ع
The Saudi Food and Drug Authority has rejected viral claims suggesting it endorsed a medicine made from camel urine to treat cancer, according to a statement the regulator posted on its official X account. The authority confirmed that the product in question is registered only as a dietary supplement designed to help meet daily nutritional requirements through a blend of vitamins and minerals. It carries no authorised claims for treating diseases, the SFDA emphasised, urging the public to rely on verified medical advice rather than social media reports.
This clarification addresses misinformation that has circulated online, potentially leading patients to delay conventional cancer therapies in favour of unproven alternatives. The SFDA stressed that no approval exists for any camel urine-based therapeutic use, distinguishing nutritional supplements from medicines that require extensive clinical evidence. Such regulatory vigilance forms part of the authority’s mandate to safeguard public health across the kingdom.
A 2023 observational study by Saudi oncologists, published in the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal, followed 20 cancer patients who insisted on using camel urine mixed with camel milk for periods ranging from days to six months. The research found no clinical benefits, with an average daily intake of 60 millilitres, and noted that two patients developed brucellosis, a zoonotic infection, while seven died after becoming too weak for standard treatment. The study’s authors concluded that camel urine offered no value for cancer patients and called for an end to its promotion as traditional medicine due to the absence of supporting scientific data.
The SFDA’s statement aligns with international health guidance that cautions against relying on anecdotal or traditional remedies for serious illnesses without rigorous testing. Regulatory bodies worldwide, including the authority, require pharmaceutical approvals to be grounded in randomised clinical trials demonstrating both safety and efficacy. Dietary supplements, by contrast, are evaluated under separate standards that prohibit disease-treatment assertions.
Broader literature on the topic, including reviews in medical journals, has similarly found limited or no evidence for anticancer properties in human applications despite some laboratory observations. Public health campaigns in the region have sought to educate communities about the risks of unapproved treatments, particularly those involving raw animal products that may transmit infections. The recent SFDA intervention seeks to curb such practices before they affect vulnerable patients seeking hope amid serious diagnoses.
Health officials continue to direct individuals toward licensed healthcare facilities for cancer care, where approved therapies undergo continuous monitoring for effectiveness and side effects. The authority’s prompt response on social media reflects growing efforts to counter health misinformation in real time across digital platforms. This case underscores the gap between cultural traditions and evidence-based medicine in addressing complex diseases.
