Hacker News Reader

Comment by pinkmuffinere | Hacker News Reader

The quote that I think most people will be interested in:

“ Curcumin doesn’t work well as a therapeutic agent for any disease. Though it is safe for human consumption in most forms and will show activity in essentially any in vitro assay you throw at it (via a process known as assay interference), no well-powered clinical trials have ever found it to be an effective medicine.”

According to well run studies, Turmeric does ~~nothing~~ for your ailment.

View on HN

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

That is an uncritical review, not a study.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com