Autogenous Urine Therapy
Thursday, April 10th, 2008Conclusion.
Canadian pharmacy
The form of “detoxification” described above has yet to be proved effective for treatment of allergy, IEI, drug addiction, or any other illness. The ability of the procedure to remove chemicals from fat has not been proved. The theory of immunotoxicity as a cause of allergic disease is contrary to accumulated scientific experimentation. The potential dangers of this program have not yet been adequately evaluated.
Claims of therapeutic properties of human urine go back to ancient times. In the early 1930s several medical publications claimed that a specific substance, called “proteose,” is present during allergic disease. Injections of extracts of this substance were recommended for treatment of allergy, and there were reports of successes in many other diseases. Other reports could not reproduce these findings. The practice subsided after several years, but it has resurfaced recently.
Method.
Canadian viagra
Several chemical extraction procedures have been recommended for obtaining “proteose” from the urine. The extracted protein is suspended in a buffered solution and then injected for intradermal testing and for subcutaneous therapeutic injections.
Theory.
Proponents of this form of treatment believe that urinary “proteose” contains the allergen specific for that particular individual. They believe that it is a superior source of allergen for therapy, having gone through some type of unspecified processing by the body.
Studies.
The published reports consist of uncontrolled anecdotal histories of apparently successful treatment of a variety of allergic conditions, including asthma, rhinitis, anaphylaxis, urticaria, angioedema, and serum sickness. Other reports have failed to prove efficacy. No studies using proper controls have been performed.
Safety.
Discount viagra pro
There have been no studies addressing the question of long-term safety. This is critical because small quantities of glomerular basement membrane antigens are found in normal urine. It is not unreasonable that alteration by chemical treatment during the extraction process could lead to the production of altered renal proteins that might induce autoantibodies.
Conclusion.
The practice of injecting an extract of the patient’s own urine for diagnosis or treatment of allergy is clearly unacceptable and must be discouraged. It is not based on a rational theory, and there have been no scientific investigations of efficacy or safety. The potential for induction of autoimmune nephritis is a clear danger that should preclude consideration of this procedure in humans, even on an experimental basis