4 ms·

There are lots of studies that does that. Here is one https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5664031/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5664031

• crackedbassoon 3y ago
  That is an uncritical review, not a study.
  • dataangel 3y ago
    It's a peer reviewed review listing a bunch of studies that according to the OP shouldn't exist so I think it's pretty relevant here.
    • ta988 3y ago
      You probably want to read Nelson 2017 cited in this post link to understand how more complicated tnan that the situation is. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.6b00975 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.6b00975
    • crackedbassoon 3y ago
      Not saying it’s irrelevant (though non critical reviews like this are not very valuable), but the parent wrote “here is one”, as in here is a study. I’m pointing out is not a study.
• jdietrich 3y ago
  The article we're discussing explains that the literature on curcumin is effectively poisoned, because Aggarwal has published so many widely-cited papers. The paper you've posted directly cites Aggarwal five times. Most of the references that aren't by Aggarwal cite him. The entire literature on curcumin is a house of cards built on fraudulent research.
  • ganeshkrishnan 3y ago
    Curcumin has been studied for thousands of years. And there are tons of independent work that has zero relation to Aggarwal eg https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781139/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781139/ https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2022.1040259/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2022.10402... It's a valid idea to critique Aggarwal for plagiarism but counter-productive to completely debunk the years of research that has gone into curcumin by other researchers.