WOULD SUPERVISION OF URINE THERAPY BY A CONVENTIONAL DOCTOR BE POSSIBLE OR DESIRABLE?
A first and quick reading of Armstrong’s book, “The Water of Life, a treatise on urine therapy, 1944”, can give us the impression that it is simply a catalogue of unconnected cases, without any basis or explanation. But if we read the book slowly and carefully we will see how everything is adjusted and explained with the maximum scientific rigor and clarity of presentation.
Next we are going to present some reflections of Armstrong, about medicine in general, based on a series of literal quotations taken from his book.
At the beginning of the book Armstrong confesses that he had not intended to write it, but had finally agreed to do so because he had been repeatedly asked to do it by many of the people who had experienced, on themselves or their family and friends, the life-saving healing effects of urine therapy.
But let’s go back to the question that we pose as the title of this section: Is it possible or desirable to supervise a urine therapy or urine fast by a conventional doctor? In this regard Armstrong states the following:
“The question is how to deal with the problem which confronts the sufferer who has ceased to believe in orthodox methods and is prepared to try urine-therapy. Should he dispense with doctors’ services or should he not? From nearly every point of view I consider it would be better if he did not dispense
with the services of his medical adviser”.
“There is no practical reason whatever why the discovery, or rather re-discovery of urine-therapy should “deprive the doctor of his bread”, though that is a matter which rests entirely with the individual doctor”.
“This book places him in possession of the facts, and should he refuse when requested by a patient to supervise a urine-fast, then I can hardly be blamed for what is not my fault. It will not be the first time that a patient has suggested to his physician the particular treatment he wishes to try, and if
spectacularly beneficial results accrue there from, then all the better for the doctor’s reputation”.
According to Armstrong experience and my own, one of the many advantages of Urine Therapy is that it never presents any type of adverse side effects, which is very natural, given that we are treating ourselves with our own urine, whose composition is very similar to that of blood serum.
On the other hand, a medical professional who knew and supervised a urine fast would give the patient great confidence. Both patients and their relatives are full of fears, first when facing a diagnosis, and then before the prospect of having to face some form of treatment, whether conventional or alternative.
Now then, even assuming a doctor would be willing to oversee urine therapy, Armstrong issues the following stern warning:
“All the same, I must sound a note of warning. If a doctor thinks he can combine drugs with the urine-fast, despite my affirmations to the contrary, the result will be failure. As we have seen, urine-therapy is a Nature cure in the most literal sense of the word, and to employ measures which are contrary to Nature at the same time, would not only be quite illogical but even dangerous. I know this to my cost—not as the result of this interfering with Nature myself, but as the result of others doing so when my back was turned”.
“I give this warning, and sincerely hope it may be heeded. Provided it’s heeded, I again repeat that the supervision of a doctor is desirable from many points of view. Nor need the doctor feel any compunction in the matter nor any slight to his dignity merely because this form of therapy was the outcome of a layman’s experiments. Any physician who knows his medical history also knows that laymen have contributed much to the faculty of medicine. Pasteur himself was a chemist, not a doctor“.
In this regard we can mention hydrotherapy and spa treatments. Many conventional doctors do not think it necessarily lowers their dignity to recommend some proven “naturopathic” treatments, such as hydrotherapy or balneotherapy.
Armstrong optimistically believes that in the future, the efficacy of urine therapy will eventually prevail, and it will come to be recommended by conventional doctors as yet another complementary treatment. In this regard Armstrong says:
“This being the case, I am optimistic enough to think that in the not too distant future there may be establishments where patients can be treated with urinetherapy, and where there will be a staff of nurses to look after them and do the urine-rubbings”.
“Why should people be destined to die of gangrene and other said-tobe- incurable conditions when it is possible to save them?”
“As a matter of fact, all reforms and changes threaten some one’s interests, but in the end matters adjust themselves. Yet when all is said, is it right that vested interests should interfere with the physical well-being of the people? If I could honestly say that the various money-making gadgets that are now on the market were really means to lasting health instead of being just palliatives often deceptive ones at that—I should be the last not to extol them. Nay, what interest have I in decrying them, seeing I have nothing to sell?”
“The great advantage of urine-therapy is the very fact that it costs nothing and can be used by poor and rich alike. A large number of impecunious people are now treating themselves with urine-therapy in their own homes, with the kind assistance of relatives to do the rubbing, and the treatment does not cost them a penny”.
“On the other hand, as I have implied, clinics in which urine-therapy could be practiced and where it could be supervised by doctors, would be of great convenience to those who could afford to attend such institutions”.
