but conclusive of what? If i recall, the Lancet bit does not account for over 25% of the material examined... and, how is that different than individual lab reports showing bile/cholestrol ect in the "stones"? Because it comes from the lancet its entitled to some sort of deference or credibility whereas individual reports, including reports of calcified stones are not?
there does seem to be a bit of a double standard here, regardless of the control group issue, and much remains unexplained. Like I mentioned to you before... what of cases such as my mother in law who expelled "stones" even though she was too weak to take the oil dose (and didn't)... in short, i find the lancet article interesting, but hardly conclusive of anything.