I don’t believe it. Google can’t find any such record. Where did you acquire this piece of information?
and http://www.bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2002-06-04/feat4.html]here"Under optimal conditions, the body can survive for 60 days without food, but only 10-18 days without water.’’
Guinness Book Of World Records. One of the editions from 1998-2002. I’ll check which one when I get back to my books. The details were that a young Israeli protester was arrested by police during riots and was thrown in a holding cell under the jail, and was found 18 days later, near death, by the police who had forgotten about him.
Look people, I realize that scientific explantations are useless for those who want to believe that something magical is going on, but -----
The Britannica states that the body loses about 2.5%/day of total body fluid from all causes, urination, respiration, perspiration, etc. The same source also states that kidney failure occurs after a loss of about 8% of the total fluid. Using these data it computes that as a rule, kidney failure will occur in about 3-1/4 days. This of course doesn’t mean that every single individual will be done in then. If someone can tolerate a 10% fluid loss, then their kidneys will fail at about 4-2/10 days.
Reabsorbtion of urine as was mentioned by one post is a terrible idea. Urine contains a lot of wastes that must be eliminated. Urea is toxic, guys. Uric acid causes gout and kidney stones and is present in human urine and so would accumulate if the liquid in urine were reabsorbed and distributed thoughout the body.
I a little surprised that some of our medics haven’t joined in. Maybe they a flabbergasted by the silliness extant here. Or maybe they just don’t have time for such nonsense.
Please. This one has already been thoroughly debunked. James Randi spoke to NASA representatives who told him that they had never heard of Hira Ratan Manek.
Look I realize that this as far as medicine is concerned is impossible and I agree that there is something amiss. However what we have hear seems to be a reasonably set up experiment that yielded very unusual results. It cannot be just dismissed off hand becuase as far as we know its impossible.
I didn’t say it hadn’t been debunked Q.E.D.. I’m just submitting it as another claim. Is there something about this topic that gets you a little grumpy? Hungry maybe?
We don’t have enough information on the nature and format of of the experiment to determine if it was “reasonably” set up or not. For example, no mention is made of whether Prahlad Jani’s robes were supplied by the hospital, or were checked to ensure nothing was concealed beneath them. No mention is made concerning the details of the controls put in place. This is not a valid clinical study, as far as I’m concerned.
For the record Q.E.D., I think its bullshit myself, but you are totally dismissing for what I think are bullshit reasons. Re-read the first and last sentences of your last post. You’re contradicting yourself.
I was surprised to find Mr. Randi had trouble trying to contact NASA. The first link on contact NASA had a link to an email. If he was looking for a real person he sould have checked the links to other NASA sites. I was a little put off by his attitude.
There’s no contradiction. There is not enough information to determine the validity of the experiment, so I choose to dismiss it.
Q.E.D., saying, “We don’t have enough information on the nature and format of of the experiment to determine if it was “reasonably” set up or not”, and then saying, “This is not a valid clinical study, as far as I’m concerned”, is a contradiction.
If one does not know how it was set up, how can one positively affirm that it isn’t a valid clinical study?
One can’t. And nor did I. What I said was “This is not a valid clinical study, as far as I’m concerned.”
Sounds like a positive affirmation to me.
There are far too many social and physiological issues in (the remarkably sparse) reports by BBC, CNN, etc, to even begin addressing them all rigorously. I’ll just briefly mention three.
-
He claims not to have eaten or drunk anything since he was eight, yet he has grown since then.
-
Ignoring the physiology and histology of resorbing ones own urine, drinking one’s urine (which lacks the mystic cachet or resorption) is not an uncommon practice for older Indians. It’s been an ayurvedic tradition for thousands of years. Jawalarhal Nehru, was quite public about doing it after becoming the first Prime Minister of India. Of the millions of health practioners, yogis, etc. who regularly drank their own urine, none has ever been shown to be able to subsist on it (it might however, help explain other things)
-
The man claims to have not eaten or drunk fluids for 68 years. Yet during a mere 10 days of observed fast, he lost several pounds. Why? He weighed under 100lb going into the test, so this was a substantial loss for him.
Though it has no direct bearing on this case, it may be worthwhile to note that this type of claim is hardly novel in India. While many surprising physiological claims by yogis have been easily verified by scientific observation, this particular claim has failed every reliable extended outside test made in the past two centuries or more.
Well, I hate to nit-pick, but c,mon Q.E.D.. Writing “as far as I’m concerned” after a phrase, does not change the meaning of the phrase. As x-ray vision put it, you are positively affirming that it is not a valid clinical study after you wrote that we don’t know enough information to comment.
No, it’s no different than adding “I think” or “I believe” to a phrase. It changes the statement from an affirmation of fact to an opinion.
I guess the “benefit of the doubt” being exhibited here might explain the success of GW Bush.