First of all my statement was not tied specifically to a certain person.
Secondly, the benefit of cow urine is questionable and there havent been enough studies to verify that claim, especially not the cancer treatment claim.
Have you read the reports you posted? Its written in them. You dont have to search for others..
"Though, the end user claims are many but scientific validation of those claims is required. Most of the tested practices of cowpathy or cow urine therapy are rejected as myth or mythological"
Apart from that, many of these reports are souring with non scientific religious undertones:
"However, there is still a need not only to explore further research possibilities but also to stop cow sacrifice across the world. she is a very sacred and holy animal so to worship as God."
Is this a serious way of interpreting empirical data?
Dont I am strong believer in the scientific method and always open to new findings... but mixing religious or political undertones into research papers is disgusting.
