But if it worked out for him, what's the problem?
Medicine (and science as a whole) deals with probabilities. Medical practice should be based on the interventions that have the highest chance of good outcomes. Sometimes, the right interventions can still lead to a bad outcome. Conversely, not doing the right interventions can sometimes result in a good outcome.
We all know that smoking cigarettes is bad for one’s health, and yet there are still outliers who live a long life despite smoking a pack a day. We all know that eating healthy and exercising regularly promotes health and well-being, and yet there are people who do all that and still die of cancer or heart attack in their 40s. Neither of those outlier cases invalidate the negative effects of smoking or the beneficial effects of healthy diet & exercise.
In Jeff’s example, he had a good outcome against the odds. He rolled the dice and got lucky. If that scenario played out 100x, the majority of the time he wouldn’t have had the same positive outcome. Extrapolating his particular case to all cases of kidney stones is fallacious thinking.
Hope that helps.