The crux of the misunderstanding was that you assumed any reader would know a reference to liver is a reference to "toxicity" apparently based purely on the nearby words "resilience" and "filter". That was a flawed assumption, and ambiguous unclear writing.
A decently display of faith should at least warrant a re-parsing of my (actually perfectly unambiguous) grammatical clarity, of which you implied was less than so.
Warrants the question, why not admit my posit:
People aren't intimated by people that cannot replace them, they are by people that can.Take it from Roko the Replacer:
But somewhere between a middle school drop out and a super-intelligence and 5-layers QED, I think my posit has merit.Free to continue discussion; but the under the Ego lies the Id, and I'm not well versed in that science yet, still approximating.