3 ms·

The author states that 2,000+ studies on curcumin are published annually, but basically dismisses the compound as ever potentially being effective by citing a s

by pants2 3y ago

The author states that 2,000+ studies on curcumin are published annually, but basically dismisses the compound as ever potentially being effective by citing a single study. I think more evidence is needed by the author to make that assertion. The thousands of research scientists behind those studies aren't idiots nor are they all paid off by Big Curcumin. It's hard to believe they're not aware of the criticisms and just willfully wasting their time.

ganeshkrishnan 3y ago
Also "Only some of these studies were about curcumin specifically, but most concerned similar natural products." so the retracted articles are NOT about curcumin specifically? and why where they retracted? because they were false or because they were plagiarized?
- ta988 3y ago
  In the case of this author it was both, they made up and reused content.
eviks 3y ago
Are you aware of the paper mills that churn out way more than a mere 2k of junk, and do you consider those researchers wasting their time or responding to the incentives set by the Little Non-Curcumins within their profession?
gmd63 3y ago
> The thousands of research scientists behind those studies aren't idiots nor are they all paid off by Big Curcumin. I think more evidence is needed by the author to make that assertion.
graemep 3y ago
I assume by "single study" you mean this: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.6b00975 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.6b00975 If you read that it explains that despite all that research there has not been a single double blind trial that has shown it works. It also explains the chemistry of the compound and why effects shown in vitro are unlikely to work in vivo.
hackerlight 3y ago
"More than 2,000 studies involving the compound are published annually. Many of these studies bear signs of fraud and involvement of paper mills."
Attummm 3y ago
It's actually normal in science to have a back-and-forth of positive, negative, and neutral studies about any given topic. Minute changes in each study, within different contexts, can have significant impacts. If there is only one side presented on any topic, be wary of the research.

by pants2 3y ago

ganeshkrishnan 3y ago

Also "Only some of these studies were about curcumin specifically, but most concerned similar natural products." so the retracted articles are NOT about curcumin specifically? and why where they retracted? because they were false or because they were plagiarized?

ta988 3y ago
In the case of this author it was both, they made up and reused content.

eviks 3y ago

Are you aware of the paper mills that churn out way more than a mere 2k of junk, and do you consider those researchers wasting their time or responding to the incentives set by the Little Non-Curcumins within their profession?

gmd63 3y ago

> The thousands of research scientists behind those studies aren't idiots nor are they all paid off by Big Curcumin. I think more evidence is needed by the author to make that assertion.

graemep 3y ago

I assume by "single study" you mean this: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.6b00975 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.6b00975 If you read that it explains that despite all that research there has not been a single double blind trial that has shown it works. It also explains the chemistry of the compound and why effects shown in vitro are unlikely to work in vivo.

hackerlight 3y ago

"More than 2,000 studies involving the compound are published annually. Many of these studies bear signs of fraud and involvement of paper mills."

Attummm 3y ago

It's actually normal in science to have a back-and-forth of positive, negative, and neutral studies about any given topic. Minute changes in each study, within different contexts, can have significant impacts. If there is only one side presented on any topic, be wary of the research.