I asked this question in a post above this and I'm asking it again, "What do you see as the control in the Lancet article?"
This is not directed at anyone in particular....... but would someone who is inclined to agree with the conclusion in the article answer the question?
If you want to used the conclusion in the Lancet article as proof for your theory, that Liver Flushing does not work or that only olive oil/lemon juice that you just drank was flushed out, as feces THEN SHOW HOW THIS DEMONSTRATION IS AN EXAMPLE OF USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
Is every test a scientific test?
Is every test a demonstration or example of using the scientific method?
I asked these two questions because on at least a few posts (below this one) it was implied that liver flushers either don't know or don't care about what the scientific method is or don't care about using it. For all who want to use the conclusion in the Lancet as scientific proof for their theory, show the Science the article's conclusion is based on by discussing the scientific method of investigation. Much ado was made about using the gold standard of science, the scientific method of investigation.
Unless you can show this Lancet article meets the good standard that you talked about as being the best way to test something, then your conclusion would not be a valid, scientific conclusion.
Let's be scientfically objective here, for people who point to the anecdotal evidence of the individual liver flushers as snake oil testimonials, how is the conclusion in the Lancet article any different? I might not have asked this if someone had answered my question of where the "control" is in the Lancet article.
If your main qualification for a scientist is his faith in the scientific method then where do you see the "control" in the Lancet article (the one that's advertized here as yet another tolling of the bells for the liver flushers)?