Wow Heidi! I took my first liver flush last night and was amazed at the number of stones that came out - I wasn't sure a gallbladder could hold that many stones, although having looked online at some photos (www.curezone.com/gallstones) I now know that it is possible.

Anyway, thanks for your timely information. The taste of the oil/grapegruit juice was fine compared to the aweful taste of the epsom salts, but it was all worth it. I felt nauseous this morning, but passed 3 stones the size of marbles, and about 100 the size (and color) of peas. I guess I'll need to do another one in a couple of months since it seems that I needed it so much. Ann

Hey, Ann! Great news! and nice results indeed! :-)

I sure can relate on the taste issue. Doing my first flush, I was bowled over by how repellant the taste of Epsom salts was (I expected a "salty" flavor. Whoops -- so wrong!) and that the grapefruit/olive oil mix was so delicious. I expected the exact opposite. The fruit/oil mix inspired me to make a fruit-juice-based salad dressing, in fact. The Epsom salts inspired me to drink them very, very quickly. :-p`` and while I still suggest the addition of pear juice to reduce the *GACK!* factor, I think the improvement is minor. No one will be marketing a yummy Epsom salts drink in our lifetimes, LOL!

Anyway, I'm really pleased with your results, and I'm sure you are as well. The flush is another one of my favorite things: a diagnostic tool that contains its own auto-treatment protocol. If it's something you need, you find that out AND get better at the same time. If you don't need it, nothing much happens beyond a few extra potty breaks -- and, of course, experiencing the unforgettable taste of Epsom salts! ;-D

Thanks a bunch for your feedback, Ann ~ I look forward to more! :-D

News Flash: Eat Wild, Not Captive!

Anybody remember Joachim from the old message boards? He brought to our attention (and reminded us early and often) that farm-raised salmon is a far inferior choice to wild-caught salmon, due to the despicable conditions of their cultivation -- notably the processed junk that commercial fish farmers feed the poor enslaved critters.

I remember an episode of "A Cook's Tour" on the FoodTV network in which Tony Bourdain is the guest of a Scots noblewoman. Because salmon is on the menu, a conversation arises on the virtues of farmed v. wild fishies, in which his hostess remarks: (paraphrase "They're wild beasties, aren't they? Can't imagine them living in cages." Tony notes that farming salmon is not only a repugnant idea, but one whose product is tasteless compared to the wild guys.

Well, here's the first study I've seen showing that not only is the practice one against nature, and not only is farmed salmon of lesser gustatory value, but the one reason people always give for choosing farmed fish -- a lower level of contaminants -- PCBs, etc.) doesn't hold water, to coin a phrase. Turns out they've been feeding them fish meal made from other fish loaded with the very toxins one buys farm-fed to avoid! Read on !

FARM-RAISED SALMON LINKED TO POLLUTANTS

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Salmon-Pollution.html?hp

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Farm-raised salmon contain significantly more dioxins

and other potentially cancer-causing pollutants than do salmon caught in

the wild, says a major study that tested contaminants in fish bought around

the world.

Salmon farmed in Northern Europe had the most contaminants, followed by

North America and Chile, according to the study released Thursday. It

blames the feed used on fish farms for concentrating the ocean pollutants.

Eating more than a meal of farm-raised salmon per month, depending on its

country of origin, could slightly increase the risk of getting cancer later

in life, researchers conclude. They urge consumers to buy wild salmon and

recommend that farmers change fish feed.

But the Food and Drug Administration said the levels of pollutants found in

salmon are too low for serious concern. The agency urged Americans not to

let the new research, reported Thursday in the journal Science, frighten

them into a diet change.

The debate is sure to confuse consumers, who long have been told to eat

fish at least twice a week because it helps prevent heart disease. Indeed,

salmon is usually listed as a top choice because it is particularly high in

heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids and low in a completely different seafood

contaminant, mercury.

Moreover, most farm-raised salmon sold in the United States comes from

Chile -- and the pollutant level in it was not too much higher than that

found in some wild-caught salmon.

The study ``will likely over-alarm people in this country,'' said Eric Rimm

of the Harvard School of Public Health, a specialist on nutrition and

chronic disease. ``To alarm people away from fish because of some

potential, at this point undocumented, risk of long-term cancer -- that

does worry me.''

The study tested salmon raw, with the skin on. Removing the skin and

grilling it removes a significant amount of PCBs, dioxins and other

pollutants stored in fish fat, the FDA noted.

The average dioxin level in farmed-raised salmon was as 11 times higher

than that in wild salmon -- 1.88 parts per billion compared with 0.17 ppb.

For PCBs, the average was 36.6 ppb in farm-raised salmon and 4.75 in wild

salmon.

The government does not have one set level of dioxins and PCBs that is

considered safe in foods.

``We are certainly not telling people not to eat fish. ... We're telling

them to eat less farmed salmon,'' said David Carpenter of the University at

Albany, N.Y., who tested 700 salmon from around the world.

In setting his consumption advice, Carpenter cited Environmental Protection

Agency guidelines that are far stricter than the FDA's legal limits.

Farmed salmon eat lots of fish oil and meal made from just a few species of

ocean fish, which concentrates the contaminants they are exposed to, while

wild salmon eat a greater variety, Carpenter explained.

The salmon farming industry points out that all the pollutant levels are

well within the FDA's legal limits and says other foods eaten far more

often, such as beef, are greater sources of exposure.

Raising salmon in floating pens is an industry that began just two decades

ago but has helped the fish's popularity to soar, turning it from a

seasonal to a year-round commodity. More than half the world's salmon now

is farmed. Farm-raised salmon sells for about $4 or $5 a pound compared

with $15 for wild salmon, said Alex Trent of the trade group Salmon of the

Americas.

``These fish don't have to be contaminated,'' said Jane Houlihan of the

Environmental Working Group, which wants salmon farms to switch the feed

they use.

Trent said many farmers in the United States, Canada and Chile are slowly

replacing some of the fish oil in salmon feed with soybean and canola oil

to address the pollutants.

``PCB levels are coming down 10 to 20 percent a year. Every year we take

more steps,'' he said.

Farm-raised salmon contained significantly higher concentrations of 13

pollutants, including dioxins, released when industrial waste is burned,

and PCBs, once widely used as insulating material, according to the study.

Animals absorb those pollutants through the environment, storing them in

fat that people then eat. High levels are believed to increase the risk of

certain cancers and, in pregnant or breast-feeding women, harm the

developing brains of fetuses and infants.

One in two Americans will die of cardiovascular disease, a far bigger risk

than the cancer concern, said nutritionist Alice Lichtenstein of the

Agriculture Department's Human Nutrition Research Center at Tufts University.

Still, ``this was a beautiful study'' that does raise a concern that needs

more attention, she said. ``The bottom-line message is to continue to eat

fish but consume a variety of different types.''

As for the geographic difference in contaminant levels, ocean pollution

follows a similar pattern. Europe was industrialized before North and then

South America, and presumably each region uses salmon feed made of local

ocean fish.

The study was funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Remember what sixty years of government-subsidized agribusiness have given us? Pesticides in milk, growth hormones in meat, scorpion genes in who-knows-what, antibiotic-resistant microbes everywhere, nutrient-depleted vegetables the norm, the inchoate suffering of the creatures of this Earth for whom WE are responsible, and mass bankruptcy & suicide among traditional farmers. Please work against these pernicious influences in the fishing industry. Our lives and our children's lives hang in the balance.

My "bottom line" remains my personal boycott of "farmed" fish, and my commitment to seek out and reward with my business the conscientious fishmongers who provide clean, fresh, wild fish. They're out there, folks. And they depend absolutely on YOU and where your seafood dollars go. Like the small farmers of the 50's, 60's and 70's, they are vulnerable to the power of 'big business' -- those well-connected cartels and monopolies which depend upon government intervention, favors, subsidies, and other misuses of power for THEIR existence.

You choose. Only your choice can turn back this tide. Please use creativity and choose freedom, for your own health -- and for the vibrant life of the "wild beasties" everywhere. Don't we all, on this Earth, deserve at least that chance to live as our Creator designed us to do?