about the same thing). It is not just me. Some of us have undiagnosed Recurrent Pygenic Cholangitis (RPC), or Liver Stone Disease, but most do not. They get relief of their symptoms and move on. For the rest of us with recurrency of stones, the cleanse is literally a life or death non surgical technique for removing them. The stones are not seen by ultrasound or CT scans  (for that matter), because liver stones are rarely calcified or crystallized. Ultrasound can only see calcified stones, which are common in gallstones. But not in liver stones.

The following images are pictures of hard copies of a flyer (Images 1a and 1b) distributed locally. They are more or less self explanatory. This concerns all of you.

Image 1a



Image 1b



Image 2



Images 3 - 6 inclusive, discuss the ineffectiveness of ultrasound and blood tests in diagnosing liver stones. Please be aware that both of these technologies need to indicate liver stone probability, at the same time, if liver stones are to be diagnosed at all. That is usually how Doctors do things. In other words, if one indicates nothing, then it is very, very unlikely any further testing will be done. ie. ERCP - which is a very accurate test, but rarely done because it costs much more to do and there are some risks involved.



Image 4




Image 6





Image 7

Teeth grinding is a decades long problem. Up until the age of 41, the grinding occurred on mercury fillings. The mercury testimony is now found at the link in the menu at the top. Suffice to say that the underlying cause of RPC is heavy metals. Especially mercury. At least in my situation. The RPC I have been enduring, is vastly improved in the last 2 years, since using Humifulvate as a chelating agent. It has been amazing. However, I do still regularly produce about  5 - 10% of what I used to. The average stone size is also greatly reduced as well. The problem is, that  5 - 10% occurs every 2 - 3 weeks. So it is still too much. Compared to hundreds every 2 -3 weeks however,  I'll take it. And as long as I am alive,  I  intend to reduce those numbers down to zero. I am that confident in what I am doing now. Although it took a long, long time to get here. Better late than never, as they say. 

Swollen glands have been a problem for decades, as well. I never see anybody with such glands. Doctors just ignore the issue, like everything else I present to them. The truth is, they ignore them, because they don't know what to do. 






Please bear in mind, thousands of people have done the Hulda Clark liver flush, with some posting videos and images online. Liver stones are not rare, as claimed by mainstream medicine. The problem is they are not seen or detected adequately. This in turn, leaves people suffering with any number of chronic illnesses due to the toxic buildup caused by congested livers. Does the reader believe that a society with dramatic increases in chronic sickness and disease of all types, such as we see today........ is a society with healthy livers?  Does this makes sense to you?

The following is a detailed analysis of one of the main articles that purports to debunk the stones removed by the flush or cleanse (both words mean the same thing and are interchangeable, as far as I am concerned.). The images have been posted before, but need to be posted here as well.



The Truth Concerning the Hulda Clark Liver Flush

by Michael Handels


Before we get into the text, here is a picture found in the study that will be referenced numerous times on this page. The study can be found in the menu at the top of the page.

The liver is capable of holding a very large number of very large stones. Few people are aware of this.

The following 2 images are taken from "Intrahepatic Stones: A Clinical Study".

Fig. 5. Reconstruction  (left image) of the blockage of the liver hilum and intrahepatic ducts by stones (40 gm) (right image) in patient T.P.S.. The image on the right of the drawing, are of actual stones removed from this patients' liver.



Fig. 6. Stones removed from left hepatic duct and its' main branches after left hemihepatectomy in patient T.S. S.


The following concerns an article, The Truth about Gallbladder and Liver "Flushes", by Peter Moran, MB, BS, BSc(Med), FRACS, FRCS(Eng), that has been widely circulated and cited on the internet as definitive proof that the stones removed by the  Hulda Clark liver flush are not real stones.

  
My response will use, "Intrahepatic Stones : A Clinical Study",  by Chung-Chieh Wen, M.D. and Hsin-Chao Lee, M.D. of the National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan, on 150 patients, between the years 1957 and 1969. 


Wherever the article in question appears on this page, it is italicized. The pertinent information will then be re-posted, still italicized. This is done to emphasize certain statements - which I will then comment on, using the Clinical Study.


It is ironic that Mr. Moran proves the very thing he is trying to disprove. He does this by his description of the stones resulting from the liver flush, which is exactly what liver stones look and are like, as clearly described by "Intrahepatic Stones : A Clinical Study"



A simple diagram is posted below to assist the reader in understanding some of the basic anatomy mentioned on this page.



Digestive Organ  Locations
The liver is a very large organ and can hold hundreds of stones, depending on the size. 


First, the differences between Liver Stones and Gall stones, as described by Intrahepatic Stones: A Clinical Study.


1.

Page 166 states, "The location, consistency, number, and behavior of such stones (speaking of intrahepatic or liver stones), were found to be entirely different from choledocholithiasis (gallstones in the common bile duct) of bladder origin."

Choledocholithiasis is when a gallstone is found in the common bile duct.  The term choledocholithiasis is only used when the study uses the term.

For the readers benefit, the technical term for gallstones is cholelithiasis. Liver stones are called intrahepatic stones (IHS).


2.

Page 174 states," ......we fully support and agree with the concept that there are TWO  types of common duct stones; one of gall bladder origin and the other of interhepatic biliary duct origin"


3.

Page 175 states, "The chemical composition of intrahepatic stones is entirely different from that of choledocholithiasis (gall stones in the common bile duct). The intrahepatic stone consists chiefly of bilirubinates, and the stone of gall bladder origin contains mainly cholesterol and often high calcium.     The low calcium content of intrahepatic stones indicates its non association with the gall bladder, which has been found to be the main contributor of calcium to the stone (speaking of gallstones - my comment)".

Please do not be confused here. The authors of the study are saying that one of the main differences between liver stones and gallstones is calcium content.


4.

Page 176 states, "Third, the stones differ in composition, form, color, consistency, and location. The intrahepatic location favors infection and stricture formation in the ducts, whereas the gall bladder is usually NOT involved, and it is not commonly palpable during an acute attack."

The authors of the study are comparing liver stones to gallstones and are describing what the difference is.

We shall now begin the discussion of the article in question.


The Truth about Gallbladder and Liver "Flushes"
by Peter Moran, MB, BS, BSc(Med), FRACS, FRCS(Eng)



"Gallbladder and liver "flushes" are widely advocated as a way of treating gallstones and helping with medical conditions ranging from allergies to cancer [1-4]. In the usual “flush,” half a cup or more of a vegetable oil is consumed together with citrus juice and Epsom salts (magnesium sulphate), usually after a brief fast. Many green, brown, yellow or black blobs of various sizes may later appear in the bowel movements. Some bear a slight resemblance to gallstones, but they are not stones.    

They are merely bile-stained "soaps" produced by partial saponification (soap formation) of the oil. A recent demonstration found that mixing equal volumes of oleic acid (the major component of olive oil) and lemon juice produced several semi-solid white balls after a small volume of potassium hydroxide solution was added. After air-drying at room temperature, these balls became quite solid and hard. When formed in the intestine, these objects absorb bile and become green [5]. It has also been shown that red dye will appear in the interior of the “stones” if consumed with the oil [1]."





Mr. Morans' statement :

"Many green, brown, yellow or black blobs of various sizes may later appear in the bowel movements."


The Study findings :

Page 169 of the study states, "The stones of intrahepatic origin were mostly made up of bile pigments. The  color was black, green, brown or yellow. Although they could be multichromatic...."


My comments :

Mr. Moran confirms that the liver flush stones he refers to are the same colors as those found in the study. While he thought he was disproving the stones, he was in fact proving them to be real stones.



Mr. Morans' statement :

"Some bear a slight resemblance to gallstones, but they are not stones."


My Comments :

True, they are not gallstones. They are Intrahepatic (or liver) stones. But stones nonetheless. Just not the kind of stones he wants them to be. 





Mr. Morans' statement :

"They are merely bile-stained "soaps" produced by partial saponification (soap formation) of the oil. A recent demonstration found that mixing equal volumes of oleic acid (the major component of olive oil) and lemon juice produced several semi-solid white balls after a small volume of       potassium hydroxide solution was added.      After air-drying at room temperature, these balls became quite solid and hard."


My comments :

The first thing that needs to be addressed, is the addition of potassium hydroxide to a mixture of oleic acid and lemon juice, in their "experiment", followed by "air drying", to make the fake, lab created stones hard like gall stones. No where in the flush is potassium hydroxide used............ Straight up.........This kind of "science" is fraud science. It is adding potassium hydroxide which is not present in the flush. This is done to make the stones appear like gallstones, when the truth is, they should not appear like gallstones in the first place, since liver stones and gallstones are not the same type of stones.


The following are 2 proofs, each one by themselves, able to prove the soapification claim to be false.

FIRST

Soapification  cannot be true, due to the fact the flush does not need grapefruit or lemon juice at all, in order to successfully pull stones out of the liver and/or gall bladder.


Therefore, it is impossible for soapification to be causing the stones as claimed by the critics.

SECOND

Stones do not always appear with a flush.
If the flush ingredients were creating the stones through soapification, then stones should appear in similar numbers, each time it is done. The truth is, the flush does not always remove stones. There may be none. There are various reasons for this, which are explained on the page with the liver flush instructions.

The soapification explanation is a lie. A deliberate attempt to deceive the public. It is about time the lie was put to rest, once and for all.  And that is what has just been done.

 

"The most obvious evidence is that the alleged “stones” float on the toilet water [2,3,6], as might be expected of a largely oil-based substance. Gallstones sink. Patients with medically diagnosed gallstones may be able to confirm this for themselves by looking at their own ultrasound scans.The stones, if free to move, will settle at the lowest part of the gallbladder, even though bile is much denser than water. The picture to the right shows a cross-section of the gallbladder (the oblong black area) with three moderately large stones in the lowermost area."





Mr. Morans' statement :

"The most obvious evidence is that the alleged “stones” float on the toilet water [2,3,6], as might be expected of a largely oil-based substance. Gallstones sink."


The Study findings : 3 findings in this instance....

Page 169 states, " The amorphous (meaning not crystalline - my comment) precipitates felt sticky and greasy (oily - my comment), like mud, and would smear on the inner surface of the biliary ducts."

Page 175 states, "The chemical composition of intrahepatic stones is entirely different from that of choledocholithiasis (gall stones). The intrahepatic stone consists chiefly of bilirubinates, and the stone of gall bladder origen contains mainly cholesterol and often HIGH CALCIUM. The LOW CALCIUM content of intrahepatic stones indicates its non association with the gall bladder, which has been found to be the main contributor of calcium to the stone."


 Page 176 states, "Third, the stones differ in composition, form, color, consistency, and location. The intrahepatic location favors infection and stricture formation in the ducts, whereas the gall bladder is usually NOT involved, and it is not commonly palpable during an acute attack."


My comments :
Liver stones do not, and should not sink in water because of their relatively low density and light weight (low or no calcium) as well as oily nature.  Gallstones should sink because they are generally hard and dense, due to calcification and compact nature, making them heavier than water. The 2 types of stones have significant difference in their chemical and physical properties. 






Mr Morans' statement :

"Supporters of the flushes claim that although some kinds of stones sink in water, cholesterol stones, being composed of lighter material, will float [2,3].That's not true. Cholesterol stones can display some buoyancy while in the gallbladder, but only by floating between the older, concentrated bile lying in the lowest part of the gallbladder and the fresher, less concentrated bile above. Radiologists can use this “layering” effect to determine whether the stones are likely to be mainly cholesterol and thus suitable for gallstone dissolution using bile salts such as ursodeoxycholic acid. The same stones will sink in water and also in the slightly denser formol-saline preservative commonly used in operating rooms when saving the stones for the patient or for laboratory analysis. This is why people accustomed to handling real gallstones simply know that they always sink. Other clues about the true nature of the "stones" include:"


Study findings :

Page 175 states, "The chemical composition of intrahepatic stones is entirely different from that of choledocholithiasis (gall stones in the common bile duct). The intrahepatic stone consists chiefly of bilirubinates, and the stone of gall bladder origin contains mainly cholesterol and often high calcium.     The low calcium content of intrahepatic stones indicates its non association with the gall bladder, which has been found to be the main contributor of calcium to the stone."


My comment :

The author is talking about cholesterol gallstones which DO have some calcification to them, causing them to sink. Since calcification of stones is primarily done in the gall  bladder, and the stones contained in the gall bladder have been present for years, often decades, does anyone think they are not a very dense cholesterol/calcium mix, heavier than water? Of course not. Mr. Moran even states elsewhere that they are hard to cut with a knife. Now that is hard, heavy and dense!!  Whether cholesterol or bilirubinate liver stones, they do not sink because they are not calcified or dense, to the same extent as gallstones,  and they are very oily in nature. This is not difficult to understand.




The next section finds Mr. Morans' summation of the flush stones to be accurately describing liver stones -  something he was not intending to do.

The liver flush stones discussed by Mr. Moran throughout his article, have the same properties as the stones found in the study, thus showing they are the same and that the stones removed by the flush are real liver stones. 





"Other clues about the true nature of the "stones" include:"





Mr. Morans' statement :

"* They tend to dissolve into an oily smudge in time, or with heat [5]. Patients are advised to keep them in the freezer [1,2]. Gallstones are stable."


Study findings :

Page 169 states, " The amorphous (not crystalline - my comment) precipitates felt sticky and greasy  (oily - my comment), like mud, and would smear on the inner surface of the biliary ducts."


My comments :

Yes, liver stones DO tend to dissolve into an oily smudge (unless kept cold), which is confirmed by the Intrahepatic Stone Study.  





Mr. Morans' statement :
"* They have an irregular globular shape and in the many available photos [4] never display the sharply facetted appearance that gallstones often have when rubbing up against each other in an overcrowded gallbladder."


My comments :

Yes, this is true because the stones are liver stones and not gallstones. The reason for the irregular "globular" shape is because the stones are contained in the liver ducts which they move through, tending to various degrees,  to take the shape of the ducts since they are soft, pliable and not calcified. Another confirmation that the liver flush stones are real stones. 





Mr. Morans' statement :

"* They are usually described as soft [7] and waxy or “gelatinous” [8]. Real gallstones are often very hard and difficult to crack. Softer gallstones always have a fine, crumbly, dry texture."


My comments :

 Yes, this is true, because the stones are not gallstones. They are liver stones.




Mr. Morans' statement :

"* Gallstones are thus difficult to cut cleanly with a knife, unlike the “stones” shown at http://curezone.com/ig/i.asp?i=7072."


My comments :

Yes, this is true because the flush stones are not gallstones. They are soft because they are liver stones. 




 Mr. Morans' statement :


"* They may be bright green and possess a translucency never seen in gallstones".


Study findings :


Page 169 of the study states, "The stones of intrahepatic origin were mostly made up of bile pigments. The  color was black, green, brown or yellow. Even multichromatic...."


My comments :

Yes, this is true. they can be bright green, with translucency, even multichromatic because they are not gall stones. They are liver stones. The reader can see lots of pictures of stones on this blog,  And elsewhere on the internet.





Mr. Morans' statement :

" * They can be produced in amounts far beyond the capacity of either the gallbladder or the entire biliary system, as long as flushes are continued and regardless of whether the user still has a gallbladder. "


Study findings :

Page 169 states, ".....invariably the common duct was thickened, distended and dilated. In some instances, it reached the size of the small intestine. The main hepatic (liver) ducts were also dilated and often admitted an index finger......."

Page 170 states,".....the sphincter of Oddi was always loose and patulous. "

The Merrian-Webster medical definition of patulous is, "spread widely apart : wide open or distended".

 Page 176 states,"....we always found the sphincter of Oddi loose and patulous and could pass a large size dilator through the lower end of the common duct of our patients. Stock (another researcher) also mentioned that a bougie passed distally into the common bile duct slipped easily into the duodenum."

I don't know what a bougie is, but the implication is that it is large and  passed easily through the common duct, sphincter of Oddi (since it passed into the duodenum) and into the duodenum.


My comments :

Mr, Morans' statement is false.  The study referenced above indicates very clearly that numerous, large stones can reside within the liver, and that the biliary ducts, and Sphincter of Oddi  can be very large as well, in order to accommodate them.  It is easy to understand how the stones are able to pass when doing the liver flush.

 Lets take a look at a picture found on page 170 of the study, of the size and number of stones present in 2 patients.




Fig. 5 (top). Reconstruction  (left image) of the blockage of the liver hilum and intrahepatic ducts by stones (40 gm) (right image) in patient T.P.S..

Fig. 6 (bottom). Stones removed from left hepatic duct and its' main branches after left hemihepatectomy in patient T.S. S. 

Found on page 170 of  Intrahepatic Stones : A Clinical Study

 

Very large and very numerous, are they not?

That puts an end to the false statement by Mr. Moran that the liver (referred to as the "entire biliary system") cannot hold numerous large stones. It most certainly can and does!





Mr. Morans' statement : (this is an excerpt from his previous statement, but will be re-posted here)

"as long as flushes are continued and regardless of whether the user still has a gallbladder. "


My Comments :

Since we have proven the stones to be real liver stones, even with Mr. Morans help, and by logical extension, the liver flush being able to remove them ............ it should come as no surprise that a gall bladder is not necessary for doing this. It is the back pressure (as Hulda Clark correctly states in her books) of the bile within the liver that assists the stones to move from the liver ducts, down the common bile duct, through the Sphincter of Oddi and into the duodenum, or small intestine. All of these structures having ample room to allow for the stones to be present and  to pass.





Mr. Moran then proceeds to postulate whether "gallstones" can be expelled by the flush. As it has been proven, this a redundant argument. He is still focused on gallstones. Whether gallstones or liver stones, I can assure the reader the flush works for expelling both types of stones. The entirety of the text will be posted, even though it is not of importance. There is one paragraph, however, wherein Mr. Moran unwittingly assists in proving that the liver flush is able to do what its' proponents and myself claim it does.




"Could Gallstones Be Expelled?

It seems likely that gallstones might occasionally be expelled. Small stones are regularly expelled from the gallbladder. There is some risk that stones over about 5mm in diameter will lodge in the bile duct, but most pass on into the bowel and out of the body unnoticed. Gallblad ders may spontaneously empty themselves of small stones, but this is rare [9].

Also, the large oily meal would stimulate strong gallbladder contraction. This could help expel small gallstones or even, very rarely, a whole crop of small gallstones or sludge. Whether the whole ritual is needed is another matter. A meal of fried fish and chips, or the “whole fat milk and a Mars bar” sometimes used to stimulate gallbladder contraction during x-ray examinations might serve as well.

The magnesium sulphate (Epsom Salts) could have an added effect, as it also stimulates gallbladder contraction and relaxes the muscles controlling the release of bile into the intestines. However, it acts in the same way as would fat or oil, causing the release of cholecystokinin from the upper small intestine [10]. The availability of that hormone and the ability of the gallbladder to respond to it would be limiting factors. The chance of success is further diminished by the fact that patients with symptomatic gallstones often have impaired ability of the gallbladder to empty (a factor in gallstone formation), stones that are too big to pass, or a blocked gallbladder duct (the “non-functioning gallbladder” in contrast studies).


Moreover, it can be predicted that even if occasionally successful, most patients would go on to form more stones. After successful dissolution of gallstones with ursodeoxycholic acid, 30-50% of patients form new stones within five years [11]. Despite much research, no simple, safe, or dietary measure has been found to prevent gallstone formation. The traditional fat-free diet has shown no consistent benefit [12], possibly because an occasional fatty meal helps expel small stones or sludge. This may be why patients on prolonged intravenous feeding are prone to develop gallstones."
 





Now to take a closer look at the relevant portions of the above text.





Mr. Morans' statement :

"The magnesium sulphate (Epsom Salts) could have an added effect, as it also stimulates gallbladder contraction and relaxes the muscles controlling the release of bile into the intestines. However, it acts in the same way as would fat or oil, causing the release of cholecystokinin from the upper small intestine [10]."


My comments :

Mr. Moran is correct about epsom salts relaxing the muscles controlling the release of bile into the intestines. This is why epsom salts are so effective with the flush. It enables the stones from both the liver and gall bladder to enter the intestines because it allows bile to flow unrestricted. As the bile flows, stones go with it. The author mentions the release of "cholecystokinin". The following is an excerpt from Wikipedia concerning cholecystokinin, that is pertinent. It is found under the "Functions" section (second from the top of  page),  the last paragraph in that section. 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholecystokinin


"CCK also causes the increased production of hepatic bile, and stimulates the contraction of the gall bladder and the relaxation of the Sphincter of Oddi (Glisson's sphincter), resulting in the delivery of bile into the duodenal part of the small intestine."


My comments cont'd :

Mr. Moran has stated how epsom salts acts by releasing CCK hormone, enabling stones from the gall bladder and liver to pass into the intestines........ by contracting the gall bladder and relaxing the Sphincter of Oddi and  hepatic ducts.

He is in fact, confirming the effectiveness of epsom salts (magnesium sulfate) in creating favorable conditions for stones to pass from the liver and gallbladder. Once again, he helps to prove the liver flush is effective and the stones are real.







Mr. Morans' statement :

 "The availability of that hormone (CKK) and the ability of the gallbladder to respond to it would be limiting factors."

This could be true and would help to explain why some flushes are not successful. The"limiting factors (CKK)" need to he present not only to contract the gall bladder (for those type of stones)....... but the Sphincter of Oddi and related hepatic ducts must be relaxed for the liver stones to pass as well........... However, since we have conclusively proven the flush to be able to remove stones from the liver and gall bladder, and since thousands of people have been doing the liver flush successfully for 20 + years, unsuccessful flushes are not the norm, but the exception. 





Mr. Morans' statement :

"The chance of success is further diminished by the fact that patients with symptomatic gallstones often have impaired ability of the gallbladder to empty (a factor in gallstone formation), stones that are too big to pass, or a blocked gallbladder duct (the “non-functioning gallbladder” in contrast studies)."


My comments :

 Yes, these are all possibilities, but overall, not significant as to how effective the flush is for the vast majority of people who do them. Once again..........since we have conclusively proven the the stones from the flush are real liver stones, and since thousands of people have been doing the flush successfully for 20 + years, any unsuccessful ones are not the norm, but the exception. 

The bottom line with Mr. Morans explanation of the flush is that he is pointing out the possible (anything IS possible, so to speak)  reason it would not work, however, as he has proven himself throughout his dissertation...............  the stones are real..............and consequently, the flush is effective at removing them from the liver.
  



Mr. Morans' statement :

"Moreover, it can be predicted that even if occasionally successful, most patients would go on to form more stones."


My comment :

This statement and the entire paragraph it is contained in, is completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether the stones are real, or that the liver flush is effective. However, since he seems to be referring to the problem of recurrence of the stones.......this is a symptom of Recurrent Pyogenic Cholangitis, or Liver Stone Disease, as discussed in "Intrahepatic Stones : A Clinical Study". Most people who do the cleanse, once all the stones are removed from the liver, do not continue making them.





Mr. Moran then goes on to describe a liver flush using apple juice. I know nothing about this and will not comment on it.




Mr. Morans' statement :

"Liver Stones

"Flush" proponents claim that liver stones are common, and one has even stated that 99.95% of cancer patients have them [8]. However, stones within the small liver ducts are very rare, at least in Western communities, as might be expected because the bile produced by the liver is 5-10 times less concentrated than gallbladder bile. Small stones released by the gallbladder will occasionally drift into a liver duct. Otherwise stones mainly only develop in the liver ducts secondary to other serious biliary pathology such as strictures, choledochal cysts or bile duct cancers. Their rarity, even in patients known to be prone to stone formation is illustrated by a recent study on patients with gallstones but with no other biliary problems [7]. Only 3.5% of such patients were found to have stones in the bile ducts when imaging studies (cholangiography) were performed during their surgery. At least 95% of such stones were in the main bile duct, usually beyond the entrance of the gallbladder duct. Cholangiography can detect stones as small as 1-2 mm in the narrow liver ducts."


My comments :

Liver Stones are not rare, as evidenced by pictures and videos of peoples' successful flushes, posted on the internet. The only reason he can say they are rare is because the primary tool (a tragic fact) used to diagnose them is Ultrasound, which has been clearly shown on this blog, to be unable to see stones unless there is some calcification, which is rare in liver stones. It is only able to see dilated ducts. In short, Liver stones are considered rare because they are so poorly seen.

In addition, proof is provided on this blog, that standard liver blood tests were unable to diagnose a woman with severe liver pain for 5 years. This woman was eventually diagnosed using a different technology (ERCP - Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography), wherein she subsequently underwent surgery. It should be noted, that ERCP is not the primary or first technology for diagnosing liver stones...........ultrasound and blood test are the primary technologies.......... Blood tests failed and ultrasound failed to detect anything wrong for a woman with liver stone disease for 5 years.

Further, and by extension,.................since these primary use technologies fail to detect Liver Stone Disease.......................how much more ineffective would they be for detecting livers congested  by livers stones,........................ but not with the full blown disease................... yet manifesting other diseased states,........................... due to the toxic back up caused by a liver congested by the stones. The answer is utltrasound and blood tests are very ineffective. Do not believe the hype and fake data they publish. They are lying about ultrasound accuracy - see image 3 and 4 above and blood tests miss 22 - 40 %, see Image 5 and 6 above. Both technologies need to be indicating a possible liver stone issue, at the same time, in order for more detailed testing (ERCP) to occur. If one or the other indicates nothing, then nothing more will likely be done. It is a major reason why liver stones are overlooked in medical diagnosis. Please pay attention to this fact, as it is very important.

The study I have referenced several times thus far, puts it thus.......(page 166)....

"That there have been so few reports from America and Europe indicates that it is not rare but it escapes recognition by both clinician and pathologist".


So true, even today.





Mr. Morans' statement :

"Their rarity (speaking of liver stones - my comment), even in patients known to be prone to stone formation is illustrated by a recent study on patients with gallstones but with no other biliary problems [7]."


My comments :

The is due to the fact the two types of stones (liver and gall stone) are not necessarily connected, or troublesome,  when one or the other is problematic. In other words, just because a person has gallstone issues, does not mean there will be liver stone issues as well, and visa versa.

Referring to Intrahepatic Stones: A Clincal Study.........

Page 175 states, under Clinical Features, "In patients with intrahepatic stones the gall bladder is frequently uninvolved. Our figure, 9.3%" .   20 of Cooks 66 (33%) surgical patients (speaking of liver surgery and not gall bladder surgery) also had palpable gall bladders (palpable meaning relatively normal). "

Stating that liver stones are rare based on the non presence of them, when gallstones are an issue............... is a non issue............... It means nothing as far as rarity of liver stones................ The truth is, liver stones are not rare, due to the poor diagnostic methods commonly employed to detect them. The non rarity of  liver stones is also evident by the number of people actually removing them, using the Hulda Clark liver flush. In addition, Mr. Moran assists the discussion at hand, by consistently proving that the stones removed by the flush are real and by extension, quite common, thanks to his not understanding of the difference between gall stones and liver stones. A fact referred to ad nauseum, but necessary since that is what he is actually doing.



"Are the Flushes Safe?

In patients with reasonable health and no complicating factors, flushes are generally safe. Consuming fatty foods may carry a comparable risk of stones getting stuck in the wrong place and provoking biliary colic or complications such as acute pancreatitis. Similar concerns once applied to gallstone dissolution using ursodeoxycholic acid and to the shattering of gallstones with shock wave lithotripsy, but in practice complications are fewer than expected. I cannot recall yet seeing any reports of harm from a gallbladder/liver flush.

The greatest risk may apply to those who postpone surgery despite being at risk of major complications i.e. those with regular symptoms or who have recovered from potentially lethal complications such as acute pancreatitis or acute cholangitis (bile duct infection).

One woman who complained that her gallstones were unchanged on ultrasound despite three apparently fruitful flushes was advised that to up to 25 flushes may be needed. The above considerations suggest that very, very few will succeed no matter how many times they flush."




Mr. Morans' statement :

"I cannot recall yet seeing any reports of harm from a gallbladder/liver flush."

 Yes. The liver flush is safe. I know of no one harmed by them either.


Mr. Morans' statement :

"One woman who complained that her gallstones were unchanged on ultrasound despite three apparently fruitful flushes was advised that to up to 25 flushes may be needed. The above considerations suggest that very, very few will succeed no matter how many times they flush."


My comments :

This womans' "success" was in removing liver stones. The gall stones were likely not removed because they were block by a very large stone in the cystic duct. It is not likely to take 25 flushes to get them out however. No way.


Curezone.com has forums where people discuss their situations with gallbladder stone blockages and their experiences with the flush. Eventually, people do pass them. There are people who have had ultrasound scans of their gall bladders before a flush that show stones, and then again after a flush, showing no stones, proving the flush is effective. Remember, ultrasound does see stones in the gallbladder because they are calcified. But not in the liver, because they are not calcified, or rarely are.

Finally, we are done. I doubt many people are going to read through all of that. Nonetheless, I felt it had to be done regardless.

This article by Mr. Moran has likely turned many thousands, if not millions of people away from the flush, who could have been helped tremendously by it. This is because it appears early in search results on all the main search engines. His "dissertation" sounds very matter of fact, "scientific" and irrefutable, but the truth is, it deceives the public into believing the stones are not real, by misrepresenting the liver stones as gallstones. I tend to think he is doing this deliberately. This is not surprising, since medical "science" fraud is so rampant in the last couple of decades.