Urine Therapy Books

I read this book and was blown away. Incredible stories, unbelievable, awe inspiring to say the least. This book describles stories of very sick people trying urine fasts, as a last resort, after years of traditional medical treatment and healing whatever ails them. I would also recommend "Your own perfect medicine" by Martha Christy and "the golden fountain" by coen van der kroon, two books I also read about urine therapy. I have done a few urine fasts and they really work to help you lose weight and junk in your body.

The universe keeps gifting us with blessings and we often miss them. Our education or culturization gets in the way. I really think the best things in life are free. The Water of Life by John Armstrong is a beginning, an opening door, that will hopefully change opinions. The cases presented are not only interesting they are convincing. My biggest complaint, is that there are not enough specifics for implementing. e.g. For application to the head/hair. How long should it remain on the hair. Should the hair then be shampooed, or just rinsed?

My fear has flown out the window, I'm convinced. Very easy to read guidelines for applying urine therapies, with testimonials.

It's very useful both for ill people but also for the others !
I recommend it !
Thanks !

THE WATER OF LIFE : A Treatise on Urine Therapy by John W. Armstrong. Saffron Walden, Essex : The C. W. Daniel Co.Ltd., 2nd Edition 1971, Twelfth Impression, 1998.

Since its first publication in 1945, 'The Water of Life' has achieved something of the status of a classic. Having just finished reading it, I can understand why. Armstrong, who was a British naturopath, was a very modest man who never intended to write his book. But after repeated requests, and after considering that he had a duty to his fellow men and women to reveal the details of the miraculous therapy he had discovered, he went ahead, and we should all be intensely thankful that he did. The book is a goldmine of good sense, practical advice, brief though fascinating case studies, and astute observations on a wide range of matters.

His discovery - or perhaps rediscovery is a better word, since urine therapy was and is known and practised in many cultures and is even known to the animals - came about in a curious way. As a young man he suffered from consumption, had been passed through the hands of a whole slew of orthodox medical practitioners, none of whom had been able to cure him, and some of whom made his condition worse.

But he seems to have been a religious man, and one day, while pondering Proverbs V.xv : "Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well," he had a flash of inspiration which led him to link this passage with a few tales he'd heard about the curative properties of urine. Could this reference to "waters," he wondered, be a reference to the body's own water - urine? Having nothing to lose, he decided to give it a try.

He began drinking his own urine, was restored to health, and went on to lead a vigorous and productive life by helping to restore the health of many others, both human and animal. Incidentally, one of the interesting features of his book, which indicates something of his kindly and unselfish nature, is that he has included a Chapter XVI 'Urine-Therapy on Animals.'

In 'The Water of Life' he has provided details of the threefold 'urine fast' method he worked out, details which will be found enough to go on by mature adults of average intelligence who have a bit of common sense.

The most important point to understand, which he emphasizes throughout, is that one should NEVER attempt to use or ingest any substance other than urine and pure water - whether chemicals, drugs, alcohol, denatured foods, etc., - when undergoing a urine fast or 'penance' as he liked to call it.

The whole idea is to allow NATURE to take her course with as little interference from us as possible. A fast of urine and pure water, plus frequent, lengthy, and thorough urine massages, and, if necessary, the application of urine compresses, would, he felt, cure pretty well anyone of almost anything if undertaken long enough for the body to rid itself of toxins.

Armstrong's 'The Water of Life' is a very rich book, crammed with fascinating and useful information, and interwoven with brief case histories of almost every conceivable ailment. I couldnt even begin to do justice here to the wealth of ideas it contains.

Four books on urine therapy are currently available : those of Armstrong, Martha Christy, Coen van der Kroon, and Flora Peschek-Bohmer. Of these, the Peschek-Bohmer may be ignored as being both superficial and highly misleading on essential matters. The remaining three all serve to complement each other in different ways, with one providing what the other lacks or hasn't gone into as fully.

The serious practitioner would be unwise to overlook Armstrong. True, his is an early book and we know more about the actual constituents of urine and how it does its work today. But he was a unique character, and in his own way he was a very wise man, and I think he will always have a lot to teach us all.

In 1976,I was at Dr. Ream's health center in Blue Ridge, GA. I saw many helped - dramatically - and feel his research was shamefully put aside. Every once in awhile I hear a report in the medical field that has its roots in Dr. Ream's research. I was certain the book was too dramatic until I visited there. Then I realized it was quite accurate! I saw a little boy who was brought from St. Jude's and very ill with leukemia turn into a rambunctious little guy in the course of two weeks. (I personally heard Dr. Reams say very casually "We have great success with leukemia." He used vitamin A with this illness.) He was brown and healthy and had to be rounded up for the lemon juice and distilled water he was being given. A mother told me her daughter had not had a siezure for two days - something that had not happened for the past two years. She said she was not going to share the information with anyone because of the controversy with the AMA, but just send lemon juice and distilled water with her daughter to school. My own family member had been brought after much chemo and radiation and Dr. Reams thought it might be too late. (He was a realist and a scientist after all.) She had the quality of her last months greatly helped, however, as just a few days on the program eliminated the continual cough that had robbed her of most of her sleep. We will always be glad we went.

Here is the Sjpritual Guide about using your own urine to create a healthy body and healthy mind. It's all in Scripture! Wish I had this book 30 yrs ago!

Until you read the first text on Urine Therapy or Urotherapy, you will always be wondering why staying healthy isn't easy in today's world. This is the easiest and cheapest form of self-help known to mankind! Check it out!

This is a perky little book, rather compelling and to the point. I enjoyed reading it very much. Other books on Urine Therapy are more extensive and detailed, and we probably don't need many more of those, but this one gives us a more intimate revelation of one woman's personal experience with the process, especially the benefits.

I have read four or five other books on the subject a year or two ago, and all were worthwhile. But none of them ever mentioned the taste, the flavor of fresh urine, except for one that said it had a faint salty taste. When I started sipping urine more then 20 years ago, I vaguely remember licking a drop on my finger and perhaps yes, there may have well been a faint salty taste. But as I increased the amount from day to day its tart flavor predominated. It seemed to be a cousin of lemon juice or dilute vinegar, which are acidic; the one from citric acid, the other from acetic acid. Urine, of course contains uric acid. But it was more than that. Urine had its own distinctive flavor which I enjoyed very much, and was the main reason why I never stopped sipping it. Often,, after each morning's sip, I'd think, "This is delicious! I'll have another."

Since I like vinegar & olive oil as a salad dressing, it just occurred to me that I might try chilled urine & olive oil on salad! Over the years I've found that the flavor does vary a bit from time-to-time depending on our intake. Following a meal of beef the evening before, the urine has an unpleasant, bitter taste for example, and similarly, after a meal with asparagus, the flavor of asparagus pleasantly permeates the urine. I've tried it warm and cold, and each had its own enjoyable qualities. So when I discovered the therapeutic qualities of urine I did not hesitate to consume, without qualms, larger amounts daily.

I have read how some cultures seem to have accepted urine therapy for thousands of years, especially the people of India and China. One wonders how it ever got started. My vision of someone accidentally or deliberately peeing on their fingers and then licking them is not too convincing. I have a suspicion, though, that in the course of oral sexual activity one was more apt to have one's tongue come into contact with a bit of urine and was surprised at how tasty it was, and then.....

So if one can screw up the courage to taste that first itty bitty drop he or she will be handsomely rewarded.

no other service is so excellent.
keep it up and if you can act upon this:-
"Show your concern for the earth, and it will instruct you"

I have recently received a copy of this book and found it to be very informative and helpful. Read it with an open mind and you will be facinated.

When I first heard about uropathy otherwise known as urine therapy I had the same reaction as mentioned, "Oh My Goodness YUCK"! I have to tell you once I did my research on the topic I quickly changed my mind. Martha did a thorough job at researching the topic as well and I would recommend her book to those who want to retain their power to self heal.

I had two problems with Martha's book. One she tells the reader they are exposed to almost 200,000 chemicals daily, which by the way 90% of them are not ingested from the foods we eat (you can do your own research on this). Then she goes on to say stay away from processed foods if you're going to do urine therapy. Is she for real???

Nutritious diet, a study done found that the vegetables grown today are a quarter as nutritious as vegetables grown fifty years ago with considerable amounts of man made chemicals on them, kinda gives a new meaning to the word nutritious huh?

Everything you buy in the market is processed one way or another, even the organic foods have ,not so helful man-made chemicals on them. Lets not talk about the expense of these so-called healthy foods, so I think she lost contact with reality here.

Secondly she failed to mention why meat is to be avoided. The reason the experts say to avoid meat while doing urine therapy is because it takes a lot of energy for the body to digest meat. Energy that would be best spent self healing. To omit or not to omit is personal choice unless you have malfunctioning kidneys then meat should be avoided.

I personally didn't omit meat but have cut back on its consumption, instead of three meals with meat I had one (lunch). For the record I consume 3/4 ounce of first morning mid-stream urine each day, also massaging some on my face and neck.

Results in three weeks is my skin is softer and don't require lotion. The pores that has been large since my teen years have shrunken to almost normal.Something I wasn't expecting was my pouchy tummy is smaller and I don't have as much bra overhang. Granted it's only been three weeks but I can say I'm noticing a difference.

All in all I'm thankful that Martha was courageous enough to write the book. Most people would have kept urine therapy a secret regardless to how it had helped them so as to not be called strange.

Do investigate this therapy it's been around since the beginning of time and is worth serious consideration.

It really is easy to ignore the body's early warning system when you're busy and a bit run down from doing too much. To tell the truth I was pretty stressed actually. Being over sixty I've come to terms with the fact that the body is bound to have degenerated a bit so I tend to put the uprisings down to `age'. However shingles is not age related.

I came home from a busy day with a bit of temperature. No headache, just this pesky rash so figured I'd better investigate further. With the aid of a magnification mirror, which every female geriatric has in her armourie, I discover the blisters.

"Oh dear this is more than a heat rash my girl."

Words start tumbling through my mind, "Shingles, herpes zoster, varicella zoster, viral attack, permanent nerve damage, neuralgia, calamine lotion. Calamine lotion! Where did that come from?"

My mind takes me back to my mother's arms as her healing hands spread the salve on my chicken pox sores.

Facing the shelves of books I wake up. The book spine reads "Your Own Perfect Medicine" by Martha M Christy. I read through the night.

"I'm alone. No-one needs to know. First urine in the morning, mid stream flow only."

I collect it in an ice-cream container.

"Now what?" I pour a mug off with the intent of imbibing and drop a face washer onto the top of the remainder. It's warm. I sniff it, gag, make the decision.

"To heck with it. Desperate times, desperate measures." overrides as I take a swig.

"Hmm. With a lot of imagination it's apple juice."

I did get around to wringing out the washer, patting the wet cloth onto the burning blotches.

"Aah... relief." Childhood memories flooded in overriding all logic.

I continued the swigging and swabbing with increasing bravado. I'm seven years old and invincible.

I watch the viral attack's magnified reflection as it advances across my buttock and oddly also erupts on the sole of my left foot. Pain is endless. Collect urine, drink and swab. I have a fever.

In the early morning light I ask myself, "Is my imagination tricking me or is the reflection changing?"

I swallow two paracetamol tablets in a futile effort to get relief. They kick in! I sleep exhausted and wake up pain free. I can't believe it.

It's now two days later. I continued my regimen of `taking the piss', my natural antibiotic. That, together with the immune boosting vitamins B and C combined with Echinacea, won the battle. I have no residual pain, the blisters that hadn't burst dried up, and the rest have scabbed and are falling off with no scarring.

"Thanks Martha."

The book contains a lot of information on a subject that is little-known in the USA. The author writes passionately on the subject because it has changed her life. Her use of many references should be of help to skeptics. Her instructions are helpful to anyone desiring to try this "cure." Her work is thorough and easy to read.

Theory is important, as is history, but let's be honest - practice is where it's at. And I found the recipe section to be sorely lacking. The crab bisque with piss is lovely, but come on - how about detailing some other soups. I guess you can technically augment any soup with your whizz, but some work better than others (cream of tomato? ick!), and if the authors already know this, they could certainly have saved us some time. My family refuses to taste-test my little soup experiments for whatever reason, so I bet I've spent a month now trying all the different variations. And how about the cocktail section? The piss n' tonic is pretty standard and not that hard to figure out by oneself. Why waste ink on that when we might have gotten into some more complicated and festive summer punches and fizzes? Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the effort overall. I just hope somebody will put a bit of effort into the various ways to entertain with piss and to more palatably enjoy it oneself.

And I don't even like V8, but anything beats the recycling system offered in this book. And I like recycling, too.

This one's a little too salty for me. A "pisser," as they said in my backwards suburban youth, this is not.

It works people. You just have to do it safely. For women, mid stream, build up slowly to 1 glass a day. Do it in the early morning as that is the most nutritional of the day. It is antiseptic for a max of 15 minutes and then it is the opposite. It is tasteless if your diet is excellent. If you eat a highly processed diet you will taste the chemicals in those foods and it will taste horrid. My diet is healthy so it doesn't have any taste at all. If you try it and it seems salty well there is your diet again telling you something. I've used it to heal wounds on my hands when nothing else was helping. The prime minister of India who was known for this habit lived well into his 90's and had no maladies.

The book is vary good, BUT it depends on changing your lifestyle, and changing the way you eat. Which is VARY GOOD, eating more fresh vegetables& fruit, cutting down on the meat (colestrol). It takes a little bit of getting used to and it is the only thing that will get you back into shape.BUT IT IS WORTH THE TROUBLE. The book "The Hippocrates Diet" by Ann Wigmore, and "The New York Times Natural Foods Cookbook" are the best combo of books to let your body back to doing what GOD made it to do, That is to get well and stay well. I HAVE NOT used the Urine Therapy, so I can't say wheather it works or not. A person should not knock something they have not tried. It may be JUST WHAT YOU NEED for your ailment.

We has been doing the drink of fermented horse urine for the many decades here in my home village in Kazakhstan. Are particular excellent results--High Five!!--for Village Idiot Bogdan who also is teacher at school. We now export to capital city in exchange for bladderwort cake. Everyone in village very happy for to drink continually especial during festival for Blotov the Coward, hero of Great Patriotic War.

The book was recommended by a friend. We are reading it and enjoy what it says. We are following its directions.
Thank you.

URINE THERAPY : NATURE'S ELIXIR FOR GOOD HEALTH by Flora Peschek-Bohmer, Ph.D., and Gisela Schreiber. Translated from the German by Hans-Georg Bakker. 152 pp. Rochester, Vermont : Healing Arts Press, 1999.

After having read Martha Christy and Coen van der Kroon on Urine Therapy, I had high hopes for the present book but must confess myself disappointed. Whereas the former two writers address themselves to mature adults of average intelligence, Peschek-Bohmer's book seems intended for readers of a mental age of about ten or twelve, or infantile adults who are unamenable to reason and who need to be taken by the hand and jollied along at every step.

Her very short book, which can be read in an hour or two, breaks down into two parts. The first 50 pages are taken up with rather superficial introductory material in which the reader is given a wholly false idea of the kidneys, and in which absolutely NOTHING is said about the remarkable constituents of urine - its many hormones, vitamins, enzymes, minerals, proteins, etc., - although she finally does get around to mentioning Melatonin (a powerful natural tranquillizer) on page 147. The book also seems to me to be highly misleading on other essential matters.

Not only that, but throughout the book there are constant reminders of the need to consult a "medical professional" of one sort or another, when the whole aim of Urine Therapy is to free us from our dependence upon such people, most of whom have a proven track record of failure.

The remaining 100 pages of the book, 'Treatment and Applications,' are taken up with basic practical advice as to how we can use urine to help alleviate or cure a whole range of ailments, though in many cases, once again, not without the 'help' of those benevolent and concerned "medical professionals" who, as we know, have managed to make the curative properties of urine the best-kept secret in medical history.

Although there is a certain amount of very good advice in 'Treatment and Applications,' the hundred or so ailments have been classified in such a way - e.g., under 'Arms/Hands, Legs/Feet, Skin, Body,' etc., - as to sometimes make a specific ailment difficult to locate. I finally discovered Arthritis listed as Arthrosis under Arms/Hands on page 80. This problem could have easily been remedied by the inclusion of a simple index, but unfortunately the book lacks an index.

There are currently three other books available on Urine Therapy : Martha Christy's 'Your Own Perfect Medicine,' Coen van der Kroon's 'The Golden Fountain,' and John W. Armstrong's classic study 'The Water of Life.' I can heartily recommend any of these to mature and open-minded readers who have a bit of common sense, and who can grasp the idea that the body knows how to care for itself.

Others, who may need their hand holding, and whose fixed ideas about urine are so rigid that they need to be coaxed and jollied along, may find the Peschek-Bohmer a useful guide, but they will be left puzzled as to why urine works. A whole dimension of Urine Therapy has been totally ignored, one beautifully covered, for example, by van der Kroon, but I suppose we must be grateful for any book, no matter how superficial and misleading, which is basically positive and sets out to teach us at least something about this miraculous therapy.

I've now read six books about urine therapy. This book by Dr. Mithal is fun to read, because it is written in a broken English, as would be spoken in India. I loved the anecdote about the doctors in India who believe in urine-therapy, but know that their patients won't drink their own urine. So when the patient comes in for a visit, the doctor asks for a urine sample, which is then taken to a back room, and artificially colored and flavored, and repackaged as medicine. The doctor tells the patient to drink the medicine, and the patient invariably gets well. Mithal writes that such behavior should be forgiven because without which the patients would not get well. This is a short book. Our own human urine appears to be the long-sought FOUNTAIN of YOUTH.

Half Truths (Suppressed Evidence): Any statement usually intended to deceive that omits some of the facts necessary for an accurate description.

I agree it is good to debunk bogus pseudo-science. At the same time, I think most people would agree that in any critique being factually accurate, fair, and honest to context is important; and therefore, when quoting, summarizing, and paraphrasing from an original source one should do so accurately, fairly, and in context to assure one does not distort the original sources meaning in any way by adding or subtracting from it.

In Did Adam and Eve Have Navels on page 42 Gardner states (my emphasis):

"On page 1352 of the Urantia Book we learn that the Jupiter-Saturn encounter of May 29, 7 B.C., gave the appearance of a single star, which we know it didn't, and this accounts for what the supermortals call the "beautiful legend" that grew up about the "Star.""

Later Gardner refers to the Star of Bethlehem as a legend or beautiful myth, and states on page 44:

"In my not-so-humble opinion, the story of the Star is pure myth, similar to many ancient legends about the miraculous appearance of a star to herald a great event, such as the birth of Caesar, Pythagoras, Krishna (the Hindu savior), and other famous persons and deities."

As the full quotation of the paragraph below shows, this is essentially what the paragraph in question in the Urantia Book is saying; that there was no Star of Bethlehem, it was only a myth, a legend, albeit a beautiful one, and that ancient man was "continually spinning such beautiful myths about the lives of their religious leaders and political heroes."

The actual and complete paragraph in the Urantia Book states:

"These wise men saw no star to guide them to Bethlehem. The beautiful legend of the star of Bethlehem originated in this way: Jesus was born August 21 at noon, 7 B.C. On May 29, 7 B.C., there occurred an extraordinary conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation of Pisces. And it is a remarkable astronomic fact that similar conjunctions occurred on September 29 and December 5 of the same year. Upon the basis of these extraordinary but wholly natural events the well-meaning zealots of the succeeding generation constructed the appealing legend of the star of Bethlehem and the adoring Magi led thereby to the manger, where they beheld and worshiped the newborn babe. Oriental and near-Oriental minds delight in fairy stories, and they are continually spinning such beautiful myths about the lives of their religious leaders and political heroes. In the absence of printing, when most human knowledge was passed by word of mouth from one generation to another, it was very easy for myths to become traditions and for traditions eventually to become accepted as facts." (Urantia Book 1352)

Gardner's statement above implies that the Urantia Book claims "the Jupiter-Saturn encounter of May 29, 7 B.C., gave the appearance of a single star..." This is false and a distortion of the actual paragraph's meaning. The first sentence in the paragraph states clearly "These wise men saw no star to guide them to Bethlehem." Nowhere in the paragraph in question is it stated that the Jupiter-Saturn encounter gave the appearance of a single star. I searched the online version of the Urantia Book and could find no statement that the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction "gave the appearance of a single star." This appears to indicate that Gardner has misquoted the Urantia Book by adding information that was not in the original source and omitting information, the first sentence of the paragraph in question, which contradicts his own fallacious statement. Gardner then goes on to use his own false statement as a basis upon which to criticize the Urantia Book, by stating "which we know it didn't." I fail to see how this erroneous quotation, which falls short of even minimal accuracy and fairness, furthers the cause of good science.

In Gardner's "not-so-humble opinion" the story of the Star of Bethlehem is only a myth similar to many ancient legends about famous persons and deities. This is essentially what the Urantia Book is saying in the paragraph in question, which leads me to ask, why would Gardner overlook this and instead distort the paragraph's meaning by misquoting it and then go on to make the same point? Did he simply repeat the story of some over zealous reader without checking the facts? Whatever the reason, perhaps Gardner should exercise a little more caution by actually reading the source he is quoting, and at a minimum attempt to quote it fairly, accurately, and in context.

Why does Gardner think of himself as a debunker of pseudoscience if he never debunks anything? He takes the attitude that it is beneath him to actually explain why these ufologists, New Age therapists, et al, are nuts. Consequently: (1) The layman will learn very little practical science (other than an interesting chapter about dreams); and (2) this book will appeal only to those who are already inclined to agree with him--and maybe not even them, as I found him to be self-righteous and not terribly instructive.

Compare Gardner's work to the infinitely superior work of Carl Sagan, esp. The Demon-Haunted World. Sagan fights stupidity with FACTS and SCIENCE, not simply labeling people as kooky. (We KNOW they're kooky already--explain WHY!) I give this book 3 stars because I don't want to suggest it's bad, as much as it is a missed opportunity.

The major problem most people have with science is that assumption that it is just a replacement for religion. It is not a replacement of religion. It is a way of finding out things about the universe we live in. Martin Gardner tries to explain this with every essay he writes. He then contrasts the scientific approach with the religious approach to questions: basically accepting everything your teacher's tell you as totally true based only on faith. Religious belief does not really allow for the concept that the people who tell you these things might very well be - in any way, wrong. Science openly says, "This might be wrong" as an underlying assumption to all inquiry. This makes the scientific method, in the long run, inherently self-correcting.

The title of the book addresses the question: did Adam and Eve have navels? This is one of the big questions the inquiry into which religious followers have dealt... wasting a lot of time and thought on something that really doesn't allow for questioning in the first place. There is no real way to collect evidence on the question. It forces the questioner to almost make up an answer and then attempt to justify it one way or another... especially when you consider that many "believers" won't accept that the answer might be "I don't know".

He then goes on to examine other new religions, like the UFO cultists, quack medicine, and various fringe quasi-scientific and religious beliefs from a multitude of places around the world. All of them have the same basic response to those who question them: you have to have faith for you to see the righteous of our belief... while at the same time maintaining that their beliefs are entirely logical supported by externally verifiable evidence. How they can say both these things at the same time and not understand they are contradicting themselves requires fits of mental gymnastics worthy only of those suffering under heavy self-delusion.

Gardner explores lots of these belief systems and responds to them in a truly logical way. He doesn't always reach a conclusion, because sometimes the evidence does not allow for one, and Gardner doesn't then just decide to make one up.

Religion wants clear and succinct answers to all questions, where as the scientific method does not require them. Which is the appeal of the new fringe quasi-scientific religious cultists. It is also they're weakness... as the answers they offer are really nothing more than mind candy to those of low intellectual ability.

Martin Gardner is the ultimate advocate of common sense. He wields Occam's razor as a deadly weapon (quite possibly it is not my metaphor, I might have read it on the dustjacket of one of his books; but it's very appropriate anyway). All sorts of quacks and cranks are mercilessly analyzed and dethroned in his numerous books. This collection is one in a series of many similar attacks on fringe and crank science - or, rather, on cranks and wackos posing as scientists, sometimes with some success.

The necessity, indeed the very existence of books such as this, is a lamentable fact. Gardner himself deplores it, inviting the reader to compare the size of a New Age section with the Science section in any bookshop. If we move eastwards, to Russia, for example, the contrast would be even more striking. Sorcerers and gnomes are given ample air time on radio and TV, run sindicated columns in newspapers, attract audiences of thousands and brainwash people with irresponsible and unintelligible jargon. And "intellectuals" are often the first to fall for these traps.

There is a curious pattern here, which Gardner, in my opinion, fails to stress enough. Quite often the most powerful crazy ideas emerge from the minds of real, reputable scientists - but these ideas have little or nothing to do with the field where they excel. It is natural for an inquisitive mind to probe other areas of knowledge. But if you lack the training and the set of mind necessary for a totally different domain - well, it's your responsibility. Such prophets are among the most harmful, because - hey, look, the guy's got a Ph.D.! Surely he must know what he's talking about!

Should Gardner be aware of the Russian pseudo-science scene, he would have certainly included in his collection an essay on Nikolai Fomenko, a mathematician of the highest rank (and an interesting graphical artist). Years ago, Fomenko developed an unhealthy interest in history and decided that all existing chronology was rubbish. Not a new idea; it has long been thought by conspiracy buffs that the whole classical civilization was an invention of the Renaissance. But coupled with astronomical calculations and the "discovery" of mysterious cycles in world history, and endorsed by Fomenko's otherwise good reputation in his own field, it exploded. Gullible humanities students could not verify Fomenko's maths, and had to take his word for it. Budding science students could not see any major flaws in his calculations, and believed the impossible abracadabra he wrote about history. His stretches of imagination were so far-fetched that even to expose them would seem ridiculous. Just one example: "pharaoh" and "Frenchman" are the same word, denoting the same object, don't you see - F-R. It would have been very nice, in case the ancient Egyptians used Latin (or Cyrillic, for that matter) alphabet. They didn't.

Books - whole books! - were published, defending history from Fomenko's killing spree. Mathematicians and astronomers pointed out evident, freshman mistakes in his calculations. The tide seems to have abated somewhat, but there are other examples. One particular (late) ethnographer is extremely popular in the circles of technical intelligentsia and among scientits - because they fail to see his wild conjectures. His initial idea, that the landscape forms the mindset of a nation, is sound enough, if not quite original; but everything that follows is an extravaganza of twisted facts and non-facts.

What I am trying to say is that any Gardners out there are vastly outnumbered by believers in alien abductions and Freudian analysis. (It was a relief for me to learn that serious psychologists in the West have long stopped seeing Freud as a scientist. I am not trying to say that he was not a genius.) Being a science jounalist is unpopular and unglamourous. (Unless you are Gardner, with his impressive list of books on every possible subject.) That's a shame.

In this collection, Gardner sometimes fails to make his point. When he describes two opposing theories, it is often unclear which one he favors. Some of the articles seem more like advertising for dubious practices (such as urine therapy), because they discuss them at length, give relevant names, addresses and websites, and very little to oppose it. Some others seem like pieces of narration ripped out of context. But it's the big picture that matters: sharp mind and common sense can and should fight the bizarre, the crazy and the misguided.

I have enjoyed Gardner's mathematical puzzles in Scientific American and therefore expected informative discussions of interesting topics. Therefore, I had thought that the book's title was an editor's confection, meant to be cute (too cute, to be sure, but that's what editors do), but Gardner actually spends a long chapter discussing whether Adam and Eve had navels. No serious person over the age of 12, religious or atheist, cares if Adam and Eve had navels.
But far more serious, consider the following. On p. 83, in a chapter on reflexology, Gardner writes: "It would be good if we had some statistical evidence about the frequency of deaths following reliance on pseudomedicines." Surely Gardner knows that virtually all Americans - 99% at least - die following reliance on conventional medicine. After all, 100% of people die. That is not meant as criticism of conventional medicine, or advocacy of alternative medicine, but a simple fact of which Gardner cannot be unaware. In other words, who will debunk the debunker?