|
[ Liver Conditions Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |
I thought this was an interesting view point:
http://www.drklaper.com/answers02.html
In Reply to: lemon-olive oil gallbladder flush - quackery? posted by Martin on May 11, 2001 at 22:11:16:
I don't get the impression this person is speaking knowledgeably. For one thing, I've never heard of someone being advised to drink 16 oz of olive oil! That's 2 cups!! I've only seen 1/2 cup recommended. For another thing, he claims these are "thick chips of whitish material" that are passed which he says are "olive oil soap". Surely, lab analyses have been performed many times in the past to prove that the (green, right?) stones that pass are in fact true gall stones. Has he had them analyzed? Hmmmm....
Seems a simple lab analysis is all that is required, if someone wants to prove this right or wrong.
In Reply to: lemon-olive oil gallbladder flush - quackery? posted by Martin on May 11, 2001 at 22:11:16:
Initially I wanted to say something insulting about the doctor, but after reading about him (he happened to be a holistic doctor) I changed my. I will say instead that he seems to me to have been misled.
What comes out are greenish stone like things, they don't look like whitish chips at all.
If what comes out is caused by a reaction between fat and acid, then the outcome should be consistent. That doesn't explain the fact that after a series of flushes the "stones" don't come out anymore. Why would the reaction not take place every time?
Sheer relief from many long term problems that people get after flushing is difficult to explain by soap formation.
In Reply to: Re: lemon-olive oil gallbladder flush - quackery? posted by kmd on May 11, 2001 at 23:23:18:
you both pose interesting points. Out of curiosity, have either of you done the flush, and do you know of sources that claim to have had the "stones" analyzed? I have schedualed the flush to be done tomorrow. I hope all goes well. I am not prepared to back down now.
In Reply to: lemon-olive oil gallbladder flush - quackery? posted by Martin on May 11, 2001 at 22:11:16:
This Dr. Klaper makes a compelling point. Whenever I've read of these flushes and the resulting 50-80 bright green stones with each bm, I'm left wondering how they were ever stored in such a small place as the gallbladder, without some symptom of their presence.
Some brave soul would have to have them analyzed before I ingested the prescribed mix.
Otherwise, the logic of fat and acid makes too much sense.
In Reply to: Good points! To R. and Kmd posted by curious on May 12, 2001 at 10:04:55:
Hi again, yes I have done a flush and probably will do another one some day. I had a lot of nausea (extreme) with the procedure and would do some things differently the second time around. I don't know, off hand, who has the research on analyzing stones. I think I came across it just by doing Internet searching for "gallbladder flush" and "liver cleanse". I do remember seeing some photographs of different gall-stones, and I thought it said what they were comprised of. I *think* you could find the same if you searched - or maybe someone else knows? When I get to the chapter about this subject, I'm sure I'll find it again and write about it.
Warren, I believe it was Hulda Clark (but I'm not positive) who has said that gallstones actually originate in the liver and only move to the gallbladder when the liver is full - so that might help you conceive of the idea of how there can be so many stones. The stones can be quite tiny also.
In Reply to: lemon-olive oil gallbladder flush - quackery? posted by Martin on May 11, 2001 at 22:11:16:
Since it is possible to harm yourself by ingesting the volume of oil called for by this "cleansing" process, it would seem sensible to evaluate the accuracy of Kraper's comments.
Perhaps the only way is to analyze the stones.
One of the biggest problems with so called conventional medicine is the abandonment of the first Hypocratic Oath "first, do no harm".
Would make sense to apply that to ourselves.
In Reply to: Good points! To R. and Kmd posted by curious on May 12, 2001 at 10:04:55:
nm
In Reply to: Good points! To R. and Kmd posted by curious on May 12, 2001 at 10:04:55:
Yes, I have. My answer to your other question would be that same as kmd's. Only I didn't have nausea. The first time I did that, I got no stones to come out. I was following Hulda Clark's instructions. That surprised my holistic doctor. The second time I laied down on my right side instead my back, and I drank slghtly more olive oil and grapefruit juice, and Epson salts. This time I had about 30 what I looked to me as gallstones. The next day I felt noticably more energy. In a few days I developed constipation that I relived with enema and I had some whitish (or beige?) stuff come. I don't know what that was.
I know personally someone who had her allergies and digestive problems go away after just one flush. Stabilized mood was another effect she observed.
Don't get attached to results others got because everyone is different and their bodied react to things differently. Some need multiple sessions to get significant results. Some, evidently, need just one.
In Reply to: lemon-olive oil gallbladder flush - quackery? posted by Martin on May 11, 2001 at 22:11:16:
Thanks for the input, but I don't find the doc's viewpoint interesting (other than it made me wonder how did he get the hold of the title).
I am not an expert in chemistry, but a bell rang after I read the sentence
"As all first-year chemistry students learn, when you combine a fat with an acid, the fat turns into soap - a classic saponification reaction".
Hopefully he is not teaching chemistry in his spare time. As far as I know, the soap is produced by a reaction between a neutral fat and a strong base (or alkalic solution).
And base is the opposite of acid.
Lemon juice can't be described as an acid (in a chemical sense). It is an acid liquid though.
What this doc was - maybe - trying to say is what olive oil and lemon juice do is emulsify. Now I don't see how ingesting that kind of emulsion can be dangerous. I have been using it on a regular basis in my salad, only under the name of vinaigrette - or if you wish - a salad dressing. The only difference here is the quantity.
But the quantity mentioned in the article was exaggerated.
As for the quantity of 1/2 cup olive oil my common sense tells me it can't harm me. It is pure organic food, nothing like the junk I used to ingest for years and survived (but just enough).
What I would be concerned with is how the liver is going to react to the flush. By preparing it in advance, with detox diet and herbal support, it should not be a major problem.
Actually I am looking forward to doing it!
Sonja
In Reply to: Thanks Martin - everyone should read the link before trying the posted by Warren on May 12, 2001 at 16:23:11:
If you are going to test everything people do before you try it, you may not get very far. How about trusting experience of a large number of people who have that during decades (or centuries?)?
It is possible to harm yourself by ingesting food if it contains more toxins that your body can normally handle. So, are then going to test every single piece of food before you eat it? It would be nice if we could do that, but it's not practical for the time being.
In Reply to: Re: lemon-olive oil gallbladder flush - quackery? posted by Warren on May 12, 2001 at 12:01:18:
How would you have them analyzed to believe it if you don't do the flush to get them out in the first place? I can send you mine if you'd like to analyze them. I am satisfied with health improvements people get by doing flushes. I am curious what those are but will not wait for test results to do another flush.
In Reply to: Re: knowledge to the people :-) posted by Sonja on May 12, 2001 at 17:28:50:
In Reply to: It would be nice for you to teach the "doc" so that he doesn't mislead others. nmi posted by R. on May 12, 2001 at 17:40:40:
Dear R.
Something tells me that this doc would not stand to be taught...
Apart from that, I believe that everyone has the responsibility to find out for themselves.
You know, what I should have written is "Internet - the knowledge access for the people".
If the 'others' used, let's say, Google and typed 'saponification', the first hit would have told them what I described in the above posting.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe that many of them would be more inclined to believe it if they found out of it by themselves, than if I told them 'this is so'.
Sonja
In Reply to: Re: It would be nice for you to teach the "doc" so that he doesn't mislead others. nmi posted by Sonja on May 12, 2001 at 18:27:18:
Perhaps, you're right. Nevertheless, I've sent him a clarification of what saponification is and pointed him to an online source to verify that.
In Reply to: Re: lemon-olive oil gallbladder flush - quackery? posted by R. on May 12, 2001 at 00:30:16:
well said
In Reply to: Re: lemon-olive oil gallbladder flush - quackery? posted by Warren on May 12, 2001 at 12:01:18:
reading about the liver cleanse / gal baldder flush indicates that the source of these stones (that get to the gall bladder) is the liver.
In Reply to: Re: Good points! To R. and Kmd posted by kmd on May 12, 2001 at 14:21:05:
nmi
In Reply to: Re: lemon-olive oil gallbladder flush - quackery? posted by R. on May 12, 2001 at 17:38:08:
nm
In Reply to: Re: It would be nice for you to teach the "doc" so that he doesn't mislead others. nmi posted by R. on May 12, 2001 at 19:17:39:
I think this doctor just misspoke in an effort to give a simple and understandable answer. As Sonja said, it is a BASE and fat that yields soap, and anyone who's seen Fight Club should know this.
However, it is still quite obvious that these "stones" are indeed soap, the product of saponification. It should be apparent that the oil is reacting with bile salts, causing saponification.
If these "stones" have ever been analyzed and shown to contain mostly cholesterol, then they are indeed stones. I think any analysis would show little or no cholesterol content.
If anyone can point me towards a valid analysis showing that they are in fact stones, I would be extremely surprised(and grateful for the eye opener).
In Reply to: Well posted by Sath on May 13, 2001 at 03:29:13:
Sath,
the doc misspoke? (Now I have orthographic trouble because in this sentence it should be clear that the both the word 'doc' and 'misspoke' should be in inverted commas.)
I believe he 'only' tried to explain what he actually did not understand well enough.
In a conversation between two lay-persons that would not be significant. But for a person occupying a public space and position, totally unacceptable.
I still don't understand the use of saponification.
Here is what I found:
"Bile salts are steroids with detergent properties which are used to emulsify lipids in foodstuff passing through the intestine to enable fat digestion and absorption through the intestinal wall. They are secreted from the liver stored in the gall bladder and passed through the bile duct into the intestine when food is passing through."
To me it seems that emulsifying and saponifyng are two different chemical reactions. Again, as a lay person, I think that saponifying changes the structure of fat more drastically than emulsifying. I can't support the idea that the two terms can be used interchangeably.
As for the stones, I don't really know, so it's not up to me to claim anything. It is an interesting question, though, and should be addressed.
From the way you sound, you must have studied the stones and found out they were not made of cholesterol. But if you haven't done so yourself, do you have any reference to your claim? In my opinion all claims should be both tested and testified, and not just some.
Regards,
Sonja
In Reply to: Re: well what? posted by Sonja on May 13, 2001 at 05:13:38:
First, who cares about the doctor? What he meant when he wrote his answer is irrelevant. The answer is wrong, and that's all that matters. My only point was that saponification is indeed the cause of the "stones'" origin.
I have not anaylzed the make-up of the stones, I was simply describing what, to me, is the most logical theory. I agree that all claims should be tested, which is why I said I would be grateful for any evidence.
So, I searched for documents supporting my claim. Here's what I found:
1
2(This one is long. Search for "saponification").
Unfortunately, I am in a hurry at the moment, so this is all I could find for now. I will look more in the future. My purpose is only to point at that this is a viable theory believed by some doctors.
Again, if anone could contribute some solid evidence either way, it would be much appreciated.
In Reply to: Re: well what? posted by Sath on May 13, 2001 at 11:52:15:
Here is the appropriate text in the second hyperlink that Sath provided - thanks Sath.
Testing seems to confirm that those "stones" were saponification products rather than real gallstones. I am definitely not going subjecting myself to the flush after reading this.
From: Michael Moore In the early 1980s, after recommending and teaching Robert's protocol, a One of the great scams amongst 19th century medicine shows was this HUGE The capsule contained a long coiled spiral of a thin strand of gutta percha Robert's protocol, similarly, seems to result in the consistant passing of That doesn't mean that the shocked pancreas and gall bladder don't, on I find the tapeworm "pill" a safer phenomena-inducing placebo.
In Reply to: proof posted by Martin on May 13, 2001 at 22:06:18:
In Reply to: proof posted by Martin on May 13, 2001 at 22:06:18:
This discussion is getting more about understanding of language than the gallbladder stones. A testimonial is to my understanding not the same as a proof. If it were, we would not be using separate words.
When I asked Seth about reference, I thought he perhaps had a scientific reference to show to. And I asked him that because he sounded so sure about what he said. What was interesting in one of the testimonials Seth referred to was that BOTH kind of 'stones' were found. I was certain that different people have different metabolisms and therefore different kinds of stones, and was not surprised to read that. To conclude, I won't post on this topic (thread) anymore, because the discussion is not productive in the sense of getting knowledge. My contribution was merely to question the self-righteousness of some of the claims.
I understand that people are concerned, and that influences the way they reason, and the evidence they produce. But I wish they would at least have decency to say 'in my opinion' or 'After reading some testimonials I feel that', instead of presenting themselves as ultimate authorities, and scaring people off from trying out methods that could potentially be helpful.
I've just read Sandra Cabott's book ("The healthy liver and bowel book") and she too states that the gallbladder/liver flush is not for the fainthearted. And she is a kind of authority. As Walt mentioned recently, the worst that can happen is that a stone can get stuck in the duct. Ehhh... in my case that already happened, and it was terrible, but I survived! Good health to everyone, and please, do think - thinking will make you less faint-hearted :-)
Sonja
In Reply to: proof posted by Martin on May 13, 2001 at 22:06:18:
Hi, Martin.
Of course you are right.
However, this does not explain all those people who avoided surgery by doing the gallblader flush. I have documented at least dozens of cases, from my practice alone, when I could just as easily have sent them to the surgeon like I used to do before learning about this perfectly safe procedure. I only had one case that did not avoid surgery (over 10 years), with xray proof of stones, and she did not do the flush since she was sure that it was "quackery".
You can worry about a stone getting stuck in th common duct if you want to but I challenge you to produce one case in which this actually happened.
Walt
PhD physiologist STRONGLY suggested that these "stones" were probably
artifacts of the therapy. The next time someone passed some, I took them in
a cooler to a local Santa Fe medical lab I had a working relationship with.
They showed only traces of chenic and cholic bile salts, and had no
discernable cholesterol content. Their educated guess was that they were
saponified fatty acids...probably linoleic or oleic acid salts. They were
DEFINITELY not "gallstones". I have not recommended this grim regimen
since.
capsule, made out of a colored and sealed gelatin capsule. It cost $1, and
was GUARANTEED to pass a tapeworm. Indeed, everyone who took one raved
about this long "worm" they passed.
(crude rubber), dusted in Lycopodium. This was the "worm".
"stones" consisting of saponified olive oil, acted on as well as possible
by the stressed digestive apparatus.
occasion, vomit out a small cholesterol stone. But, as anyone who has
worked with cholelithiasis will vouch, this is risky stuff, since an
obstruction by a REAL stone of the biliary duct or common duct from the
gall bladder spasms may be just as likely. Most gallstones exist WITHOUT
symptoms. Most obstructions require surgery.
Follow Ups:
Nope, not proof at all. nmi
Posted by R. on May 13, 2001 at 23:00:02:
Follow Ups:
Re: proof
Posted by Sonja on May 14, 2001 at 04:04:21:
But neither Seth nor the other practitioners that show up with various testimonials have actually analysed the stones.
What is confusing in the testimonials is that they at the same time claim that those are not the cholesterol stones, but that the flush could be dangerous if the stones come out. Sorry, but to me this sounds like panicking thoughts, without coherence and logic. Not convincing.
I think that's a good warning, but it is also just half of the point. But it also means that those who are not fainthearted can go ahead and do it. That must be the whole point.
Which is precisely why I'd love to get rid of the stones, so it won't happen again.
Follow Ups:
Re: proof (What IS proof?) Archive in liver.
Posted by Walt Stoll on May 15, 2001 at 07:58:48:
Follow Ups:
[ Liver Conditions Archive ]
[ Main Archives Page ]
[ Glossary/Index ]
[ FAQ ]
[ Recommended Books ]
[ Bulletin Board ]
Search this site!