An alarming story of research fraud in the area of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) is unfolding: Bharat B. Aggarwal, the Indian-American biochemist who worked at MD Anderson Cancer Center, focused his research on curcumin, a compound found in turmeric, and authored more than 125 Medline-listed articles about it. They reported that curcumin had therapeutic potential for a variety of diseases, including various cancers, Alzheimer’s disease and, more recently, COVID-19.
The last of these papers, entitled “Curcumin, inflammation, and neurological disorders: How are they linked?”, was publiched only a few months ago. Here is its abstract:
Background: Despite the extensive research in recent years, the current treatment modalities for neurological disorders are suboptimal. Curcumin, a polyphenol found in Curcuma genus, has been shown to mitigate the pathophysiology and clinical sequalae involved in neuroinflammation and neurodegenerative diseases.
Methods: We searched PubMed database for relevant publications on curcumin and its uses in treating neurological diseases. We also reviewed relevant clinical trials which appeared on searching PubMed database using ‘Curcumin and clinical trials’.
Results: This review details the pleiotropic immunomodulatory functions and neuroprotective properties of curcumin, its derivatives and formulations in various preclinical and clinical investigations. The effects of curcumin on neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease (AD), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), brain tumors, epilepsy, Huntington’s disorder (HD), ischemia, Parkinson’s disease (PD), multiple sclerosis (MS), and traumatic brain injury (TBI) with a major focus on associated signalling pathways have been thoroughly discussed.
Conclusion: This review demonstrates curcumin can suppress spinal neuroinflammation by modulating diverse astroglia mediated cascades, ensuring the treatment of neurological disorders.
The Anderson Cancer Center initially appeared to approve of Aggarwal’s work. However, in 2012, following concerns about image manipulation raised by pseudonymous sleuth Juuichi Jigen, MD Anderson Cancer Center launched a research fraud probe against Aggarwal which eventually led to 30 of Aggarwal’s articles being retracted. Moreover, PubPeer commenters have noted irregularities in many publications beyond the 30 that have already been retracted. Aggarwal thus retired from M.D. Anderson in 2015.
Curcumin doesn’t work well as a therapeutic agent for any disease – see, for instance, the summary from Nelson et al. 2017:
“[No] form of curcumin, or its closely related analogues, appears to possess the properties required for a good drug candidate (chemical stability, high water solubility, potent and selective target activity, high bioavailability, broad tissue distribution, stable metabolism, and low toxicity). The in vitro interference properties of curcumin do, however, offer many traps that can trick unprepared researchers into misinterpreting the results of their investigations.”
Despite curcumin’s apparent lack of therapeutic promise, the volume of research produced on curcumin grows each year. More than 2,000 studies involving the compound are now published annually. Many of these studies bear signs of fraud and involvement of paper mills. As of 2020, the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) has spent more than 150 million USD funding projects related to curcumin.
This proliferation of research has fueled curcumin’s popularity as a dietary supplement. It is estimated that the global market for curcumin as a supplement is around 30 million USD in 2020.
The damage done by this epic fraud is huge and far-reaching. Hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, countless hours spent toiling by junior scientists, thousands of laboratory animals sacrificed, thousands of cancer patients enrolled in clinical trials for ineffective treatments, and countless people who have eschewed effective cancer treatment in favor of curcumin, were encouraged by research steeped in lies.
36 Responses to Curcumin: a case study of large-scale research fraud
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
There is a huge armada of frauds shipping all kinds of stuff, like curcuma preparations, or even manufacturing them. In Germany they even dare to claim, that a study they link to, shows a proof for the efficacy – but the study says the very opposite.
By the way … we didn’t talk about anti-vaxxers, didn’t we…?
“Der Fall des Dr. Thomas Quak”
http://www.allaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/index.php?topic=10515.0
omen est nomen?
@ama
It is illegal to post links to a content written in German without an English translation, on a blog written in English.
no it isn’t
Look up how you get your web-browser to translate the site you are reading. The simplest method (at least in Chrome) is to write the following in your browser. In Chrome you can select “translate…” in the menu.
And you could use your web browser to look up “satire”.
You’re the third person recently to be utterly clueless as to whom they are responding:
1st. Richard Rawlins on Thursday 04 January 2024 at 11:36.
2nd. Olle Kjellin on Tuesday 06 February 2024 at 15:28.
🤣
Two thousand Curcumin studies annually?
So how many frigging studies does it take? ‘More research is needed’ in many conclusions seems to lead to just that!
It is a good job that this kind of fraud is only applicable to CAM research.
Your statement is not true.
“The world of science observed a new increase in the number of retracted articles – that is, removed from the scientific literature for the most diverse reasons, from simple repetitions and errors to cases of misconduct, such as fraud and fabrication of data – in 2022. Survey in The Retraction Watch database, a website dedicated to monitoring this type of action, fundamental in the self-correction process of science, shows that almost five thousand scientific articles were subject to retraction last year, of which at least 23 with the participation of Brazilian researchers In 2021, the same database recorded just over 3,700 retractions, 12 involving Brazilian authors or co-authors.”
Ref.: https://www.revistaquestaodeciencia.com.br/index.php/artigo/2023/01/13/quase-5-mil-artigos-cientificos-foram-retratados-em-2022
.The search for fraud and errors occurs in relation to orthodox medicine. The difference is that in conventional medicine we tend to learn from mistakes.
<<>>
Oh really, has conventional medicine learned yet that there is more to medicine than primarily treating symptoms ?
Has conventional medicine learned that it is what patients consume, or don’t consume that makes them chronically ill ?
Has conventional that there is more than one means of medical treatment as humans are individuals ? … and all do not respond equally to the same treatment.
To answer your questions:
1) Has conventional medicine learned yet that there is more to medicine than primarily treating symptoms ? YES – I even learned it in medical school.
2) Has conventional medicine learned that it is what patients consume, or don’t consume that makes them chronically ill ? YES – I even learned it in medical school.
3) Has conventional that there is more than one means of medical treatment as humans are individuals ? YES – I even learned it in medical school.
4) … and all do not respond equally to the same treatment? YES – I even learned it in medical school.
I would disagree then if consider that learning.
If you really learn, you need to put the knowledge into practice.
Not just set it aside so you can make money from it.
how clever of you!
You are evidently not a physician.
Absolutely not.
Neither would I choose to be a Lawyer…. or many other professions of ill repute.
Treating ill patients as a job does not interest me. And most of those that choose to do it, are in it for the money. And yes, that includes SCAM artists also.
that explains why you post BS about the medical profession.
Johnny has a scalpel to grind against the medical profession.
Don’t put words in my mouth. I said it’s not for me. So, I’ll explain.
MDs in the USA are unscrupulous in my view because they won’t stand up to the medical association that requires them to use specific treatments instead of allowing MDs to choose the therapy best for the individual patient.
thanks for confirming that your opinions amount to little more than a heap of BS
@John a.k.a RG
Your mouth can certainly use some words for a change. Trust me, it will thank you. Because most of the time you expel a continuous stream of unadulterated BS from your mouth.
Likewise, my views of your opinions are equal.
except, I am not into opinion but evidence.
The Prof. Ernst is a very patient and very democratic man, as he considers the right of others to say nonsense to be sacred. His writings would be enough to end any conversation about SCAM. But I believe that, in a certain way and in many cases, he has fun with provocateurs and delusional people. It would be very easy to refute you John, but you really want to hinder serious conversations. Consequently, vade retro me John.
1) Genuine sciences and scientifically oriented professions were the only human activities to experience genuine progress. As it is likely that researchers and doctors throughout the development of Medicine made mistakes, it is absolutely certain that they learned from their mistakes, as the prodigious achievements of modern Medicine attest. Only an intellectual dishonest would deny this.
2) This generalization constitutes frivolity on your part or simply ignorance. Most physical or mental illnesses have a well-defined pathogenesis and do not involve consumption of any kind. As you are not a doctor, I will encourage you to research autoimmune diseases, usual interstitial pneumonia, infectious diseases, etc. Do you know what pathogenesis is?
3) Even people like you make money and survive. Why men and women who alleviate suffering and treat disease cannot earn a living and live well. Additionally, only foolish or dishonest plaintiffs make so many offensive generalizations.
Maybe more researchers researching into fraud in Curcumin research could further research the research. No doubt these researchers will conclude that more research is required which will then lead to more research and more researchers.
What if some of these Curcumin researchers are fraudulent though?
We would then have fraudulent researchers researching fraudulent research and fraudulent researchers producing fraudulent research on fraudulent researchers.
It is great to hear that the search for fraud and errors occurs in relation to orthodox medicine and that we all learn from mistakes. I was getting a bit concerned.
No, you are getting overly confused because you keep making assumptions to justify your assumptions to justify the things your mind makes up in the la la land of assumptions it resides in. By all means, don’t stop me from chasing your own tail.
You assume rather a lot but then you wouldn’t know this would you?
Congratulations, JK. You understood the point I am making about you, on your first try. You are indeed a smart cookie.
An ode at a certain level to the one who on a certain level makes assumptions about assumptions.
There is a poster called Talker
whose replies I welcome like from a stalker
Assumptions are raised
Not evidence based
Maybe Talker is a Curcumin researcher?
Not evidenced based, declares a homeopath.
How would he know? He ain’t no allopath.
He pretends to care about evidence.
It is not lost on us, his cognitive dissonance.
This is my lament, in contrast to his ode.
Sorry if I have caused you to lament Talker.
No doubt there is a paper somewhere concluding that Curcumin helps with Lamentitis and that more research is needed.
No doubt, says JK, without a shred of evidence
Curcumin cures lamentitis, perhaps divine providence
Curcumin in curry, makes it yummy
Curcumin in tincture, makes it SCAMmy
Nanocrucumin is a remedy, claims a homeopath
But evidence is lacking, it’s a pseudoscientific path
Don’t waste your money on it, it’s a SCAM
It’s not based on science, it’s just a sham
I would have spent a little more time
on that particular rhyme.
In accordance with Homeopathy’s Law of minimum dose, I spent the least amount of time on that particular rhyme. Since you are not impressed, the law is invalidated.
“Curcumin doesn’t work well as a therapeutic agent for any disease – see, for instance, the summary from Nelson et al. 2017:”
Says who?
““[No] form of curcumin, or its closely related analogues, appears to possess the properties required for a good drug candidate (chemical stability, high water solubility, potent and selective target activity, high bioavailability, broad tissue distribution, stable metabolism, and low toxicity). The in vitro interference properties of curcumin do, however, offer many traps that can trick unprepared researchers into misinterpreting the results of their investigations.””
This is ridiculous. All of these issues have been solved with modern curcumin formulations, and Nelson et al. clearly doesn’t know what they are talking about. How long have they been studying curcumin, again? What? Like a few days?
Highly bioavailable curcumin formulation cured both mine and my mother’s arthritis (the “worst arthritis” two doctors had ever seen in their entire careers), in rapid time to boot, and with zero side effects.
Bullshit.
thanks for categorizing your comment under ‘Bullshit’