Never implied that they did. However there are several common mild conditions to which the only option you'll get is removing them. For instance, a single gallbladder stone (instead of trying to dissolve it) or a mild state of appendicitis (the body can manage).
there are well established criteria under which we will remove a gallbladder and a number of times where stones are found and we won't. If someone has an episode of Cholecystitis then the evidence clearly shows that the best thing for the patient is to have it taken out, because they're highly predisposed to get recurrent episodes which, despite being very painful and an acute danger to life, also leads to significant inflammation and scarring which makes eventually removing it down the line carry a higher burden of morbidity.
Attempting to dissolve really only works on small stones but you have to ask people, if you're getting them now and you're predisposed to get them (either through genetics or diet) then do you want to go through repeated admissions and presentations and all the disruption to life just to keep your gallbladder for a while longer, when the data shows most of these patients will ultimately end up going through a cholecystectomy anyway?
For mild appendicitis, the burden of evidence in the past 10 years has swung significantly towards managing mild appendicitis (whether confirmed on imaging or clinically diagnosed) with antibiotics which has a low but meaningful rate of repeat presentation of around 20%
