IIT-Madras (IIT-M) director V Kamakoti waded into a controversy in the beginning of the year when he praised the “medicinal value” of gomutra (cow urine), claiming it has anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, and anti-inflammatory properties. Kamakoti, who was addressing a Maatu Pongal event in Chennai on January 15, claimed that an ascetic recovered from a high fever within 15 minutes after drinking cow urine, while also extolling its effectiveness in treating various conditions, including irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).
Unfazed by the political row and public backlash sparked by his comments, Kamakoti doubled down on his stance five days later by “providing scientific evidence” that cow urine did indeed have anti-infective properties, sharing five research papers backing the claim.
My Claims Are Backed By Science, Insists Kamakoti
“I spoke on the topic of science and cow where I mentioned gobar gas (produced from cow dung), natural farming and cow urine. We have scientific evidence for the properties I mentioned at the function…There are five research papers on the properties of cow urine published in famous science journals like Nature. The research papers and a patent obtained in the US mention the anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, and anti-inflammatory properties in the cow urine, and it was proved scientifically,” Kamakoti reportedly told media persons, while also stating that he consumes panchagavya, a mixture of cow urine, cow dung, milk, ghee, and curd.
Despite facing criticism for promoting pseudoscience, Kamakoti’s claims about the medicinal benefits of cow urine have gained support from notable figures. Dr Tamilisai Soundararajan, former Tamil Nadu BJP president and an allopathic doctor, expressed her backing, stating she wouldn’t endorse the claims if they weren’t scientifically grounded. Additionally, Sridhar Vembu, founder of Zoho Corporation, defended Kamakoti on social media, suggesting that critics of cow urine’s potential benefits are missing evolving scientific perspectives.
Five Papers And A Patent
Kamakoti on January 20, 2025, claimed that five scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals proved cow urine had anti-infective properties, while also sharing the details of a patent from the US.
Here are the five papers cited by Kamakoti:
The papers can be seen here, here, here, here and here.
And the one patent:
- “Use of bioactive fraction from cow urine distillate (‘go-mutra’) as a bio-enhancer of anti-infective, anti-cancer agents and nutrients”, by Suman Preet Singh Khanuja and others.
The application for the patent, issued on May 24, 2005, was filed by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Delhi, and beginning from March 30, 2021, the patent stands as expired over fee issues.
Interestingly, all five research papers were published after 2014, after the BJP-led NDA government first took charge at the Centre. During this period, there has been ongoing debate between the BJP and the scientific community regarding the medicinal benefits of cow products, including urine and dung (seen here, here and here). In the early 2000s, when the BJP was part of the governing coalition, the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), a state-funded research network, initiated research on cow urine technology for potential treatments of diabetes, infections, cancer, and DNA damage.
Misconception About Scientific Reports Journal
Although Kamakoti claimed that one of the papers was published in the Nature journal, he was likely referring to the study printed in Scientific Reports, which is different. Both journals are part of the Nature Portfolio, a division of Springer Nature, but they are distinct publications with different publication standards.
Nature is renowned for its rigorous peer-review process and high prestige, whereas Scientific Reports is an open-access mega journal that focuses on publishing scientifically valid research without evaluating its perceived impact or significance
According to the Nature Portfolio website, Nature has the highest impact factor — a measure of how often articles in that journal are cited — of any journal publishing basic scientific research. In contrast, Scientific Reports is an open-access, multidisciplinary online journal that publishes research across biological, chemical, physical, and earth and environmental sciences. It offers rapid peer review and publication, making research widely accessible. However, Scientific Reports has faced criticism in the past for dubious research papers.
In October 2024, Scientific Reports faced criticism for publishing fraudulent research, as detailed in an open letter to the publisher’s head of research integrity. The letter, signed by numerous experts, highlighted several instances where papers had cleared peer review despite containing significant flaws, including irrelevant references, ‘tortured phrases,’ and nonsensical figures.
“Some of the work that has been published is so seriously flawed that it is not credible that it underwent any meaningful form of peer review. In other cases, when we have reported flawed papers to the editor or integrity team, the response has been inadequate. A striking example cropped up last week when a ‘corrected’ version of an article was published in Scientific Reports. This article had been flagged … as containing numerous ‘tortured phrases’ that are indicative of fraudulent authors attempting to bypass plagiarism checks; the authors were allowed to “correct” the article by merely removing some (not all) of the tortured phrases…,” read the letter. The journal in November 2024, citing “concerns regarding the validity and veracity of the work presented,” retracted the problematic article, which the experts had described in their open letter as “a kind of case study of all the red flags for fraud that we look for”.
2023 Study By India’s Premier Institute Contradicts Viral Claims
A deeper probe into the claims made by Kamakoti suggests that many of them have been contradicted by other researchers in the field.
In April 2023, multiple media outlets reported about research carried out by Bareilly-based ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI), the country’s premier animal research body, which found that cow urine was unsuitable for direct human consumption as it contains potentially harmful bacteria. The urine of buffalo was more effective on certain bacteria though, the research revealed.
The study reportedly led by Bhoj Raj Singh, then head of the department of epidemiology at the institute, along with three PhD students, found that urine samples from healthy cows and bulls contained at least 14 types of harmful bacteria with the presence of Escherichia Coli, which can cause stomach infections. The findings of the peer-reviewed research have been published on the online research website, Researchgate. On January 22, 2025, Singh took to X to respond to a video of Tamil Nadu BJP chief K Annamalai supporting Kamakoti’s theory on cow urine, sharing three studies and a blog article contradicting the IIT director’s claims.
The former director of IVRI, RS Chauhan, had, however, objected to this study, telling TOI, “I have been researching cow urine for 25 years and we have found that distilled cow urine improves immunity of humans and helps against cancer and Covid. This particular research was not done on distilled urine samples which we recommend people to actually consume.”
‘Where Are The Human Trials?’ Experts Rubbish Kamakoti’s Claims
Dipshikha Chakravortty, professor at the Department of Microbiology and Cell Biology, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, tells Newschecker, “Consumption of any urine is detrimental and dangerous, including a healthy individual’s urine. Urine contains resident bacteria, and that can be detrimental. Urine is also a very good source of bacterial growth, so the body exudates, be it from anywhere, must be handled with care. Consuming urine is not the answer unless ICMR-approved human trials are done. There are many reports of various urines containing bacteria, some may be pathogenic, some non-pathogenic.”
“It is not surprising that urine or fluid from any animal or human will have certain anti-bacterial peptides or other properties,” Chakravortty further states.
When asked why it is not surprising, Chakravortty says, “Every body fluid has a certain defence system to keep the body safe. These are brought about by antibacterial, antiviral, anti-parasitic molecules. But the amount is of such low quality that to use it as therapeutics, one has to concentrate and purify large qualities of these fluids. However, along with that, there are other waste metabolites from the system, so drinking anything blindly is detrimental and dangerous for health.”
Dr Pankaj Nand Choudhary, senior consultant at the department of internal medicine, Max Super Speciality Hospital, Vaishali, told Newschecker that Kamakoti’s claims regarding the medicinal properties of cow urine, particularly its ability to cure irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and fever, are not backed by robust scientific evidence. Dr Choudhary says that while cow urine might contain certain bioactive compounds, like urea, creatinine, phenols, and volatile fatty acids, which have medicinal potential, recommending it as a treatment for specific diseases without clinical validation is misleading as more rigorous, peer-reviewed human trials are needed to establish any true therapeutic benefits.
“Cow urine has been used in Ayurveda and is believed to have antibacterial, antifungal, and anti-inflammatory properties. However, the scientific evidence supporting its therapeutic use in specific diseases is limited and often of low quality. There is no scientifically validated evidence that cow urine can cure IBS,” says Dr Choudhary.
On Kamakoti’s anecdote about a sanyasi curing his fever in 15 minutes by consuming cow urine, Dr Choudhary says it lacks scientific basis. “Fever is a symptom of an underlying infection or inflammation, and its resolution depends on the immune response, not an instant remedy. While cow urine contains certain antimicrobial compounds, its ability to cure fever instantly is highly unlikely and unproven in medical literature,” the doctor says, adding, “While some preliminary studies indicate that cow urine might have antibacterial properties, there is no high-quality, large-scale clinical research proving its efficacy in treating serious health conditions. Most research on cow urine’s medicinal benefits is either in vitro (lab-based), conducted on animals, or lacks proper controls, making it unreliable for human health recommendations.”
Similarly, Dr GR Ravindranath, general secretary of the Doctors Association for Social Equality (DASE), came down heavily on Kamakoti’s claims that cow urine could cure ailments like fever and irritable bowel syndrome, telling The NewsMinute, “Cow urine cannot cure any disease. E. Coli is the most infectious among 14 types of bacteria that are present in cow urine, causing diarrhoea and vomiting. The director is using IIT(M) to spread a political ideology,” adding that no medicine can cure a disease in 15 minutes. A similar report can be seen here.
We have reached out to Kamakoti, pointing out research papers and experts who have deemed cow urine unfit for consumption, citing a lack of human trials and rigorous scientific scrutiny. At the time of publishing this article, we have not yet received a response.
Like what you read? Let us know! If you would like us to do a deep dive on any social media influencer, or if you would like us to fact-check a claim, give feedback or lodge a complaint, WhatsApp us at 9999499044 or email us at checkthis@newschecker.in. You can also visit the Contact Us page and fill out the form.
