Talk:Panchgavya

Can we get some fact-checking here?

The sources I see, while valuable, don't seem to be scientific. The text of the page and the Table in particular look like they were written by www.cowurine.com itself. --Hawkian, 66.229.227.106 (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. The sources being quoted here are without any scientific merit, there's serious possibility of original research here, and the complete lack of mention of any contrary opinion is frightening, to say the least. --Bunnybeater —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBunnybeater (talk • contribs) 17:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC) The article seems totally unscientific! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.122.162 (talk) 11:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Surely the article dosent hold any scientific reference at all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.72.237 (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you guys take a look at the patents instead of bleating 'there is no scientific basis'? The United States Patent Office doesn't take the submissions lightly. They are all well-researched documents. You cannot claim that the article is non-neutral without links to patents. [Kvjg] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvjg (talk • contribs) 20:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. This article is unsourced and totally POV. This should be merged into one of the many articles on Hinduism. This article does not describe the substance in any other context. --Salimfadhley (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. The article does need work. (I have no idea what "used in Yajur Veda for Ark as a medicine" even means) I wouldn't say it's unsourced or particularly POV (apart from referring the RSS as "India's leading Hindu cultural group" - but then that's a copy-vio from the original source (The Telegraph). Makes me wonder about the rest of the paragraph). I think the complaint you might be looking for is something like globalise. I'm going to have a little look to see if there's more that can be said about cow urine outside of an exclusively Hindu context. There's probably a fair bit of mileage in cow urine as a fertiliser. There's also this report of it being used as a component of traditional Yoruba medicine. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Curing diseases?

Cow's urine has been reported to cure a number of conditions including skin diseases, obesity, cancer and disorders of the heart, liver and kidney --- This has not been proven!-- Abhijeet Safai 15:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree 100%. However, this is a claim supporters of cow urine as a medicine are making. IMO it needs to be included in the article. The sentence that followed the sentence you removed "The medicinal properties of cow's urine have not been verified by science" states the position very clearly. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Ka Faraq Gatri, the patents are pretty clear about the properties of Cow Urine distillate that include medicinal properties. Can you read them instead of deleting the links and claiming that 'there is no scientific proof'? If you want to be neutral, you should comment on the patents instead of deleting them and claiming that the article is non neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvjg (talk • contribs) 20:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

There are a couple of problems, as I see it, with the version you've reverted back to. Firstly, and most importantly, this version has a copyright violation in it. The sentence concerning the RSS development of cow urine as a soft drink is a direct copy-paste from the stated source (The Telegraph). That sentence can't stay as it is.

Secondly, patents aren't scientific proof of anything. Things don't have to work for a patent to be issued.

Thirdly, we need a reliable source that says that cow urine works as a therapy. Since proponents are making a medical claim then WP:MEDRS applies here. No one has so far presented a secondary source to say cow urine treatment works. Incidentally, I think claiming that it absolutely doesn't work is going to be difficult too, since there just don't seem to be any peer reviewed articles on the matter. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Ka Faraq Gatri, I am not sure why you think it is a copyright violation. Along with the sentence, we are adding the citation and the user has the link to 'The Telegraph'. We could call it a violation only if we aren't putting the link to the source. After all, most of the content in various articles in Wikipedia is taken from news sources and we add the citations. Coming to the patents, if we read the abstracts, we see that the research was carried out by people from the 'Council for scientific and Industrial research, India'. They have documented the properties using scientific methods, found a formula and have applied for patent to that formula. It is definitely not a random statement by a bunch of folks, who got their statement patented! We need to give some credit to the people doing scientific experiments. In regards to your question regarding a reliable source that says cow urine works as a therapy, we did add links to various sources. Some of these sources are those of practitioners who practice traditional medicine, like Ayurveda, Siddha (Siddha_medicine) etc, which are based on classical texts. In western medicine, these forms are classified as a system of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) that is used to complement, rather than replace, the treatment regimen and relationship that exists between a patient and their existing physician. In fact, many western medicines don't have any scientific basis, but just rely on some 'clinical trials'. If you are unsatisfied with the existing words in article, we can modify it along with the above information to make it mutually acceptable. But we definitely need to educate the readers that it is an alternative medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvjg (talk • contribs) 23:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:copyright violation. The citation at the end of the sentence is a citation for the fact not a credit for the words used. The copyright for all the text on this site is released under Creative Commons licensing. The copyright for that particular sentence belongs to the Telegraph. We don't have permission to use it, it can't be released under the terms of Creative Commons licensing so it has to go. From WP:CV "material copied from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed without the permission of the copyright holder (unless brief quotation used in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation. Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there's substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure (this can also raise problems of plagiarism). Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues." I've therefore deleted the text from the current version. I have no objection to the content of the sentence being re-inserted with the citation but the exact wording should not be re-inserted.

Re:Patents. The patents, although applied for by a scientific body, do not count as a reliable source for medical claims. Firstly and most importantly, they're not the kind of peer reviewed, secondary source we're ideally looking for here. In fact, they're not even primary sources because they are the summary of data which does not appear to have been published in any peer reviewed journal (although if you can find the paper(s) they're worth a mention, in my opinion). Secondly, all of the experiments cited are in vitro studies that are likely to say very little about how the treatment would perform in an actual organism. In summary i) patents aren't suitable sources for the efficacy of any medical claim and ii) even if they were reliable sources these particular patents would not support the position of proponents of cow urine therapy that it can cure major diseases such as cancer.

Re:Western medicines don't have any scientific basis but just rely on 'clinical trials'. The mechanism by which certain Western medicines work is either not known or poorly understood but the point about a clinical trial is that it shows efficacy. None of the sources provided here have shown efficacy of cow urine in a clinical trial, hence my phrasing "The medicinal properties of cow's urine have not been verified by science". I'm happy to discuss wording with you and I absolutely agree that this article falls in to the category of alternative medicine. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I also would like to discuss! Abhijeet Safai 05:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Ka Faraq Gatri, here is one publication from a scientific journal (Global journal of pharmacology) titled 'Antimicrobial Activities of of Cow Urine Distillate Against some Clinical Pathogens': www.idosi.org/gjp/4(1)10/7.pdf It is pretty clear that about the properties of the distillate and how it performs with actual clinical pathogens. I am referring to such publications which resulted in patents. I will definitely try to find the related publications (which are primary sources), but don't rule out their efficacy and remove the patent information.

Regarding your removal of text copy-pasted from the abstract of the patents, I'd like to point you to the copyrights website (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#patent). Ideas and discoveries are not protected by the copyright law, although the way in which they are expressed may be. This patent about cow-urine is an idea or a discovery, not a trademark or a work of authorship (which should be copyrighted).

I agree that the text from the news site 'The Telegraph' should need some modification.

Dear Abhijeet Safai, you are welcome to participate! Kvjg (talk) 06:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have removed the patents, and numerous sources cited to primary literature from questionable journals using mainly in vitro or animal models. None of these are appopriate for suggesting cow urine can cure any diseases. WP:REDFLAG applies here. I have therefore reverted to a previous version which does not include this material. Yobol (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear user: Yobol, please see above discussions with Ka Faraq. we can't remove the patents. These are genuine and based on the work which were published in international journals like 'Academic Journal of Cancer Research', 'Biomedical and Environmental Sciences', 'Global journal of pharmacology' etc. They are definitely not questionable journals. It is your biased opinion and it definitely seems you didn't read through the content of the journals. We are trying to make the article neutral and have included the criticisms section. You should add your criticism in that section. You can question the claims, but removing genuine scientific research works and patents is definitely unbecoming on your part. If you want to criticize the claims, do so at the criticisms section. Thanks! 76.103.209.62 (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Patents are not reliable sources for medical information. Most of the journals noted are not indexed in MEDLINE, where most credible biomedical journals are indexed. I should also note that even if they were in highly credible journals, they are still primary studies which should be avoided per our guidelines and policies (See again WP:MEDRS and WP:PSTS). The information and sources used as above are not allowed on Wikipedia per our guidelines. Yobol (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear user: Yobol, no where in the article MEDS is it mentioned that patents are not reliable sources and need to be excluded. Also, the journals are definitely indexed in MEDLINE. For eg: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15602821
This is credible enough an per WP:MEDRS & WP:PSTS and can be used as a primary source. You seem to have a strong bias against the article and you definitely didn't go through the links to the primary sources. I also specifically mentioned that this falls under the category of Ayurveda, which falls under the system of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). By removing the links to primary sources and patents (which are genuine), we are presenting a non-scientific picture and this is not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.129.232.2 (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Patents, being non-peer-reviewed, clearly fail MEDRS. That is only one out of the 5 journals used is MEDLINE indexed, and that article is a primary article and not appropriate per MEDRS. Again, WP:REDFLAG applies. Again, WP:REDFLAG applies here. To suggest cow urine can cure diabetes, we need much better sources than those provided. Yobol (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Yobol, the article doesn't fail MEDRS (and WP:REDFLAG need not apply) policies even while having links to patents and scientific research because it is not endorsing cow urine as a modern medicine. It is just pointing to some modern research work (by reputed organizations) on its properties and patents. The wordings are clear that there are claims by researchers. Regarding the anti-diabetics things, there is no suggestion in the article that it will cure diabetes. The sources clearly talk only about the results of experiments on rats and there is still a long way to go before reaching conclusions on its efficacy as an anti-diabetic drug.
Again, "patents being non-peer-reviewed and hence shouldn't be mentioned" doesn't apply here, because the article only mentions about research work and not necessarily endorsing any modern medicine, which would fall under MEDRS.
And the mention of its use in Ancient India doesn't imply endorsing medicinal usage in the Modern world. Clearly, the purpose of MEDRS is educate people with reliable information about modern biomedical drugs from sources that reflect current medical knowledge. I don't see a reason why the article would fail MEDRS policy.. Kvjg (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Kvjg, I am uncomfortable including such extraordinary claims about medical benefits without extraordinary evidence. Such claims are outside mainstream science. I have no trouble with limited reporting of these claims to the extent that they have been reported in the sources currently cited. However, the version I reverted gave substantial undue weight to fringe theories. Check reference [1], which says in one of the few sentences related to medicinal use of cow urine: "Although most Indian doctors view the medicines as eccentric..." Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Moishe Rosenbaum, the reference you quoted was from an article published in 2001. Much has changed since then and most of the research work has been done after that. The patents have been filed and approved later. You can check the dates of research publications and patents. We need to give due credit to these research works. It is clear that this system of medicine is outside the mainstream science (which is Ayurveda), but Wikipedia is not all about only Western medicine (otherwise why are there some many articles on alternate medicine?). It has been clearly mentioned and the article is not endorsing it but giving a neutral picture about the claims and criticisms. And the claims may be extraordinary for you, but we need to give due credit and we never know it could end up becoming the next breakthrough helping you and others. It may not end up being one also, but the readers should know that there is some research going on in unconventional areas. If you want to add to criticisms, please do so. You may add the article you quoted above in this section. But please don't remove original research being done by reputed organizations. There seems to be some bias against India based research organizations here. Kvjg (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Credit is not "due" -- these are fringe claims. The "next breakthough" doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, only the last breakthrough. I've reverted per my statement above, and per points made by Ka Faraq Gatri & Yobol.Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

These are definitely not fringe claims. (They are not claiming you'll become immortal by taking the medicine). Who decides what fringe claims are? Are you claiming that you are better than these researchers? Before a research work (like http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15602821 ) gets published, it goes through a review process. They don't publish junk work or fringe claims. And I am not saying it will be the next breakthrough. All I am saying is you need to give due credit to research work done by reputed institutes.

You don't need to believe in claims, but you should reserve the right of expression by others about genuine scientific works (which also satisfy wikipedia's policies). I may not agree with you, but I fight for your right of expression. Here, you are just deleting everything and bleating 'these are fringe claims'.

You are not agreeing to reach a consensus. If you believe in net neutrality, then you'd be willing to add to criticisms, not deleting the main text. I will revert back the changes. I can't agree to deletion of patent links and links to publications from scientific journals, which are not objectionable to Wikipedia's policies. Thanks. Kvjg (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Right

You cna't use in vitro research to make confident claims about in vivo effect, you MUST not overstate the journal's findings, and the unsourced list at the end that basically included anything found in cow urine combind with any positive effects of it - real or specuulated- at any dose - was complete WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I've cut this down a lot, and even now, it's still an AWFUL article. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Diseases proponents believe are cured by drinking cow urine

I've added in some alternative references for the "Proponents of Ayurvedic medicine believe that Cow urine therapy is capable of curing several curable and incurable diseases" sentence. The combined list, from the references is:

• Telegraph (2001) - cures "skin diseases, kidney and liver ailments...obesity and heart ailments"
• Telegraph (2009) - cures "liver complaints, diabetes and cancer"
• Independent - helps to treat "renal failure, leprosy, skin disease, piles, anaemia, jaundice, mouth ulcers and ear disease"

Are newspapers an appropriate source for these claims? If so, is it sufficient to summarise the list as containing both "curable and incurable diseases" (where curable would probably include jaundice and incurable would include diabetes (which is controllable but not curable, to the best of my knowledge)). If we regard the list of conditions given in the Independent as "helps to assist" rather an a claim of ability to cure by itself is it still justifiable to claim that proponents claim cow's urine alone cures incurable conditions? Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

We shoudl say what proponents believe, but it's important to alo include any rebuttals found in the newspaper articles, as the one thing this article can't be is an advertisement for it, it needs to present criticisms fairly as well.

The claims for cow urine, while interesting from a sociological and Ayurvedic standpoint, need to be clearly presented as only having acceptance within that worldview, unless there's actual evidence of widespread, mainstream acceptance. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

here is another news article with some "mainstream" critique. As one would expect, actual medical studies are practically non-existant. WP:PARITY may need to be invoked for skeptical websites to give the proper mainstream opinion here. Yobol (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Proposal to merge this article to Cowpathy. Duplicate info is contained at cowpathy on exactly the same subject with considerable overlap to this article. Cowpathy is actually the broader topic that Cow urine is a subset of. Cowpathy contains background material and context necessary for readers to understand that the subject is not just "any old cow urine", but cow urine as it relates to Ayurveda, Hindu beliefs and Indian society.

This article desperately needs context. I support Moreschi's suggestion of moving it to "Cow urine (Ayurveda)" or even a couple of paragraphs in the "Treatments" section of the main Ayurveda article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that there may not be enough information to justify a stand alone article now and merging to a larger article may be for the best. Yobol (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Also we might consider Cowpathy as a target article for merging content to. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

To better determine the answers to these questions and invite a wider audience why not list this article at AfD? Or at least open a formal merge discussion? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Great. We have the section. Now we need at the top of the section a clear statement of the merge proposal along with the justification per WP:MERGE. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Merge. Cowpathy (I assume like homeopathy, allopathy, etc...?) - would be a logical place for this information. Information for the religious and social background for the use of this as a medicine would also be more adequately discussed there. Yobol (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Merge. Per WP:SUMMARY there is not enough reliable information yet to create a standalone article. If in the future this subject matures to a level worthy of an article then we can create one. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Merge Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Merge Cow's urine is used as a basis for at least one traditional medicine in Kenya but it's only one of many components. Otherwise than that there seems little scope for it to grow beyond the Ayurvedic use described here. Fits better with Panchgavya than Urine therapy. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Merged. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Title

Panchagavya has more Google results than Panchgavya which is the title the article is now having. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudrakshan (talk • contribs) 05:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Curing cancer ?

I would like to have discussion on this point! -Abhijeet Safai 09:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijeet Safai (talk • contribs)

I don't see any problem. The article merely reports the cancer-cure claims made by proponents, it doesn't endorse them. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

the interesting thing is that there are claims and claims only ! and no poofs! may be the hallmark of this article. -Abhijeet Safai 05:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijeet Safai (talk • contribs)

Respected friends!

i want to update u all that we have got more than SOME us patent for indian cow distilled urine.

o1.for its DNA DAMAGE REPAIR PROPERTIES 02.ANTI CANCER PROPERTIES 03.ANTI OXIDENT PROPERTIES 04.SAFE PESTISIDE FOR FARMING

SO NOW IT IS NOW PROVED ON SCIENTIFIC PARAMETERS THAT OUR COW IS KAMDHENU N MOTHER OF HUMAN BEING!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.194.183.1 (talk) 06:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC) 

If it were to cure cancer!!!!, then people will get noble prize for it. :P Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)