Urine Therapy: Some Objections on Urine Therapy Answered

Before proceeding, it is advisable to deal with some objections which have been, and may still be, raised. It has been argued that if man were intended to drink his own urine he would have been born with the instinct to do so. But one may as well argue that because man has not been born with the instinct to do deep breathing exercises or adopt other measures which have proved conducive to health, they are therefore invalid or reprehensible.

Take, for instance, the yogis of India. By dint of practicing breathing exercises, strange postures, etc., they not only arrive at a perfect state of health, but contrive to extend life far beyond the usual three score years and ten. At 150 years of age a proficient Hatha Yogi has not even a grey hair. (SeeRajahYoga,by Swami Vivikananda.) It is true that the science of Yoga can only be safely learnt at the hands of a competent teacher ; but that is another argument against the instinct theory.(SeeHeaven Lies’ Within Us by Theos Bernard.)

One notices, by the way, that man does not trouble about his instincts when it is a question of imbibing strong liquors, or smoking hundreds of cigarettes : in short, when it is a matter of doing things which are bad for him even though the first time he experienced their “delights” his instinct rebelled. And now to answer another objection. How can it be right to take back into the body something which the body is apparently discarding? And yet if we turn to Nature, what do we find?

We find that where instead of “scientific ” manures, the dead leaves are put back into the soil, the resultant flowers are the most fragrant, the fruits the sweeter, and the trees the healthier. On the other hand, where the soil is for some reason deprived of those chemical substances produced by the dead leaves, etc., then the trees which grow in that soil are disfigured by excrescences, which I think, quite aptly have been called tree-cancers. What we are accustomed to regard as useless dead leaves are the very opposite of useless and should be dug back into the soil instead of being swept away by the gardener.

Let those who challenge this statement taste the Produce, grown from soil treated on the principle that all that comes from the soil should be put back into the soil, and they will soon be convinced that the principle is a correct one. The idea that Nature is wasteful is erroneous. She only appears wasteful to us because we do not understand her. The rotting dead leaves provide the most valuable mineral salts for the soil-one of the most essential being potash. Even the ashes of burnt dead leaves and burnt wood (charcoal) are of great value. Therefore why should a principle which applies throughout Nature not apply (with certain reservations) to the human body?

This question is the more readily answered if we consider the constituents of urine. Yet before doing so, something should be said about the unreliability of urine analysis as a means of diagnosis. Though urine-analysis is still a practice among orthodox doctors, it has been found that the elements in and general condition of urine depend far more on the character of the food and drink taken by the, patient than on any fancied or real disease condition.

Even the presence of sugar can no longer be regarded as an in- fallible sign of diabetes. This I have proved to my own satisfaction by taking for a day nothing but drinks made of chemical sweet powders, and nothing in the way of food except a quantity of heavily sweetened ices. On such a diet, after twelve to fourteen hours the urine of an otherwise healthy person became charged with sugar and suggested to the doctor that he had diabetes! Similar mistakes have been made with regard to albumen found in the urine as the result of an ill-balanced diet. Some years ago a friend of the writer’s connected with a Life Insurance Company had a number of ” prospects ” turned down owing to heavy deposits of albumen in their urine.

Finally he brought three of these men along for investigation. By dint of altering their diet, all the supposed-to-be indications of Bright’s disease, nephritis or albuminuria from which they were alleged to be suffering very soon vanished, and at a subsequent examination by the Insurance doctor they were told they must have had ” local inflammations ” when previously examined ! Further comment seems superfluous. Urea N. (nitrogen) 682 Urea 1459 Creatinine N. 36 Creatinine 97.2 Uric acid N. 12.3 Uric acid 36.9 Amino N. 9.7 Ammonia N. 57 Sodium 212 Potassium 137 Calcium 19.5 Magnesium 11.3 Chloride 314 Total sulphate 91 Inorganic sulphate 83

Dr. G. S. Cotton, of Temple, Texas, writes me that urine also contains” Allontain ” (c4H6.03.N.4). No mention of the valuable hormones to which Prof. Jean Rostand refers is made in the above. This is significant as showing the amount of valuable mineral salts contained in healthy urine; to appreciate which, one needs to have studied The Biochemic System of Medicine. Even so,as already implied, there are wide variations in urinary composition according to the foods and drinks consumed. For instance, taking fifty normal subjects, we find that whereas with the average. Urea N. amounts to 682, the maximum amounts to 1829 , whilst the minimum is 29 8.

As to the volume of urine passed, it varies greatly according to diet and season of the year. Also, urine passed at night is about one quarter to one half of that passed during daytime. In view of the above analysis, we may well ask our- selves the question : If the elements which urine reveals are not required by the body, then why do our food chemists and biochemists emphasise their value and declare them to be essential to the body upkeep?

The idea that urine contains poisonous elements which the body is endeavouring to eliminate is based upon theory only, and is not demonstrated by the facts. As survivors in open boats and rafts often drink their own urine when their water supply becomes deficient, surely if they were drinking a poisonous fluid they would die or become very ill? Far from this being the case, the practice of drinking urine is pronounced to be harmless. but (as the Medical Department of the Navy pointed out in a letter to an inquirer) “the benefit obtained is not .as great as would appear at first sight because in dehydration the output of urine falls to a very low level..: .” I shall comment on this later.

Meanwhile, I may remark that what may be a ” poison ” when separated from its natural environment may not act as a poison when remaining in its natural environment. TheMedical Profession may have been impressed when, at the beginning of the century, Charrin wrote a whole book on the “poisons ” of urine, but as Prof. Jean Rostand (already quoted) has since written : ” The time is not far off when it will be imperative to write of the blessings of urine.” Indeed, as we shall see in the course of these pages, the most pregnant of all facts is the outstanding fact that urine, however thick, concentrated, scanty and seemingly ” poisonous ” it may appear at the onset of such diseases as genuine Bright’s disease, influenza and others, very soon becomes filtered and greatly increased in volume when freely imbibed.

This is a fact I have witnessed, together with other practitioners of urine-therapy, in hundreds of so-termed hopeless cases, and is the best and most definite answer to the objection with which I am – dealing. One other objection which has been mooted (namely by those who are wont to put their trust in the “princes ” of medicine) is as follows : If urine was at one time known to be such a valuable remedy, why has it fallen into disrepute? And yet those who put this question must be unacquainted with the most elementary facts of orthodox medical history, which related of one long series of changes of policy, changes of drugs, of treatments, of fads and fashions and “exploded superstitions,” of altercations, of envies and even of persecutions.

Some of the strangest “remedies” have had a vogue for a few years, only to be regarded a few years later as the most disgusting and barbarous superstitions. For instance, the notorious Cardinal Richlieu was given horse dung in wine to drink on his death-bed, and not by quacks but by men we should nowadays call qualified doctors.(SeeDevils,Drugs and Doctors, by’ H. W. Haggard,MH.D.) ‘Nor am I here giving away “state secrets” in alluding to the instability which characterises the orthodox Medical Profession.

Speaking at the King’s CollegeH.M. School on October 1st, 1918, Surgeon- General Sir Watson Cheyne, M.P.. urged the students to remember:- ” Medicine is not an exact science. A good deal of what they were being taught was not true. When they came to deal with life, they knew so little about the living body that they could not be dogmatic. They could only lay down hypotheses which would hold for a day and then pass away : and just as the teachings of seventy years ago seemed to them very curious and not very sound, so it would be exactly the same forty years hence.”(The Times, October 2nd, 1918.) The truth of this utterance applies every bit as much to-day as it did in 1918-perhaps even more so.

It is no exaggeration to say that, far from being an exact science, in spite of all “scientific” tests that patients are subjected to in these days, it still remains such an inexact science that ten different doctors have been known to give ten different diagnoses relative to so apparently simple an ailment as persistent headaches. In the American journal Liberty(January 22nd, 1938) there appeared a significant article by a man in the late twenties who relates his attempts to get rid of this annoying trouble by consulting no less than ten doctors in succession ; and at the end of his adventures he still retained his headaches. As the story is so significant and not unfraught with its ironic and humorous side, it may be condensed here.

The first doctor told him he had an obstruction in his nose, and must see a nose specialist; the second told him there was nothing the matter with his nose, but he must see an oculist ; the third told him he had low blood pressure, and must have injections ; the fourth told him he had high blood pressure, and must diet himself to lower it ; the fifth told him his liver was enlarged, and he must have electrical treatment ; the sixth told him his liver was not enlarged but it secreted insufficient bile ; the seventh told him that his pituitary gland was not functioning properly, and he must have glandular injections the eighth told him he was suffering from intestinal poisoning, and must cut down his eating and smoking ; the ninth told him that his was a case of nervous debility, and he must take some pills for the trouble, the tenth told him there was nothing really the matter with him, and that his headaches were just headaches ! . . .

In citing this article I am not implying that doctors are ignoramuses. On the contrary, they are so full of erudition that ” they cannot see the wood of truth for the trees of learning ” ! That is one very cogent reason why sooner or later they reject the simple remedy or treatment for the complex, no matter how efficacious that simple remedy has proved to be. A final objection which may be raised against urine in take by the fastidious (although it constitutes no argument against its therapeutical value) is that the taste must be so ” utterly revolting ” that only heroes could bring themselves to drink it. This assumption, however, is incorrect. The taste of healthy urine is not nearly as objectionable as, say, Epsom salts.

Fresh morning urine is merely somewhat bitter and salty. But as already mentioned, the more frequently it is taken the more innocuous does it become ; and as might be expected, its taste varies from day to day and even from hour to hour according to the foods which have been eaten. Even the urine which is passed in some serious diseases is not as obnoxious to taste as its appearance may often suggest. And now, having cited testimonials both ancient and modern as to the therapeutical value of urine, and having also dealt with the afore-mentioned objections. I will sum up the evidence contained through many years of practice and personal experience on the part of those who are in a position to know the real facts.

Urine. on being taken into the body, is filtered ; it becomes purer and purer even in the course of one day’s living upon it. plus tap-water, if required. First, it cleanses, then frees from obstruction and finally rebuilds the vital organs and passages after they have been wasted by the ravages of disease. In fact it rebuilds not only the lungs, pancreas. liver, brain, heart. etc., but also repairs the linings of brain and bowel and other linings, as has been demonstrated in the case of many “killing ” diseases, such as consumption of the intestines and the worst form of colitis. In fine, it accomplishes what fasting merely on water or fruit juices (as some naturopaths advocate) can never achieve.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *