Camel Urine available for purchase — and it’s Halal certified!

[Ok, more of my urine for me.](https://youtu.be/asCcvU2Kz-I?t=40)

There are people on the internet who meet up to trade pee so they can “flush out their body’s toxins” with someone elses urea. Theres dating sites for it.

Not me. I want to believe.

[Are studies necessary?](https://youtu.be/w6YnnCH2uwY?si=GC9_W3uYHeLcqMCr&t=41)

The anti-bacterial/fungal/viral properties were only tested in vitro, yes. I think it’s very reckless for the article to imply that drinking the urine can have the same effect as directly applying an extracted compound to cultures in a petri dish (they do not outright make this claim, but it’s definitely implied by the article’s structure). However, the “anti-diabetic” and hepatoprotective properties where tested in vivo, albeit only in the rodent model. The anti-cancerous ones were tested in vitro and in vivo, also in rodents. And there’s still some misleading shit going on there, at least if you take into consideration that most people only ever read the abstract, not the entire review. The abstract says the urine had anti-diabetic properties, which would lead every reader to believe that they mean it affected blood sugar levels / reduced insulin resistance. However, the study they cited for this claim didn’t even report differences in blood glucose levels (despite explicitely saying that they monitored them!) or HbA1c (which is slightly more understandable since the study only lasted 3 weeks). They only analysed liver function, liver histology, and blood lipids. They even said that the liver was damaged by the cytotoxic substance they used to induce diabetes, and did not claim it was damaged by the diabetes itself. I am not a MD, so I couldn’t say whether the positive effect of urine on alloxan-induced necrosis of liver cells would even be relevant for the type of liver disorders associated with long-term diabetes. Some of the liver function parameters are also just flat-out weird. For example, for alkaline phosphatase, the healthy control rats and the untreated alloxane-exposed/diabetic control rats had similar blood levels (212.8 and 217.38 respectively), but the camel urine group had only a level of 62.80. Is that even healthy? Could also be a fluke since the sample size was so small and they didn’t do any longitudinal assessments (maybe one or two of the piss rats just had low AP levels to begin with, even before the alloxan and the piss). Anyway, I think it’s kind of weird that the paper didn’t publish blood glucose levels in a study focused on diabetes. Not sure if it was genuinely not within their scope or whether they just noticed “oh fuck, the urine didn’t do anything, better not mention that”. And I think the review linked in the parent comment should have just categorised this study in the “hepatoprotective” section rather than giving it an own “antidiabetic” section. Regarding the studies actually grouped in the hepatoprotective section, I only have full access to one of them, but that one looks pretty legit methodically. However, they orally administered an extracted compound from the urine, probably in a way higher concentration than you can find in the au naturale product, so the review shouldn’t imply that this is comparable to the traditional practice of drinking urine. The in vivo cancer study orally administered freeze-dried and reconstituted urine, although I’m not sure if the two different “freeze-dried urine to water” ratios they used would result in a more concentrated product than the raw urine. Their sample was also really small at only 15 (5 mice each in the control, low-concentration, and high-concentration groups). If even one of the mice in each of the treatment groups just happened to grow a smaller tumour for inherent biological reasons, that could have distorted the entire result. Lab rodents are all highly genetically controlled, but it’s still not impossible. TL;DR: No, a bunch of the stuff was actually tested in vivo, but you’re still correct about the review article not being scientifically sound – just for different reasons.

A shotgun is a very effective way to get rid of cancer actually. There may be side effects.

That’s what it must have sounded like to the first person they convinced to stand in front of a particle beam to get rid of their cancer.

If you want to learn about that in detail, it’s discussed in Dava Sobel’s book about Marie Curie. It was her husband, Pierre, who discovered that radiation had a greater impact on cancer cells than non-cancerous cells, and her institute was pivotal in the creation of radiotherapy (which was called curietherapy for a long time…). Or, really, any biography of here, but Sobel’s book is excellent, like all her books.

I think the list of side effects isn’t any longer than your standard AD for prescription medications.

Punch a fat kid = fighting childhood diabetes That how it works?

Hey a shotgun can keep pretty much anybody from dying of cancer.

Not sure about in vitro, but bleach and shotguns are usually associated with in utero

I’m sorry but I don’t think a shotgun works in vitro… Can you explain?

Put some cancer cells in a glass dish, the cancer is now in vitro, in glass. Count how many cells there are. Now shoot the glass dish with a shotgun. Scrape the cells off the workbench, floor, walls and ceiling and count how many live cells you recover. From there, calculate the % effectiveness of a shotgun administered to cancer cells in a glass dish. Conduct further studies into the effectiveness of adjusting the range, calibre or shot type of the shotgun. Then begin patient trials to test shotguns in vivo against cancer, but make sure to run it past your institutions ethics committee first. Also their legal department.

I think they confused in vitro with in utero.

I’m not convinced you’re going to cure cancer with a shotgun in this manner sir. The jury is out.

Anything can be cured with enough ordinance. If a shotgun doesn’t work, that’s some gnarly cancer you’ve got, but just go bigger and something will sort you out. Side effects may be extreme and incompatible with life. Cancer will be gone though.

> Anything can be cured with enough ordinance. *Ordnance. Legislating the cancer away sounds even more painful than the shotgun method.

Thanks, I’ll remember it as one of those French-derived words that are meant to sound like you’re swallowing a marble.

I enjoyed reading this part a lot >”Side effects may be extreme and incompatible with life.”