Talk:Urine therapy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Footnote of Tyndale Commentary

The Tyndale Commentary can be searched in a limited way on Google books. "Urine" does not come up with any hits. "Cictern" has two, but neither seem to support the assertion. Check for yourself. ( Martin | talk • contribs 03:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC))

Theoretical basis

I have had a recent exchange with a prominent University professor and glycobiologist who has a PhD in Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology on the subject of (auto)urine therapy and he explained to me the mechanism of how it is believed to work. Here are his words:

"Urine drinking is not a big deal and is probably less taboo in some cultures than kissing. The whole issue of the efficacy of auto-urine therapy seems to be whether the necessary antigen/antibody complexes are present in the urine. If they aren't present, it is relatively easy to produce human antibodies to antigens associated with any tumor to make commercial Ag/Ab complexes for oral presentation. That would be a simple vaccine and it may bypass poor immunogenicity of protein that don't normally raise adequate antibodies. It may be the case that urine could be used repeated to increase antibody production. It is such an obvious approach, that I would be surprised that it isn't broadly used, if it worked, but that logic would also say that fecal transplants should be available OTC. Urine also contains members of the urine microbiota, which may be no big deal. I think this is a minimal risk. Urine is simple to filter sterilize. It is also simple to isolate Ag/Ab complexes, if present in urine. I think that this approach to enhance antigen presentation to dendritic cells addresses only half the issue, attack but not suppression/tolerance. The gut microbiota/immune system development determines both attack and suppression, so it is important to make sure that the attack is favored over suppression in the gut to mount an immune attack on cancer. I think this is the dichotomy of immune states that determines the outcome (reversed) in leprosy. Fingers fall if suppression fails; save the nose if suppression shows. The gut microbiota/diet determines the immune state."

I'd like to explain this "obvious" mechanism, on Wikipedia, without it being flagged as a "Fringe Theory".

Tumor antigens are well known to be present in the urine from certain types of cancers—that's how they run tests for those cancers. Here is a review paper explaining this: [1] and Primary research showing this too:[2][3][4][5]

Cancer is well known to evade the immune system, and presenting offending antigens from tumors (or pathogens) to dendritic cells are well known to provoke a strong immune response. See these reviews: "Innumerable antigens unknown to us at the present time could act as stimulants to our immune system, and thus cause regression of cancer." [6][7][8][9][10] and this primary research: [11]

According Wikipedia, dendritic cells are present in those tissues that are in contact with the external environment, such as the skin (where there is a specialized dendritic cell type called the Langerhans cell) and the inner lining of the nose, lungs, stomach and intestines. Incidentally, these are the exact areas that urine is presented to in urine therapy.

You can see how "obvious" this really may, in fact, be. Many of antigens have yet to be classified or monetized, but they are filtered by our kidneys and expunged from our bodies, every time we urinate. Researchers understand that these antigens can stimulate an immune response against cancer and they are literally racing to find ways to pluck these antigens from cancers and present them to dendritic cells as expensive cancer therapies.

I also provided papers and a link to a major University explaining the importance of presenting these antigens to dendritic cells, along with their published findings, but they were deleted. See: [12][13] as well as this Primary research paper: [14]

The American Cancer Society "debunked" urine therapy using studies that examined the effect of purified urea on cancer [15]—which, by definition, ignores the autotherapy/antigen/dentritic cell mechanism, described above. It's ridiculous that the American Cancer Society can be cited while making such a broad statement with minimal and incomplete evidence to support their position, while this "obvious" mechanism gets censored/deleted. If anything, the American Cancer Society has proven itself to be an unreliable and incomplete source in this instance.

Furthermore, the mechanism of presenting antigens to dendritic cells, which are well known to provoke a strong immune response, applies to any pathogen that is able to evade the immune system (known as a "neoantigen"), and whose antigens are found in the urine. In fact, this auto-therapeutic mechanism was first described in the early 1900s when Charles H Duncan, MD explained how he was able to cure patients of a wide variety of diseases in a similar fashion—by presenting pathogen toxins and cell walls of pathogens (i.e. antigens) from their own wounds, urine and mucus and presenting them to the immune system either orally or intravenously. Duncan explains that this is the very reason why dogs lick their wounds. See Duncan's 1918 book, "Autotherapy".[16] And of course, Pasteur's vaccines were a similar approach, but his vaccines were generic for the masses and created in a lab—lacking the ability to present one's unique pathogens to the immune system.

The mechanism is not only straightforward and sound, but is being replicated by major institutions who are working on finding novel ways to present tumor antigens to dendritic cells in order to provoke an immune response against cancer. See:[17]

Interestingly, last week CBS's 60 Minutes explained how the Polio virus is being used to alert the immune system on the presence of cancer that has been evading the immune system.[18] Alerting the immune system of the presence of cancer is a cutting-edge approach to cancer therapy and one that is showing promise.

What will it take to get this mechanism described here on the Urine Therapy page? As far as I can see, there is some evidence here suggesting that this entire topic is inappropriately deemed to be pseudoscientific, when the actual science behind Urine Therapy has been known for nearly 100 years. Urine therapy has been widely believed to be based on pseudoscience, but in fact it appears to have a legitimate scientific explanation. (JamesPem (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC))

Quick question: Do you have a WP:MEDRS source specifically saying that "Because markers for certain cancers are detectable in urine, drinking urine is a (potential) cure for cancer" ? If you do, we can discuss the topic further. Else it qualifies as synthesis, which is disallowed on wikipedia articles especially on fringe medical topics. Abecedare (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. This review has 96 references explaining the theoretical basis. [19]

The review concludes by saying, "Urotherapy is suggested as a new kind of immunotherapy for cancer patients. Unlike the clonal immunotherapy, the urine of the cancer patients contain the many tumor antigens which constitute the tumor. Oral autourotherapy will provide the intestinal lymphatic system the tumor antigens against which they may produce antibodies due to non-self recognition. These antibodies may be transpierced through the blood stream and attack the tumor and its cells."

According to Wikipedia, once dendritic cells are activated by antigens, they migrate to the lymph nodes where they interact with T cells and B cells to initiate and shape the adaptive immune response. This is precisely what I've outlined, above.(JamesPem (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC))

Isn't this from a Medical Hypotheses article from 1997? We've got newer stronger sources than that (e.g. American Cancer Society). Alexbrn (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how a blanket statement from the American Cancer Society that only references studies about purified urea (sans-antigens) is "stronger" than a detailed review with 96 references and a simple connecting of the dots on antigens/dendritic cells, even if it does come from an unapproved source. Does the fact that Medical Hypothesis published the review make it wrong?

Nevertheless, here is a less detailed review, this one from India, where the practice is very common: [20].

A quote from the paper, "The most interesting and challenging aspect for research in Ayurvidya is the presence of anticancer substances in the urine, shown by the Nobel Laureate Albert Szent-Gyorgyi...John W. Armstrong published a book, “The Water of Life”, in 1944. He had combined fasting (Langhana), with local and systemic use of autourine. The dramatic results obtained in some cases of gangrene emboldened him to study the effects of auto-urine therapy in patients with cancer. He has reported several cases of breast cancer responding to fasting and auto-urine therapy. Subsequently in India, Sri Morarji Desai and Dr. Paragi desai popularized auto-urine therapy during the last century. All this would have remained only in the fringe medicine but for the case-studies and experiments cited below."(JamesPem (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC))

That 2003 paper - where was it published? Somewhere reputable? Alexbrn (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the paper appeared in the Ancient Science of Life journal, the oldest peer reviewed scientific journal in Ayurveda which publishes full-length original papers and reviews on Ayurveda, allied disciplines and all forms of traditional medicines. Although, frankly, the Medical Hypotheses paper is a far more detailed paper on the theoretical basis if you ask me.JamesPem (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Why are you calling Eldor's piece a review? It's a (rather old) theoretical piece essaying his hypothesis. I don't think the ayurveda stuff is reliable (it's fringe). So I don't think we should be using either of these sources. Alexbrn (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• @JamesPem: As you perhaps know Medical Hypothesis's raison d'etre is to give "novel, radical new ideas and speculations in medicine open-minded consideration, opening the field to radical hypotheses which would be rejected by most conventional journals." As such it is not a useful source for a tertiary encyclopedia, such as wikipedia, which seek to reflect generally accepted knowledge. And an article published in an Ayurveda journal citing nothing but anecdotal evidence, some dating as far back as 1907 (Mackay) and 1944 (Armstrong), is an extremely thin reed to hang a WP:REDFLAG claim by. Do you have any actual WP:MEDRS-compliant source? Abecedare (talk) 04:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Well then Eldor's piece is an exceptionally well-referenced hypothesis.

Very well. Here is another source: [21]

Quoting from the book, "...The patient provide 2 liters of urine to extract tumour antigen, that is proteins on the cell surfaces of cancer cells, is used to make specific cancer vaccines, which is specific to the tumour, known as dendritic cell therapy vaccines. Dendritic cell primes the native lymphocyte population towards an antitumour respone. Augmentative molecular immunology may stimulate the dendritic cell-T lymphocyte network using cancer vaccine...Dendritic cells (DCs) are naturally found in almost all tissues of the body...Tumour specific antigens (TSAs) are located on the cancer cells and they can be harvested either from the urine or directly from tumour cells."

That source is literally saying that antigens from the urine become vaccines when they are presented to dendritic cells. By this point, it is beyond obvious that Urine Therapy is a dendritic cell therapy vaccine. JamesPem (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

That's apparently a self-published book, and quite unusable on wikipedia (see WP:SPS). Abecedare (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is another source: [22]

A quote from the book: "A very promising application of exosomes in their use in immunotherapy of cancer. For this, Zitvogel and coll. established that mouse tumor cell lines release exosomes containing tumor antigens in the extracellular medium, and that these antigens could be transferred to dendritic cells to induce potent T-cell-dependent antitumor effects on established mouse tumors (Wolfers et al. 2001)...These antigen-containing exosomes are efficiently taken up and presented by autologous dendritic cells to cytotoxic T-lymphocytes in vitro...Exosomes have been isolated from various biological fluids...and thus might be used as a source of specific markers...More recently, urine has been used as a novel source for isolating exosomes (Pisitkun et al. 2004)."

Again, this is describing the eliciting of a potent antitumor response, by presenting antigens in the urine to the dendritic cells. JamesPem (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

... which is nothing to do with drinking your own piss (or squirting it up your bum or whatever) - i.e. the various actual aspects of Urine therapy, the topic of this article. Alexbrn (talk) 05:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

That's absolutely incorrect. First off, urine therapy also happens to include intravenous injections of urine [23], and rubbing or compressing of urine onto the skin [24][25][26]—the very presentations to dendritic cells used by researchers. Besides intravenous injections, subcutaneous injections are sometimes used to present vaccines to dendritic cells [27].

Dendritic cells (DCs) are naturally found in almost all tissues of the body [28], and are most abundant in the mouth, stomach, intestines, liver and skin—literally every tissue that comes in contact with particles from the outside world is where a significant amount of dendritic cells are found. In fact, the skin has a particular kind of dendritic cell called Langerhans cells. "The epidermal layer of the skin has a rich network of dendritic cells, which were first described in 1868 by a medical student in Germany, Paul Langerhans, who thought they were part of the nervous system."[29]

According to Rockefeller University, "Dendritic cells...are found in lymphoid or immune organs, and at the interfaces between our bodies and the environment... Dendritic cells are a critical, and previously missing, link in the immune system. As sentinels, dendritic cells patrol the body seeking out foreign invaders, whether these are bacteria, viruses, or dangerous toxins. After capturing the invaders, often termed antigens, dendritic cells convert them into smaller pieces and display the antigenic fragments on their cell surfaces. The dendritic cells then travel to lymph nodes or the spleen where they stimulate other cells of the immune system to make vigorous responses, in particular, the B cells that make antibodies to neutralize the invaders and killer T cells that launch specific attacks to destroy them... Steinman found that dendritic cells were the major stimulators [of the immune system] and were unusually potent. In fact, a dendritic cell to T cell ratio of 1 to 100 sufficed to initiate vigorous and optimal responses. Moreover, the dendritic cells directly activated both the subset of helper T cells as well as the killer T cells. Once activated by dendritic cells, the T cells could also interact vigorously with other antigen presenting B cells and macrophages to produce additional immune responses from these cells."[30] This could not be more clear. Any and all internalizing or absorbing of urine is a presentation to dendritic cells.

If one were to consume urine by drinking, injecting, inhaling, or rubbing on the skin, every single drop is presented to dendritic cells. That's the entire job of dendritic cells—to make sure the air, particles, food and water you consume is tolerable or not and to determine how the immune system should respond. This is why the liver, which filters everything we consume, is especially high in dendritic cells. A urine fast is literally harvesting every drop of urine and recycling it through dendritic cells over and over again. This is not synthesis. When researchers say "harvest urine and present to dendritic cells" that is the clear scientific jargon for internalizing and absorbing urine compounds into the body and presenting them to the immune system—it makes absolutely no sense for researchers to publish all possible examples of how one can absorb compounds. The fact they do not use the word "drink" is nothing more than an extremely weak technicality you are using to suppress this obvious scientific basis.

There is a department at Stanford University devoted to dendritic cell therapy vaccine. This is not fringe science.[31]

Finally, I would point out that the Fecal bacteriotherapy (FMT) wikipedia page has a "Theoretical Basis" section which no WP:MEDRS-compliant sources to explain its hypothesis. Citations are still needed for FMTs. JamesPem (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

James, even if urine therapy were to include drinking, rubbing or injecting ones own or some other person's urine, the cited source does not offer any of these as potential cures for cancer. Please focus on finding a source:

• that is MEDRS-complaiant, and
• makes that specific claim that ""Because markers for certain cancers are detectable in urine, drinking or otherwise ingesting urine is a (potential) cure for cancer"

and we can continue the discussion. Meeting one or the other of these requirements is not sufficient, and lengthy talk page explanations of why you believe this would work is not helpful either. Abecedare (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Abecedare, I don't understand the double standard. Can you explain? FMTs do not require such a citation that "eating" feces cures diseases. The FMT Theoretical Basis section doesn't even have any MEDRS-complaiant sources.

Secondly, as I've explained above, I have already satisfied your demands. Researchers claim that presentation to dendritic cells is all that is required. This is scientific jargon for drinking, eating, inhalation, injection or transdermal/subcutaneous absorption. If the presentation to dendritic cells was limited to any of these, the researchers would have to have been more specific to make such a distinction. It is unreasonable for you to demand a unique word ("drink") when other words more than suffice. JamesPem (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Abecedare, my apologies. I do see what you mean about that last source. The word injections is not used. Sorry about that. However, Dendritic Cell (DC) Therapy is well known to include injections. See the following from Stanford University: "The first attempt to use DCs as cancer vaccines in humans was made by Edgar Engleman and Ronald Levy (Program 6) here at Stanford, who isolated DCs from patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma who had failed conventional chemotherapy, loaded the cells with immunoglobulin idiotype obtained from the patient's tumor, and reinjected the antigen-loaded cells back into the patients. Remarkably, most of the treated patients developed T cell mediated immune responses to their tumor-specific antigen and of the first six patients, two had complete remissions" [32] JamesPem (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

... which (again) is nothing to do with urine therapy (other than through your own linkage.) Alexbrn (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Dendritic Cell (DC) Therapy is well known to include injections. James, this is not a Six degrees of separation game in which "Tumor cells release exosomes" + "exosomes may play a role in immunotherapy" + ...+ "DC therapy uses injections" implies "Voila! An injection of urine cures cancer!". That's not how wikipedia (or, science) works.

Look, if this was as obvious or well-established as you think, you wouldn't have been having so much trouble finding a single reliable source. The fact that you have to look up junk papers, speculative hypothesis, or indulge in (incorrect) synthesis of material should give you an indication of how little scientific currency the claim you are proposing to add carries even as a plausible cure (let alone one supported by multiple human clinical trials that have been independently reviewed in literature, which is the really the ideal for medical claims on wikipedia). Unless you find some sources meeting the required standard, we can stop the discussion here.

PS: you are welcome to start a discussion at Talk:Fecal bacteriotherapy if you believe that page is not following wikipedia policy in some way. Abecedare (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Abecedare, I am doing my best here to satisfy your requirements. And what you're not acknowledging is that it is not easy to find Western sources telling people to "drink" urine because obviously that is a socially unacceptable and taboo practice in the West. I have no problem finding sources in countries like India, where a population of 1.2 billion people think it's perfectly acceptable to talk about, research and drink urine as a therapy, but apparently 1.2 billion Indians are deemed "fringe" and are unacceptable sources of hypotheses here in Wikipedia. That's a shame, as I'd hope that Wikipedia editors would be less xenophobic to non-Western hypotheses.

At any rate. Here is another source.

Quoting from this source—the containing chapter covers antigens for renal cancer therapies, "5.2.3.2 Urine: A potentially rich source of tumor antigens...Specific tumor associated proteins in urine include PCA-1 forms in prostate cancer, psoriasin, in bladder squamous cell carcinoma, tumor associated trypsin inhibitor (TATI) in many cancers and several potential urinary markers for transitional cell bladder cancer including nuclear matrix protein (NMP)-22, BTA, and fibrin-fibrinogen degradation products (FDPs). Preliminary studies indicate a possible use of NMP-22 and beta glucuronidase in renal cancer."

Tumor associated proteins are tumor antigens. This source is stating, very broadly, that preliminary studies are showing that urine contains tumor antigens, and has a potential therapeutic use against certain types of cancer.

This source easily satisfies the requirements for a theoretical basis. A theoretical basis does not need to specify the exact mode of presentation or ingestion. A broad statement that urine components may be useful in treating cancer is all that is necessary for a theoretical basis. JamesPem (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

James, the source is again discussing the presence of cancer biomarkers in urine that can be used to detect cancer. Here are the references [201], [202] and [203] that the source mentions as "Preliminary studies indicate a possible use of NMP-22 [201, 202] and beta glucuronidase [203] in renal cancer." (Had you looked up any of these?)

Even though you elided over some of the difficulties in using these biomarkers mentioned in the very source you cite ("analysis of urine offers multiple technical challenges such as the several hundred to thousand fold more dilute overall protein concentration compared to serum..."), and the use of the most well-known of these biomarkers is now deprecated, the basic fact of the existence of these biomarkers, and their actual/potential use for cancer detection is well established and not being disputed by anyone here. The problem is when you shift from cancer detection to therapeutics, especially in the form of drinking, rubbing or injecting urine (ie urine therapy). Here you have drawn a blank, and if you read and understand the sources you have been citing, it should be clear why no establish scientist takes that route seriously. Please do not keep bringing up references on cancer biomarkers in urine unless (as has been repeatedly stated before) they also claim that because of these markers urine therapy (in whatever form) is a plausible cure for cancer. Abecedare (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, Abecedare. I am not trying to cause a disruption. I have looked over WP:FRINGE and I see what you are saying and I think I understand now. There does seem to be a way to present fringe theories so long as it is done from WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Got it.

Pardon me in advance, but I'm trying to do a better job here. Would this be an acceptable source?

"Practitioners of urine therapy, called uropaths, claim that "oral urotherapy"—drinking one's own urine—inoculates humans against many forms of cancer. This assertion is based on the logic that cancer cell antigens are expelled through urine, and by introducing them back into the immune system, the body is encouraged to create preemptive antibodies.

I have also found this source.

"A chemical analysis of urine shows that it consists of 96% water, the remaining 4% made up of thousands of mineral salts and compounds, including...antigens—products that get passed in the urine whenever there is a surplus of them in the body. Anti-cancer agents which have been found to inhibit the growth of cancer cells without affecting the growth of regular cells, have been isolated from urine, and medical journals, including British Medical Journal, have documented urine therapy's part in some cancer remission."

I would think those two sources satisfy the requirements, while still preserving the fact that urine therapy is unproven. That would seem like an acceptable way to convey the theoretical basis of urine therapy while following the rules outlined in WP:FRINGE, no? JamesPem (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

James Ayurveda is not fringe at all. If it was actually studied properly by the western world one would know that. There are presently thousands of hospitals all over india practicing Ayurveda. it is not a spa treatment. Just because it does not fit western sciences Ideas of how things work is it fringe? Where do you think Western medicine came from?

The use of Urine is in Ayurvedic texts and used in Ayurveda for many many diseases but not just shotgun method. references for human urine are not found in Sushruta as stated above. They are not in any of the three main and oldst texts but is only found in Yogaratnakara and Bhavaprakasha.

oral availability of proteins and peptides

just want to go back to square one. The (remarkably detailed) quote from a conversation with the professor (which is not a reliable source for anything in WP) started as follows: "Urine drinking is not a big deal and is probably less taboo in some cultures than kissing. The whole issue of the efficacy of auto-urine therapy seems to be whether the necessary antigen/antibody complexes are present in the urine. If they aren't present, it is relatively easy to produce human antibodies to antigens associated with any tumor to make commercial Ag/Ab complexes for oral presentation."

the idea that drinking urine would provide you with antibodies (or antigens, which are peptides) that would go do stuff via the bloodstream is silly. your stomach doesn't know the difference between proteins/peptides and hamburger. both get digested. there is a reason that biotherapeutics are given by injection - they are not orally available. (see for discussion of that) so... just oy. Jytdog (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

If you must know, the discussion with the professor was referring to this study, which shows how (oral/intranasal) mucosal dendritic cells can provoke a strong immune response. The discussion with the professor was also about gargling urine, not ingesting it. Dr Ryoichi Nakao M.D. explained the mechanism of urine therapy in a video interview on Japanese television see YouTube Video. (That broadcast would also seem to be a legitimate WP source, btw.) Anyway, as he explains in the interview (see English subtitles), he says that if they pumped urine into the stomach via a feeding tube, there was no benefit from ingested urine therapy. But, if the patient gargled with the urine, and held it in their mouth, they got a measurable benefit—even if they spit it out. Dr. Nakao explains that the urine needs to go through the mouth—and that's where many dendritic cells could detect the antigens before they are ingested.

At any rate, my understanding is that antigens aren't necessarily peptides until they are presented by dendritic cells, which then turns them into peptides for presentation. According to the antigen Wikipedia article, "In immunology, an antigen (Ag), abbreviation of antibody generator, is any structural substance which serves as a target for the receptors of an adaptive immune response...Antigen presenting cells present the antigen structures in the form of processed antigenic peptides to the T cells of the adaptive immune system via a histocompatibility molecule." My understanding is that a neoantigen (an antigen that has yet to be detected/processed by the dendritic cells) could simply be any danger signal, including but not limited to, exosomes/nanovesicles, miRNA, broken down cell walls, pathogen toxins, etc. Exosomes, which can contain information about a tumor, food, or pathogen, do appear to survive digestion and enter the bloodstream—apparently keeping their cargo intact. [33] Quoting from that paper, "Much as the space shuttle was designed as a vehicle to ferry humans and their equipment safely through the harsh environment of space, these vesicles carry various bioactive cargoes from cell to cell while affording them protection from the dangers present in biological fluids...Regular grapes contain nanovesicles that can be isolated after crushing by ultracentrifugation. When orally administrated to mice, grape exosome-like nanoparticles (GELNs) can pass through the digestive tract and trigger recovery of chemically induced colitis."

Nevertheless, Dr Nakao's research suggests that it's the intranasal/buccal/oral mucosa dendritic cells that play a key role in urine therapy and digesting urine is less important. Hopefully that clears up what the professor was referring to.

Also, there are examples of intranasal vaccines. The Bordatella vaccine, for dogs, is one that comes to mind. And that reminds me. Some people inhale urine vapors to clear their lungs and even take urine intranasally to clear their sinuses. JamesPem (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

buccal administration of drugs is not FRINGE. It is not what you described in your initial paraphrase. More generally, youtube is not a reliable source for content about health in Wikipedia - please do read WP:MEDRS. We would need a reliable source per MEDRS showing that the vanishingly small concentration of anything in urine (which makes it akin to homeopathy) could have drug-like effects when administered buccally. Jytdog (talk) 08:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not homeopathy. The sources from the Theoretical Basis discussion show that there is an unusually high level of tumor antigens in a cancer patient's urine. Secondly, dendritic cells are unusually potent and provoke a cascading immune response.[34] I'm still unclear as to why the two final sources I mentioned, above—in the Theoretical Basis section—are not valid. One was from a major author and the other was from a major US magazine.JamesPem (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

first, you did not acknowledge you that mis-described what the expert apparently said. it adds to your credibility when you acknowledge mistakes and it detracts from your credibility when you pretend they didn't happen. on the homeopathy thing - the tumor antigens are much less concentrated than they would be any drug formulation. also, i advised you above to read WP:MEDRS as I think others have too. You clearly have not read it yet and again, this detracts from your credibility and if you persist in bringing up sources that fail MEDRS by a mile I will just stop responding to you. if you have questions about what MEDRS says after you have read it and thought about it, please ask. thanks Jytdog (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I think I understand now. You are saying that this is not FRINGE, and therefore requires high quality medical sources? Unfortunately, there are no high quality medical sources (that I can find yet) covering the theoretical basis with urine antigens. The popular press has explained the theoretical basis though. Is there no way to present this popularly known theoretical basis on WP? That would seem problematic.

By the way. The professor also wrote the following explaining the AgAb complex paper on hepatitis from above. The conversation also referred to animals obtaining antigens from licking infectious wounds: "My wife is a lactation consultant, so I have been following the basis of passive immunity in babies for decades. The lymphatic system of the breast looks like two hands cupping a breast with palms at the chest and fingertips all touching at the areola. The ducts all terminate at the areola for baby antigen collection. My interest in passive immunity carried over into laboratory experiments with mice and chickens in the late 80s. Mother mice immunized with an antigen prior to pregnancy, produce babies with an enhanced response to the same antigen. I never completed the work with antigen-antibody complexes, but I was already calling the concept maternal tutoring...In the paper below, AgAb tutoring is used to enhance Ab response to an antigen. Autotherapy goes a step further and suggests that the overall immune response can be made more effective by presenting functional AgAb complexes or some other extractable molecules (cells were filtered out) from wound site to new oral or injection site. The oral route is interesting, because it can produce either a robust immune response, or the opposite, tolerance. Wound site extracts would presumably prejudice the response toward specific antibody production evident at the original wound site as healing."

Furthermore, urine therapy (and breastfeeding, and wound licking) typically requires continuous repetitive exposure to small amounts of antigens to provoke the full immune response. Whereas a vaccine is usually a one-time event. They are different approaches.JamesPem (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

my god your posts are way too long. please limit your discussion to proposals for content and sourcing for them. this is not a forum for general discussion of the topic. if you are making claims about health, you need MEDRS sourcing. if something is FRINGE, we can very carefully use lower quality sources but only describe the claim and to debunk it, not to give it credence. giving it credence requires MEDRS sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Bible

The thing about some people thinking Proverbs is describing drinking urine.... that is a FRINGE interpretation of behavior in ancient Israel, and is not parallel to the section on ancient Rome nor HInduism, where it is clear that there is endorsement for certain uses of urine in those contexts. I had deleted it because it is FRINGE; as it was restored by OccultZone here. I moved it to the "Modern claims" section. Happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 08:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for moving it elsewhere. I am looking more into this subject, and will surely propose before adding anything to the article. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The history section is a mess, not even mentioning the modern inventor/popularizer of the therapy (J.W. Armstrong), and written almost as a trivia list. Will try to rework it over the next day or two. Abecedare (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

great, thanks! i was primarily focused on cleanup in my round of edits. i do reckon there is more to the story that can be told. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I have rewritten the history section mainly relying on Chepter 6 in Joseph Atler's "Yoga in Modern India: The Body Between Science and Philosophy" (consequently the section may be currently somewhat dominated by practice in India). I have moved some of the pre-existing content to the footnotes in order not to go give individual examples (of use on ancient Rome, Mexico, Nigeria, Islam etc) undue weight, since they largely reflect our selection bias and not a fair overview of the literature. I may create an article on Shivambu Kalpa sometime, in which case, one of the current footnotes can be eliminated. Abecedare (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Urine therapy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-07-27/edit-page/28179154_1_urine-water-conservation-sweat
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050110224842/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_3_23/ai_54600087 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_3_23/ai_54600087

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

"off is not a tradition"

Hello all

• The article originally stated -
  • "Though urine has been used for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes in several traditional systems,[a] and mentioned in some medical texts,[b]"

Nobody objected to this.

• In July, someone changed this WITHOUT A SOURCE to [35]
  • "Though urine has been used for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes in several traditional systems (Hinduism, Islam),[a] and mentioned in some medical texts,[b]"

Nobody objected to this.

• In August, someone removed Islam [36]
  • "Though urine has been believed useful for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes in several traditional systems such as Hinduism,[a] and mentioned in some medical texts,[b]"

Nobody objected to this

• Today, I removed Hinduism because it was not in citation

For first time, objections were raised. Somebody added Hinduism back citing a "List of Illustrations" in the book "Yoga in modern India: The body between science and philosophy" by J. S. Alter. This "List of Illustrations" page DOES NOT even mention 'Hinduism'.

In Chapter 6 - Auto-Urine Therapy, Mr. Alter actually tries to prove that urine therapy is NOT a part of Yoga and Ayruveda. On page 184, Mr. Alter analyzes claims of some modern urine therapy proponents that an ancient Ayurvedic text called Damara Tantra mentions urine therapy. Mr. Alter then goes on to DEBUNK these claims. In fact the relevant section in his book is titled "Damara Tantra: A Problem of Textual Authority".

During this entire chapter, Mr. Alter DOES NOT use the word 'Hinduism', even when debunking these claims. On page 185, he DOES mention 'South Asian Systems', specifically mentioning Jainism and Buddhism.

In this entire chapter, Mr. Alter goes great lengths to DEBUNK claims by modern urine therapists that the ancient literature supports their views. In another book, Mr. Alter mentions similar claims of Urine therapists that their views are supported in the Christian Bible.

• So, I added a request demanding page number on which Mr. Alter mentions Hinduism and Urine therapy together. And because Hinduism was there, I added other religions mentioned by the SAME author.

My edits about other religions were removed saying that "a one-off is not a tradition". 'Hinduism' was retained, despite Mr. Alter saying exactly opposite of this.

• So, I removed Hinduism too

However, Hinduism was added back with same citation, and I was given a warning that I will be "blocked from editing".

This is extremely dishonest behavior by European editors. Mr. Alter's book DEBUNKS the claim that this is a Hindu or South Asian "tradition", but this is being used to cite a statement that claims exactly the opposite. The SAME author refers to similar claims about other religious traditions, but apparently, mentioning these other religions is "tendentious". I can't even imagine the mental gymnastics involved here.

Yes I saw what you did as you did, and in your narration you just confirmed that you edited in a WP:POINTY way. When you do things like that, people focus on the POINTY stuff and then you have a very hard time getting people to focus on whatever it was you were being POINTY about in the first place. Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Whatever helps you justify your dishonest addition of a fake citation that actually debunks the claim that you added...

Please indent your posts and sign them. And I didn't add these things. Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

"There is no scientific evidence to support its [UT] use"

that is such BS. Just burn yourself and see if pissing on it does not immediately help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demus Wiesbaden (talk • contribs) 19:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Urine therapy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426090954/http://tatame.com.br/2009/03/21/O-segredo-do-sucesso-de-Lyoto-Machida to http://tatame.com.br/2009/03/21/O-segredo-do-sucesso-de-Lyoto-Machida

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

PortaJohn's e-commerce website is not a reliable source

Leave it out or justify it's inclusion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Better sourcing needed

I have removed the last paragraph of the history section and pulled it to here. YouTube shouldn't be the only source and I can't find anything in English about this. Anyone have a better source that I'm missing?

In July 2018, fake news propagating the benefits of overpriced cow's urine (go mutra) turned viral in India after spreading over facebook and whatsapp and getting liked by a few million people. The video falsely presented betadine as a poison and cow's urine as a "cleanser" that removed its brown colouration. Subsequently, these claims were found to be untrue and a pretense to sell overpriced cow urine from laboratories.

Rap Chart Mike (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

References