Talk:Curcumin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Misc

Dr. Dennis Liotta is a chemistry professor at Emory University in Atlanta.

Along with Dr. Raymond F. Schinazi and Dr. Woo-Baeg Choi of Emory, he discovered Emtricitabine, which is a breakthrough HIV drug; it was sold to Gilead Sciences in July 2005 for $525 million and it is marketed under the name Emtriva. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.19.17.2 (talk • contribs) .

What does that have to do with anything? —Keenan Pepper 23:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Does dried, ground tumeric oxidize? The fresh root is so expensive. --63.24.85.190 06:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the excitation and emission fluorescence spectra of curcumin is? 129.43.47.159 18:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Curcumin is essentially non-fluorescent (and unstable) in water. A weak broad emission can be detected at 550 nm using 420 excitation. In a non-polar environment such as a lipid membrane or after curcumin binds to serum albumin, the fluorescence is increased and blue-shifted with a 498 nm emission maximum using 420nm excitation.--Biophysik (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that! I promptly made a few experiments tonight with a number of nonpolar solvants and lipids, and the results are interesting. I'll check out the article you cite, tomorrow. Again, much obliged. 213.243.137.56 (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Curcumin in isopropyl alcohol can also be used as a pH indicator...should this be included? It's an interesting fact, but I'm not sure how it would fit anywhere.

Bioavailability and black pepper

Apparently, curcumin is not bioavailable. Yet, there are reports that brains of people who eat turmeric all their lives are stained yellow or orange. Observed on autopsy... (I confess, I don't know if these reports are reliable.)

Piperine seems to increase the bioavailability of curcumin.

When turmeric is used in cooking, in India and Pakistan, it is used in various combination with other spices. The combination of spices is called curry, as we know. As far as I know, black pepper is another common ingredient in curry. Black pepper is rich in piperine.

So, you've gotta wonder if the combination of black curry with turmeric in South Asia, represents some kind of indigenous folk medicine that increases the bioavailability of turmeric, by the addition of black pepper.

I don't know if there's been any research on this. I wouldn't know where to begin.

68.127.235.15 (talk) 04:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory statements need to be resolved

In Paragraph 5, the second sentence reads:

"Its anticancer effects stem from its ability to induce apoptosis in cancer cells without cytotoxic effects on healthy cells."

But in Paragraphs 9 and 10, the text states:

"However, as pointed out by Kawanishi et al. (2005) curcumin is a "double-edged sword" having both anti-cancer and carcinogenic effects.

"Curcumin has devastating effects on healthy human cells."

It seems to me that having "devastating effects on healthy human cells" would reasonably constitute a "cytotoxic effect[] on healthy cells," would it not? Either way, perhaps some clarification by someone knowledgeable might be in order?

Until the biovailability issue is addressed adequately, discussion of potential medical uses is ridiculous (except for benefits that might occur within the digestive tract.)```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.229.103 (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

  Turmeric should be tagged, circumin should not be

Shjacks45 (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wording re piperine absorbtion study

The following wordig currently appears in the article (italics, mine):

"Co-supplementation with 20 mg of piperine (extracted from black pepper) significantly increased the absorption of curcumin by 2000% in a study funded by a prominent manufacturer of piperine.[30] However, the increase in absorption only occurred during the first hour, in which the difference between the piperine curcumin and the regular curcumin was almost the same as far as absorption."

Would whoever is familiar with / has read this study please take a look at the wording? The "in which" would seem to contradict the main point being made. I strongly suspect that what is really meant is "after which".--Ericjs (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox inconsistencies

The infobox shows an image of the enol form, yet the SMILES formula is of the ketone form. Is that OK? The correct SMILES for the given image is O=C(\C=C\c1ccc(O)c(OC)c1)CC(O)\C=C\c2cc(OC)c(O)cc2 --94.73.47.98 (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Primary Sources in Medical Section

I see some big problems in the medical section of this article; namely, an over reliance on primary sources of dubious significance (test tube and animal studies, small scale uncontrolled clinical trials) and lack of consensus statements and reviews. The article vastly overstates the medical relevance of curcumin; it has elements of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and would benefit from a much more balanced POV. See also WP:MEDRS and WP:PRIMARY. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this article could certainly use a good review with a critical eye with respect to WP:MEDRS. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Stylistically it needs a lot of work too. The goal should be to describe what curcumin does, not to chronicle the history of the research. Thus, the dates of publications and the organizations responsible for the research need not be mentioned; it just adds unnecessary noise. It doesn't tell a cohesive readily comprehensible story and it tends to oversell the significance of basic (non-clinical) research. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

At least the date of a study helps to weed out dated sources and to focus on MEDRS sources, which are RECENT SECONDARY sources. Regarding reliance on primary sources, practically all articles dealing with herbal, alternative, traditional, naturopathic or ethnic medicine have that, even more if ever the word "cancer" or "HIV" was mentioned in the past 100 years. Even worse, these primary sources get mixed with "healthy living" pamphlets and advertisements for (sarcasm)"Olde-Buzzard vitaminized raven lard, according to ancient indigenous recipes, improves rheumatism and your golf scores"(/sarcasm) 70.137.144.94 (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. We should focus on MEDRS secondary sources, but recency of sources is a bit more complicated. It matters in some cases, not in others. For example, if a preliminary finding from a study done in the 80s is never followed up on in subsequent research, then there's a good possibility that it's not a very noteworthy detail. But on the other hand, imagine a scenario where a study reported a result and a subsequent study reported opposing results, and a WP editor writes the following "a 2005 study found X but a study in 2012 reported Y". The more recent study isn't necessarily more valid than the older study. In this case, the detail that's important is that two studies reported conflicting findings, and hopefully it would also be evident why the results conflicted (and also how the reliability of the studies compared from an experimental design standpoint). It's not important that one was conducted in 2005 and one in 2012. Structuring the summary of research using dates also makes for a bit of clumsy, repetitive narrative IMO. Appropriate perhaps for an academic review article or textbook chapter where the focus is more on the chronological stages of R&D (and where there is a logical progression), but not so much for an encyclopedia.

The same applies for listing the affiliations of the authors in the article. It's not really relevant and it just weighs down the narrative. Is a study done at Texas Tech more or less valid than one conducted at Wake Forest U? It doesn't really matter right? Stylistically, this method of organizing the material is more akin to a magazine than an encyclopedia. There are sometimes exceptional reasons to list the affiliation though, like if the study was done at an obscure/tiny/sketchy institution or by a source with a clear biasing/partisan interest. So rather than using wording such as "In 2011, researchers at Wake Forest U conducted a study in rats which showed X....", it's more in keeping with encyclopedic style to phrase this simply as "A study in rats showed X....". Much more economical. Also, a study will often have multiple institutional affiliations, so then you would face the task of having to list them all in the article, in which case the details about the subject get buried by a jumble of dates and affiliations. It's a signal-to-noise ratio issue. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I believe the focus on recent secondary sources makes more sense in fields with intense activity, where a systematic progress is achieved over time, and with common medications, where the developing statistical evidence may lead to changes of prescription guidance etc. by medical and government organizations over time. In these cases old reviews may really be outdated by the accumulated experience over time, as much may have changed in say 10 years. In other cases 50 year old articles may still be as good as new.(and sometimes fun to read, I love historical sources) In all these alternative / ethnic / naturopathic / traditional medicine articles the historical part may be interesting and should be included for the historical value, but set apart from "medical" information, clearly marked as "historical". This is even true for the lotion of vitaminized "Olde Buzzard" raven lard.(which improves the golf scores) Or for the interesting "galvanic" apparatus and radioactive quack medicines which were in fashion 100 years ago, until the patients teeth fell out. There is interesting material about this and old X-ray machines at the ORAU website. All looking like from Dr. Frankensteins laboratory, with humpback assistant "Igor" adjusting the voltage on the "Rumkorff Inductor". 70.137.130.84 (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC) 70.137.130.84 (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

We're on the same page amigo. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

So I imagine that we have Medical Sections, from (preferably recent) review articles, reflecting contemporary state of encyclopedic and widely agreed information. Then "Research Section" with interesting primary research cited as "A (year) study on (species) (material) found (short findings)". e.g. "A 1990 study on rat tumor cell line XYZ found that X suppressed Y at a concentration of Z nmol/ml" (Single case reports are useless here, as almost everything has once been observed on some patient)

This may not be carried too far, as otherwise immediately zealots come in who cherry-pick primaries to prove that Aspirin immediately causes cancer and impotence, which can be prevented by co-administration of curcuma with raven-lard according to olde voodo recipe. Also to prove that it is a cure-all panacea even against cancer and HIV etc. etc. etc.

Then if applicable Section "History" may contain references like the 1850 Pharmacists Handbook etc. if the history looks interesting. "has already been recommended in 1850 for the tumbness of horses in a dosis of 30 drachms in strong brandy..." etc. (I make these up of course) 70.137.155.252 (talk) 06:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Unclear Statement

From the article: "More recently, curcumin was found to alter iron metabolism by chelating iron and suppressing the protein hepcidin, potentially causing iron deficiency in susceptible patients."

Wait. Chelating iron might cause iron deficiency but suppressing hepcidin will increase iron transport by enterocytes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepcidin#Tissues — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.158.8.37 (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

As the study was on mice and contained much speculation far from proof in humans per WP:MEDANIMAL, I removed the paragraph and source.--Zefr (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Note for consideration by topic experts: recent retractions of research articles on curcumin

In February 2016, the publisher of Biochemical Pharmacology issued retraction notices for seven (7) articles originally published in that journal during the period 2007-2011, at least five of which involve research on curcumin; links to sites providing further details are below. Fortunately none of the retracted research articles are cited in this Wikipedia article. But given the nature of the retractions, I felt I should bring it to the attention of any experts on curcumin who check in here, even though the retractions do not appear to affect this Wikipedia article in any direct way. (Although I am a research chemist, I am not a biochemist, and certainly not an expert on curcumin.) For further information on the retractions, see the bottom seven items of this Table-of-Contents listing. Further discussion of these retractions was also posted in the blog Retraction Watch; the link is here. Because none of the retracted articles were cited in this article, and because of my limited knowledge of this topic, I did not edit the article content (I only made a couple minor edits to External Links). I am providing this information under Talk, so that anyone with appropriate expertise will be made aware of this situation, and can assess the information and determine whether changes to this Wikipedia article are in fact warranted based on those retractions.Sharl928 (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It's an excellent vindication of WP:MEDRS's guidance only to use high-quality secondary sources for medical content. Alexbrn (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Business

I've added some basic business-related information. It might be interesting to expand this to say that it's mostly produced in India, and mostly sold in Canada and the U.S.

I've seen predictions for sales approximately quintupling during the next decade, but I thought that was probably too speculative to be included. As far as I can tell, that market-growth estimate all goes back to a single consulting firm. It's been repeated everywhere, but it seems to be just one source behind that number. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Preliminary research for potential health effects

I made this addition of a comprehensive secondary source - a journal review - only for User:Zefr to remove it on grounds of WP:MEDRS, however re: WP:MEDRS: the journal "Molecules" is indeed listed in MEDLINE see here: http://locatorplus.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&v1=1&ti=1,1&Search_Arg=100964009&Search_Code=0359&CNT=1&SID=1 , and has been established for nearly 20 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecules_%28journal%29 (impact factor 2.095 is not amazing, but not disastrous either). Unlike the examples given in WP:MEDS this is not a case of e.g. a review on oncogenesis appearing in a psychology journal. "Molecules" includes "natural product chemistry" in its remit, and the review concerns itself with the biochemistry of curcumin - I would argue there is sufficient overlap of fields to justify inclusion.

Opinions of other editors please, as to the quality of this review / author reputation / quality & relevance of journal, and whether or not the following should be included on the Curcumin page:

Sethi et al published an in depth 2015 review of the scientific literature re: curcumin's interaction with molecules implicated in oncogenesis, in the peer-reviewed open access journal Molecules, in which they concluded: "A plethora of in vitro and in vivo research together with clinical trials conducted over the past few decades substantiate the potential of curcumin as an anti-cancer agent. At the molecular level, curcumin targets numerous pathways, highlighting its ability to inhibit carcinogenesis at multiple levels and thus, potentially circumventing the development of resistance. However, there is a paucity of data to explain the underlying mechanism of its activity. Clinical trials with curcumin indicate safety, tolerability, non-toxicity (even up to doses of 8000 mg/day), and efficacy. These studies provide a solid foundation for more well-controlled studies in larger cohorts as well as open avenues for future drug development. However, curcumin activity is limited by its poor bioavailability and some possible adverse effects. The development of formulations of curcumin in the form of nanoparticles, liposomes, micelles or phospholipid complexes to enhance its bioavailability and efficacy are still in its early stages. Nonetheless, curcumin has established itself as a safe and promising molecule for the prevention and therapy of not only cancer but also other inflammation-driven diseases." ~~User:Dukeredwulf~~ (unsigned comment by Dukeredwulf 02:57, 13 April 2015‎)

References

Virtually every scientific journal is listed in Medline, so being listed in that database confers no particular authority or reliability. Molecules is a low-tier open source journal, so in other words, nothing impressive about the journal itself. The proposed text contains too much fluff for my taste and it gives WP:UNDUE to this one particular article, and the article greatly oversells curcumin as a potential therapy. The proposed text is also an overly long quote that borders on plagiarism. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I am with RIR on this one. The quality of human research on curcumin is so inconsistent, and heavily tied to dueling claims from improving absorption from companies with patented products, that it is premature to attribute any health benefits to curcumin. The science may improve in the future. The website www.clinicaltrials.gov lists at least 50 trials that are ongoing or recently completed and not yet published.David notMD (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of research (title added)

The research article mentioned in the Wikipedia definition of curcumin and its prooxidant effects on DNA (Kelly MR, Xu J, Alexander KE, Loo G. 2001. Disparate effects of similar phenolic phytochemicals as inhibitors of oxidative damage to cellular DNA. Mutat Res. May 10;485(4):309-18.) have not been accurately described.

The article clearly states "Therefore, it is concluded that NDGA has antioxidant activity but curcumin has prooxidant activity in cultured cells based on their opposite effects on DNA". The key terms in this sentence are "in cultured cells". Therefore, in the Wikipedia description of curcumin where this article is addressed, it should not state that this research "proves" curcumin's prooxidant affects. The data presented in the referenced article provides in vitro evidence of a prooxidant affect on cultured cells. It is clearly a stretch to say it proves this activity occurs in vivo, e.g. when humans consume curcumin. The paragraph describing this research is extremely misleading, especially to non-scientists, and should be removed from the web-description of curcumin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ajourdan (talk • contribs) .

Well, Be bold - you've read the article, you seem to have understood it - go ahead and fix the article :) I think it is good that the article mentions that the antioxidant role of curcumin is not as clear as the rest of the article suggests. But I'm looking forward to seeing your corrected version ;) Iridos 21:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It is fundamentally wrong to cite the Kelly article as showing anything about the effects of curcumin on healthy cells. In this study, the authors used Jurkat T-cells. Jurkat cells are cancer cells. Any effect of curcumin on these cells cannot be reliably extrapolated to healthy cells. As the work of Michael Karin has shown, cancer cells have high levels of NF-kappa B activity and depend on this for survival. Bharat Aggarwal, at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, has shown that curcumin inhibits NF-kappa B activity. This effect will cause apoptosis (programmed cell death) in cancer cells.

I like your intelligent, well-written comment, but you probably will agree that, to conclude that curcumin inhibition of NF-kappa B is the prevalent process by which the Jurkat T-cells are affected. I'd sit on the fence on this one, till a better study is attempted and published. 213.243.137.56 (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The benefit of the doubt is not more deserving for one side of the battle or the other. The fact that nothing scientific is never "proven" does not grant the other side the right to declare it "disproven" or invalid. Only those assertions which can be disproven should be removed from a Wikipedia article.Landroo (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Effect in ulcerative colitis?

Although the statement and source below are from a Cochrane collaboration analysis, I think this result is too weak to deserve even mentioning it. The source is weak MEDRS at best. --Zefr (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Reverted statement and source... for discussion

A Cochrane review found that curcumin may be an effective adjunct for ulcerative colitis, when given with standard therapy, however more trials are needed to confirm this.

Main finding, quoted: "Only one trial (89 patients) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. This trial randomized 45 patients to curcumin and 44 patients to placebo. All patients received treatment with sulfasalazine or mesalamine. The study was rated as low risk of bias. Curcumin was administered orally in a dose of 2 g/day for six months. Fewer patients relapsed in the curcumin group than the placebo group at six months. Four per cent of patients in the curcumin group relapsed at six months compared to 18% of patients in the placebo group (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.09; P = 0.06)."

References

I was going of the conclusion, and I think the source is def MEDRS(it's a cochrane review), but if you think it isn't worth mentioning then that is fine. Also, I want to expand the section on the cancer scandal, what sources are good enough for that?Petergstrom (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is that we don't have to tacitly accept any Cochrane review, especially one whose conclusion is based on only one weak study is not worth being in the article. By "the cancer scandal", I'm assuming you mean the studies of Bharat Aggarwal who has been extensively discredited, so his studies should not be used. There are no MEDRS-quality studies giving credibility of curcumin to anticancer effects. The report entered yesterday under Research here indicates a widespread scientific view that curcumin is too disparate under study to yield any conclusive insight to effects it may have in vivo. The other cited study on curcumin concluded this: "The likely false activity of curcumin in vitro and in vivo has resulted in >120 clinical trials of curcuminoids against several diseases. No double-blinded, placebo controlled clinical trial of curcumin has been successful." --Zefr (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The Cochrane review says:

The results of this systematic review suggest that curcumin may be a safe and effective therapy for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis when given as additional therapy with mesalamine or sulfasalazine. Further research is needed ... [my bold]

which is a fancy-pants way of saying there's no good evidence it works. That's what Wikipedia should be saying, to be plain about it. Alexbrn (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

That's actually pretty funny.Petergstrom (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent lit to incorporate

A few meta-analyses and systemic reviews worth incorporating into the Article. Al-Karawi/Phytother Res reported improvement for depression. Sahebkar/Pain Med concluded benefit for pain relief. Sahebkar/Clin Nutr concluded that curcumin did not affect circulating lipids. Sahebkar/Phytother concluded that curcumin lowered CRP (C-reactive protein, a questionable biomarker for risk of cardiovascular disease), but the results hinged on which product and duration of study. Brondino/ScientificWorld reported no benefit for dementia, based on inclusion of three human trials. Zhang is an all-purpose review.

Al-Karawi D, Al Mamoori DA, Tayyar Y. The Role of Curcumin Administration in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder: Mini Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials. Phytother Res. 2016 Feb;30(2):175-83.

Sahebkar A, Henrotin Y. Analgesic Efficacy and Safety of Curcuminoids in Clinical Practice: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Pain Med.(in press).

Sahebkar A. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of curcumin on blood lipid levels. Clin Nutr. 2014 Jun;33(3):406-14.

Sahebkar A. Are curcuminoids effective C-reactive protein-lowering agents in clinical practice? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Phytother Res. 2014 May;28(5):633-42.

Brondino N, Re S, Boldrini A, Cuccomarino A, Lanati N, Barale F, Politi P. Curcumin as a therapeutic agent in dementia: a mini systematic review of human studies. ScientificWorldJournal. 2014 Jan 22;2014:174282. Zhang DW, et al. Curcumin and diabetes: a systematic review. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2013;2013:636053.

The last journal is junk, wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. Don't know about the others, any of repute? Alexbrn (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

None of them are great. Clinical Nutrition would be the best of the lot; OK for a nutrition journal anyway. The rest are dregs. Never even heard of Scientific World Journal, and I've heard of most. Incidentally, an article in press would not be a WP:RS unless the journal's website has a pre-publication version posted. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

BTW it should be pointed out that (a) there is no specific text proposal here, and (b) the meta-analyses are going to be worthless if they included data from Aggarwal's studies. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sahebkar is a mass-producer of meta-analyses (43 since 2013). Not a disqualification per se, but a concern.David notMD (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Revert

I cited material from Wilken, Reason; Veena, Mysore S.; Wang, Marilene B.; Srivatsan, Eri S. (2011-01-01). "Curcumin: A review of anti-cancer properties and therapeutic activity in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma". Molecular Cancer. 10: 12. doi:10.1186/1476-4598-10-12. ISSN 1476-4598. PMC 3055228. PMID 21299897.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link), which was immediately reverted without discussion. I claim that this is a reliable, secondary source. I make no other claim about its contents. Thus, I don't see the basis for the revert. Lfstevens (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You need to read WP:MEDRS, especially WP:MEDASSESS. The Wilken source is a review of lab experiments and is not reliable for biomedical content, as explained in MEDRS. --Zefr (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Moved from my Talk:

There is no accepted clinical evidence of curcumin having any role as a therapeutic. Evidence would require sources that satisfy WP:MEDRS. Please understand this guideline before editing an article for medicinal effects. You have a Cure Award, so should be standing behind MEDRS sourcing. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Can't speak to the quality of the evidence. I only know that I was citing a reliable, secondary source, almost verbatim. Lfstevens (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not MEDRS quality as you'll see when you read WP:MEDRS, especially WP:MEDASSESS. A review of primary lab or in vitro studies is not a reliable source for biomedical information per MEDRS. --Zefr (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Huh? It says "editors should rely on high-quality evidence, such as systematic reviews", which is what I did. What it doesn't say is that only reviews of RCTs qualify. Please clarify your criticism. Lfstevens (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

All of the work cited in the Wilken article on curcumin and cancer is from lab studies, i.e., WP:PRIMARY, much of it more than 10 years old. MEDRS states: Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials, described further under WP:MEDASSESS in "Assess evidence quality". If you're not satisfied, post a request for comment at the Talk for WikiProject Medicine. --Zefr (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Not getting this at all. Reviews summarize/filter primary studies. So no primary sources were used. Instead I relied on a review. Lfstevens (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Wilken was a review, but nowhere in the review is there any mention of human trials.David notMD (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Changes

goodness, this page is terrible-"the fresh root is so expensive?" this is not a message board, and much of this research is frought with epidemiological fallacies "people who ate yellow curry once in six months.." such a dose is useless, but also doesnt point out the far more likely factors (how about eating fish? pancakes? asprin? ect) broad misrepresentation-curcumin has terrible bioavailablity, but this page makes it seem like the perfect drug for anything and what little logic there is in the entry is muddled by pointless edits FIX OR DELETE!

Maybe we could start by dividing the Medicinal Uses section into categories, such as antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, and so forth. We could start adding data to the different headings and the information would be more organized. I have done some research on curcumin, and I have a list of 19 physiological properties (with citations) that could be added as a table, and some other material that could be added to the content. I agree with the comment below - low bioavailability doesn't mean no bioavailability, and many physiological/therapeutic effects have been documented. I am a new editor as well.--Little Flower Eagle (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This article needs a better structure. New to editing wikipedia, and not entirely sure of the protocol but I would recommend: 1. Creating a separate section regarding the bioavailability of curcumin. The review article is a good place to start looking. The article is not entirely misrepresentative of the therapeutic potential of curcumin. Despite having low bioavailability, curcumin has been documented to have therapeutic efficency against several diseases including cancer, diabetes, and arthritis. 2. Creating a proposed mechanisms of action section. 3. Removing "x group in year xxxx did ..." from sections. Those type of statements I believe sound more like press releases and less like an encyclopedia If there is consensus this is a good idea, I will make these changes.--Biophysik (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.219.235.232 (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC) 

also the supposed selectivity for mao-a isnt cited, the maoi article says that its non selective (and that isnt cited either). whats the deal? does anybody know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.172.232 (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I added a journal citation for curcumin being an MAOI affecting both MAO-A and MAO-B. There's a discussion on https://emediahealth.com/2012/01/17/curcumin-and-the-mao-inhibitor-cheese-effect-from-tyramine-triggered-hypertension/ regarding the question of whether it indeed affects both of those, and to the same degree. I have not added any discussion of selectivity to the article (the previous uncited claim discussed above had since been removed). --Dan Harkless (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Alexbrn has reverted my changes. Please see the new #Curcumin found to be an MAOI (e.g. in mouse brain studies) section below for further discussion. --Dan Harkless (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Curcumin found to be an MAOI (e.g. in mouse brain studies)

Curcumin is widely acknowledged to be an MAOI, and multiple studies, e.g. of mouse brains, have supported this. I added the following to the article's Pharmacodynamics section:

Curcumin is a reversible inhibitor of the MAO-A and MAO-B enzymes.

but it was reverted by Alexbrn with "Minor journal, not MEDLINE indexed; need good WP:MEDRS".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=curcumin+monoamine returns 30 results. Do any of these satisfy the criteria for inclusion? Thank you. --Dan Harkless (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

References

So if this is due, accepted knowledge, it should be easy to find a decent WP:MEDRS stating it. Alexbrn (talk) 06:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It sticks to pretty much everything. Not a big deal or surprise that it sticks to MAOs. But yes we need good strong sources. Jytdog (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

"Pharmacodynamics"

Fancy greek for "what targets and pathways does this compound affect"? Initial studies that try to identify biological targets of compounds and work out pathways or structures that are perturbed that might cause some phenotype change, are indeed in vitro assays that are used in drug discovery and drug development. I changed the section header. Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok I'll ask

User: Rhode Island Red - in this dif you appeared to say that this edit by me was SYN. Maybe you meant that bit of content itself, but please explain. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The issue is that the source cited makes no statement similar to the one added to the WP article. Thus it failed verification. It looks as though the statement was cobbled together or gleaned from cherry-picking bits and pieces from the source, and that's WP:SYNTH -- the policy states "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." I'll add that the mere fact that some particular angle is being researched doesn't necessarily make it notable; strong evidence of efficacy is what's notable. It's also important to not muddle together basic research (in vivo/in vitro) with clinical research. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

ah so it was the content. OK. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Psychotropic effects?

A friend of mine consistently gets in a better mood when eating some yellow-coloured foods and sweets, but not with others, and I found the common factor was curcumin being used as the colorant in those that had this effect. Is anyone aware of any such psychotropic effects, theoretical or otherwise? It would seem the low bioavailability should prevent any significant absorption. Zuiram 23:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless he's eating a buncha Piperine with it. :0)192.249.47.11 18:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm confused - how is it that curcumin is shown to helping these diseases if it isn't bioavailable? Something has to be absorbing, right? Otherwise the improvements would be attributed to a placebo effect. Can someone please clarify for me? How much curcumin is in 1 teaspoon of turmeric anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.219.59 (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe your friend is subconsciously associating yellow with smiley faces and sunshine! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.223.156.139 (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Joking aside, turmeric is about 3-5% curcuminoids, of which curcumin is the major fraction. In theory, substances can have a system-wide effect even if poorly absorb, if in the unabsorbed state these compounds reach the large intestine and act as prebiotics - meaning not bacteria (i.e., probiotic) but affecting the nature of the myriad bacterial species that populate the large intestine, in turn affecting the host. And yes, placebo effect is huge for all mental state mediated symptoms. David notMD (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Too promotional?

Hello, I plan to add more to this article, however the material was labeled as "too promotional". I have changed the text in order to better follow the guidelines. Please look at my sandbox, as that is what I plan to add later. If I still need to change things, please let me know. Msri20 (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Msri20

Please see WP:MEDRS. Our WP:Biomedical information should really be sourced to recent secondary material (e.g. systematic reviews or meta-analyses) in high-quality medical journals, or the views of major health organizations. Looking at your sources I'm seeing letters, primary research and poor-quality journals. I don't see anything immediately usable, except perhaps PMID 25373119. Be aware this is a topic for which WP:Discretionary sanctions apply so editing must be done with care. Alexbrn (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to talk, Mari20. It appears that you and some other people from your course didn't do, or weren't mindful of, the Education Project training on writing about health in Wikipedia. Please review that material and the message I left at your talk page carefully. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Alternative Medicine

I see a double standard to include a single death report and link IV curcumin as the causative agent. What is WP:MEDRS on this? Is it reasonable to include notable occurrences from news sources? If so we should be careful with causality. It may have been but it could have been a contaminated med or any other number of things. In any case if we can note death from curcumin, we might link to life's purportedly saved by curcumin as per such an article- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4726136/How-curry-spice-helped-dying-woman-beat-cancer.html Chickpecking (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail is a reliable source for just about nothing. See WP:DAILYMAIL. Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Not at all my point- I don't want to add this or I would have already. I'm asking about the manner we document occurrences. If we must be careful drawing positive associations regarding curcumin and cancer, ought we also to be bound by the same when looking at adverse effects?Chickpecking (talk) 06:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Stick to WP:MEDRS. Since the curcumin death has been documented by the FDA, all is well. Forbes alone would be insufficient. Alexbrn (talk) 06:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we should stick to facts. per the FDA:

Two patients administered infusions of curcumin (a component of the spice turmeric) compounded with polyethylene glycol (PEG) 40 castor oil reportedly experienced immediate hypersensitivity reactions. The PEG 40 castor oil was a component of a curcumin emulsion product compounded by a pharmacy, ImprimisRx, located in Irvine, California. Hypersensitivity reactions to intravenous (IV) products containing polyethylene glycol castor oil have been reported in the literature and are the subject of warnings for a number of FDA-approved drugs. https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/PharmacyCompounding/ucm570192.htm so instead of a reaction to curcumin, they think it was a reaction to something else in the infusion.Chickpecking (talk) 07:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

That's not what the source says. The precise biological mechanism isn't known but, explicitly, it could have been the PEG 40, or the curcumin, or something else ("some of the other ingredients in ImprimisRx’s product, including curcumin, also have been associated with hypersensitivity reactions when administered intravenously"). In any case, there is no doubt that the procedure itself - IV administration of a curcumin-based infusion - was the cause of death. Alexbrn (talk) 08:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

So there is unclarity of what did what, exactly my point. Might as well talk about the lady who ate gobs of tumeric and went into remission.Chickpecking (talk) 08:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no lack of clarity. As the FDA says, the IV administration of an infused curcumin solution caused death. It is the quackery which is the point here. If they said turmeric caused a remission that would be noteworthy too. But of course they don't - that's the kind of thing we find instead in the Daily Mail or other appalling sources. Alexbrn (talk) 08:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Shows your distinct bias. We can also find medical reports of cures elsewhere. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4739749/ green tea and curcumin and more seem to have been at play here. My point is that if the one can stand, the other could too. To me, the death is a tragic case that we don't know what caused. The remission is an interesting case that we also don't have certainty about. Chickpecking (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

We do know what caused it: Kim Kelly ND injected Jade Erick with a curcumin emulsion and she died as a result. You have produced another unreliable source. To repeat, we need WP:MEDRS for this kind of content. If we stick to decent sourcing all shall be well. Alexbrn (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

poor logic. The emulsion was a mixture and the issue at hand is we don't have a causal link to curcumin. This is on the same footing as the case report, less so as there is probably a better causal link there.Chickpecking (talk) 09:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

You'd better take up your "logic" argument with the FDA. The woman died as a result of the procedure which was marketed as a curcumin altmed treatment – which is why it is due here in this article. We have an analysis of the event from the FDA which gives us a strong WP:MEDRS. A case report in contrast, is explicitly not reliable (see WP:MEDASSESS). That is the logic of the WP:PAGs, which is what counts here. Alexbrn (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't buy your take on the FDA's event report being on any higher ground than a medical case report- this is not laid out in WP:MEDRS. I have no issue with the FDA conclusions which do state it could have been any of several causes.Chickpecking (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. The analysis by the FDA makes it a secondary source. The exact biological cause is clearly uncertain but from a medical practice perspective the cause is in no doubt: injection of the curcumin emulsion. Perhaps raise a query at WT:MED if you dispute that the FDA source is usable. Alexbrn (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The cause and effect relationship between the curcumin infusion and the hypersensitivity reactions seems pretty unquestionable since it happened instantly during the infusion. There are two things about the FDA report that I found particularly remarkable: (1) the curcumin solution injected contained only 1-2% of the curcumin amount listed on the labeling; (2) the curcumin solution contained industrial grade PEG 40 castor oil. IMO, it probably was the PEG 40 CO (or its DEG byproduct) that was causitive.

But it doesn’t matter for our purposes which ingredient in the solution was causative. The curcumin infusion was used as a an unapproved therapy for eczema by this naturopath and it caused serious AEs (including one death). It highlights risks of naturopaths administering IV curcumin treatments, as well as the shoddiness of the compounding pharmacy that produced the IV formulation used in these cases. All in all, the event is really quite remarkable and clearly merits inclusion in the article. As a source in this case, the FDAs thorough report is rock solid. There are no similarly solid reports alleging any cures with curcumin, and surely none where the cause and effect relationship is as obvious as it was in the case of the hypersensitivity reactions.

It's not valid to argue that including the FDA report means that we have to drastically lower the bar and include some anecdotal case report where curcumin wasn’t even implicated as the therapeutic agent (the authors of the case study mentioned above implicated ECGC, not curcumin). So let’s not play the game of false equivalency. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Your first paragraph stays with the FDA's conclusions. It does matter which ingredient is causative, for the same reason it matters which addition, if any, to a cancer remission is causative in a case report. This might be more noteworthy on the PEG 40 page. Admittedly other case reports have a more persuasive temporal relation- sometimes as compelling as this death's relation to some ingredient. MD's also inject iv off label ingredients so adding in naturopath seems as immaterial as mentioning the location. Virtually every case report has a discussion of the literature. It is not that everything the FDA puts out is on the level of a case report but that an event report like this is on the level of a case report. Inherently these are equivalent. I am not saying include or not just that it sets a double standard- one with inherent bias- to include negative reports and not positive. It is virtually always easier to link a death to an event than a life saved.Chickpecking (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

What to include or not include is the key point, so if that's not being addressed then I'll check out for now. I have no beefs with how the section looks now. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Half-life

AFAIK, the half-life of curcumin in blood is extremely short, so kind of it's gone before reaching its target. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent additions

The following was recently added:

However, a response published in Nature on March 1 to the January review noted that as of its publishing, "a PubMed search under 'curcumin double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial' yields 49 entries, of which 17 recent trials show efficacy". Reviews have since found a wide variety of clinical effects of curcumin for chronic conditions.

Curcumin is not meaningfully bioavailable in humans when administered in isolation, because upon ingestion it is rapidly degraded via glucuronidation in the liver and intestinal wall; accordingly, compounds such as piperine, a known inhibitor of hepatic and intestinal glucuronidation, can increase curcumin bioavailabilty by 2000%.

References

The sourcing is not sufficient. Good WP:MEDRS sources are needed for content on health. Alexbrn (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

This isn't content on health. It makes no specific medically-actionable claims whatsoever that curcumin has even one iota of medical efficacy for anything, except insofar as a third-party reviewer has provided links to studies which say so, and reported their existence. It's primarily content on research methodology. It's documentation of a confounding factor regarding claims that past researchers have actually proven any absences. Moreover, it's four secondary-source reviews from four highly reputable institutions, three of which prove the existence of the phenomenon named, namely, that piperine improves curcumin bioavailability. I fail to see how these sources are anything but good.2610:130:104:200:9D91:3A68:3C47:20F (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It is WP:Biomedical information, which requires WP:MEDRS sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

All four sources are: independent; secondary sources; from reputable institutions; summarizing scientific consensus; which avoid over-emphasizing single sources; published using up-to-date evidence. How the bloody hell is that *not* WP:MEDRS sourcing?2610:130:104:200:9D91:3A68:3C47:20F (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

We don't use "comments" (which is what the first source, PMID 28252078, is) to discount MEDRS sources. Ever. See WP:MEDREV on this. That is classic tendentious editing, and there is no way you will get this badly sourced content into the article. You really need to pay attention to MEDRS and summarize what MEDRS sources say. We all get it that you believe in curcumin. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

And (though they're so poorly cited it's necessary to check) the others appear to be out-of-date or off-topic. We are already using a 2017 review article. Alexbrn (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, chemistry does not change over time. Nevertheless, I have just added three reviews which took place after the review mentioned, all of which found clinical evidence of the efficacy of curcumin. I am unclear why you accuse me of "belief", but c'est ça. Do these constitute MEDRS sources?2610:130:104:200:9D91:3A68:3C47:20F (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, since I have no idea what you people want regarding psychoanalyzing my motivations, I'm just gonna leave the source that led me to make any edits at all here. If you need to write a section about their malpractice, so that you may conflate evidentiary-completeness with genuine malefactors, feel free: http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/dietary-factors/phytochemicals/curcumin#authors-reviewers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2610:130:104:200:9D91:3A68:3C47:20F (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It lists six articles by Aggarwal, who has a conflict of interest and has produced fraudulent research (now retracted). Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

6 of 123. The first citation of Aggarwal is for this claim: "Curcumin, the principal curcuminoid found in turmeric, is generally considered its most active constituent". The second citation of Aggarwal is for this claim: "In the intestine and liver, curcumin is readily conjugated to form curcumin glucuronide and curcumin sulfate or, alternately, reduced to tetrahydrocurcumin, hexahydrocurcumin, and octahydrocurcumin (Figure 2)". The fourth citation of Aggarwal is for this claim: "Examples of approaches include conjugation to peptide carriers (e.g., to polylactic-co-glycolic acid [PLGA]); complexation with essential oils; coadministration with piperine; and encapsulation into nanoparticles, liposomes, phytosomes, polymeric micelles, and cyclodextrins". The third and fifth citations of Aggarwal are paired with others. The sixth citation of Aggarwal is this claim: "Turmeric is the dried ground rhizome of Curcuma longa Linn (106)."

I'm sure it's quite the scandal that they didn't bother updating their source for the definition of turmeric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2610:130:104:200:9D91:3A68:3C47:20F (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The gist is that Aggarwal should not be jury, judge and executioner over his own patented medicines. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

These kind of extensive research fraud cases are so hard. It is going to take several years for the field to rethink what we know and what we don't know, especially in terms of in vivo activity. In other words, current secondary sources about biological activity and efficacy need to be read... cautiously as it will take time for the rethinking to be expressed in them. In the meantime, the cautions raised by medicinal chemists based on the chemistry and in vitro results are all the more important. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, and in addition to the cautions, we must also take seriously the body of evidence that remains after removing Aggarwal's data e.g. that which makes up the Linus Pauling Institute's review. As noted by the cabal-approved parts of this article, there's been a shit-ton of research into this thing, probably more than merited. Let's not waste it.2610:130:104:200:9D91:3A68:3C47:20F (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The shit-ton of clinical research is all unfortunately weak and constantly hyped with woo of "promise". So much money has been thrown away on this. Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I've offered multiple meaningful secondary sources from world-class research journals regarding the pharmacokinetics of curcumin. When they were from before Aggarwal, they were determined to be "not up to date". When they were from after, it was assumed they should be mistrusted because of Aggarwal's existence, even when their citations of him were passive-aggressively superficial. You offer no way around this catch-22. My note on pharmacokinetics was most recently taken down for "not being replicable", which I assume is why I just found yet another systematic review from a major research journal mentioning the existence of exact mechanism I mentioned, one without meaningful Aggarwal citations.

Ha! Guess what I just read? That "unverifiable" phenomenon I named, glucuronide degradation, is explicitly named in the very same Nelson citation that y'all cited three times for its claim of no clinical efficacy. Are we to assume that this "unverified" claim makes this source unreputable? Because if so, your own beliefs (can I call them that?) are derived from a single source back in 2017. "The most abundant conjugates are glucuronides and sulfates at the phenolic positions." -Nelson, 2017 2610:130:104:200:9D91:3A68:3C47:20F (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

So not everyone thinks alike. I didn't understand this edit by User:Rhode Island Red - RiR would you please explain why you removed all of that? (the prior edit was fine with me btw) Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

As stated in the edit summaries, the first half failed verification (was not in the cited source). The second half is a case of WP:UNDUE and reliance on what is ultimately a single study (Shoba et al. 1998) about piperine (a black pepper constituent) that's given undue prominence -- i.e., it doesn't matter that a couple of sources among thousands of articles on curcumin bioavailability have cited it, it’s still a single study AND it was in 10 subjects AND it happens to be from a spice extract nutraceutical company in India (SAMI Chemicals & Extracts) AND it was in an obscure journal (Planta Medica) AND it was published 20 years ago. So, yeah, bit of an issue with using WP to carry water for pepper extract merchants ;> Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually on closer inspection of the Shoba study, it was only 8 subjects, not 10 (2 dropped out) AND I forgot to mention that the study was not placebo-controlled or blinded AND the dose of curcumin was 2 g per kg, which corresponds to eating more than a whopping quarter pound of curcumin for an average (70 kg) man, a completely irrelevant paradigm. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is contesting the first edit and i explictly said that. You did not explain the second, and I am reverting. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I have said twice now that it failed verification (was not in the cited source). Oh, and sorry about misreading about the second part about piperine. I thought you were disputing that as well but just noticed it wasn't in the diff edit you posted. My bad. Cheers Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Am I missing something here. I keep removing this text and explaining that it is not in the source cited and you keep restoring it.[1] What is the issue? Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Better now -- a world of difference.[2]

• IP hopper per the discussion above there is no consensus. I am asking to have this page protected. Jytdog (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent double-blind, placebo controlled trial

An 18 month double-blind, placebo controlled trial of curcumin found that it improved memory and mood in non-demented adults aged 50 to 90 years with mild cognitive impairment. 107.15.172.97 (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS. The source you have provided is a primary study - that means it doesn't meet MEDRS requirements, and can't be used to support biomedical assertions. Part of the reason for this is that individual primary studies often show positive findings initially, but they can't be reproduced - this can be due to simple chance, or poor practice (methodological or statistical), or indeed intentional dishonesty by the researchers. In this particular case, the study you linked involved a very small number of subjects - 40 people, randomised so that 21 got the curcumin, and 19 got placebo - you simply can't draw any reliable conclusions from such a small group. The way medical science progresses is for more studies to be done to attempt to replicate these results (hopefully using much larger groups of subjects); once that is done, a review body will come along and look at all the studies, compare their findings and publish their conclusions; that review would be a secondary source, which would be MEDRS-compliant, and it would then be included on this page.Girth Summit (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Research distorted in this article

Several botanists brought to my attention that research is misrepresented in this article to the point of distortion. I read the linked articles and changed several sentences to reflect what the research said, quoting it directly. Overnight someone reverted those edits. One of the bloggers quoted in the original is a pharmaceutical company rep. but treated as an expert. That blogger does not identify where he works. That article, which is made central to the usefulness or lack of usefulness of curcumin, is a casual opinion piece with informal language, not at all rigorous science by any stretch of the imagination. That curcumin is unstable when isolated is proven. That it is useful for health reasons in certain diseases is carefully stated by the US National Institutes of Health. That curcumin is unstable means that the pharmaceutical industry has been unable to turn a profit on it. All of this was reverted overnight to reflect the Rx industry opinion. The reverts show how easy it is for someone stubborn enough and persistent enough to distort facts on Wikipedia without challenge. This is not a reliable article as it is based on deliberate distortions of what scientists have found. Anyone reading the linked articles will note that the ambiguity in the original articles is smothered in the Wikipedia article, and aspects treated as the whole and not a part of the research conclusions. Skywriter (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

In fact it is so highly unstable, that it vanishes before reaching its target. So, curcumin itself cannot have any therapeutic effects. This applies to both pharmaceutic usage as for natural intake of curcumin. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Derek Lowe is an expert in medicinal chemistry with a long record of doing, and writing about, med chem. Dismissing him as "a pharmaceutical company rep" is frankly stupid. (we actually have a page on him that i just found -- Derek Lowe (chemist).)

You do not bring a single source.

There is nothing to respond to. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC) (striking Jytdog (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)))

Frankly stupid? How collegial! How many Wiki rules do personal attacks violate, Jytdog?

Absolutely nothing you have stated changes the fact that Derek Lowe is a lifelong pharmaceutical industry representative. Is the opposite of that stupid? No, it just suggests you are prone to making personal attacks on Wikipedia editors with whom you disagree.Skywriter (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I characterized your edit, not you. But I will strike it. It is unclear to me what you even mean by "pharmaceutical representative"; people talk about "pharmaceutical sales representatives" and "pharmaceutical lobbyists", but Lowe is neither. He is a practicing medicinal chemist, doing what such people do. In any case if you want to challenge the validity of these sources for this content, WP:RSN is the place to do that. If you post there, please do so neutrally and please post a notice here. Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Curcumin has low bioavailability, but it is NOT unstable. Even in this article (see #Pharmacology section) it is written that "Very little curcumin escapes the GI tract and most is excreted in feces unchanged", that proves that actually it is a very stable molecule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.244.22.126 (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

the instability is supported by the source cited in the article. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

It's unstable inside blood. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Biased statement

The statement that "It is unlikely to produce useful leads for drug development.[3]" shows far more certainty than is warranted, and misrepresents the controversy on the possible usefulness of curcumin. In response to the article cited to substantiate this statement, a group of 13 medical researchers from prominent medical research institutions submitted a comment that strongly disagreed . Here is a quote from their comment: "Nelson and colleagues claim a lack of evidence for curcumin’s therapeutic benefits “despite thousands of research papers and more than 120 clinical trials” (www.clinicaltrials.gov). However, a PubMed search under ‘curcumin double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial’ yields 49 entries, of which 17 recent trials show efficacy (refs 1–17). In addition, there are 27 other clinical trials (for example,refs 18–24) and at least 5 animal studies of curcumin that point to therapeutic benefits (for example, refs 25–28)."

References

--Yaman32 (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

have you tried to find sources that are usable according to WP:MEDRS Roxy, in the middle. wooF 13:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

We don't use letters to the editor as references.

There are many, many useless clinical trials, which is bad for everybody. See this piece by John Ioannidis.Jytdog (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

That letter is surprisingly crappy. You'd think the authors would have at least a vague notion of the concept of meta-analysis and systematic review. Their assertion about what the literature shows or does not show is worthless without distilling and weighting the studies for study population and effect sizes, design, funding bias, etc. And why on earth would they be pointing to animal studies? Really mind boggling that it even got published. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Delayed onset muscle soreness

In Delayed onset muscle soreness, we said "oral curcumin (2.5 gram, twice daily) likely reduces [DOMS]". There is a citation. That seems to conflict with the skeptical tone used in this article. Would someone familiar with the evidence update one or the other article? Vectro (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Curcumin page edits

Good morning all - I recently posted edits to this article that were disputed and reversed under the justification "Still unreliable"(from Alexbrn). The concern cited was that "our sources for WP:Biomedical information should conform to WP:MEDRS - e.g. things like secondary sources (not primary research) as published in reputable journals". However, my edits seemingly conform exactly to this criteria as all 6 cited articles for this section were review articles in respected peer review journals. In brief, I disagree with the present wording on this page claiming no medicinal benefit from curcumin since - as published in the articles I cite - successful human studies from independent labs refute this. I believe a cautious tone regarding curcumin human benefit is more accurate that the dismissive one now present.

Below were my comments on the changes back then, which I still prefer. I tried to keep previous copy where possible. Please note that I also plan to edit the "Research" section consistent with my above concerns, and my proposed edits here are also below. Thanks - DNA 0089

¬Under the first section: (I ADDED) Biologically, curcumin has been found to possess numerous desirable activities including anti-oxidation, anti-inflammation, anti-microbial and others and so has significant potential in treating various human pathologies and conditions (Mehta, Tasneem, Jamwal, Ramirez, Tabrizi, Khurana). However, (I LEFT) “Curcumin has unclear medical use in spite of efforts to find one via both laboratory and clinical research. It is difficult to study because it is both unstable and not bioavailable. It is unlikely to produce useful leads for drug development.[3]“

From the sentence ““Curcumin has unclear (no confirmed) medical use in spite of efforts to find one via both laboratory and clinical research”, I removed “no confirmed” from this second line and replaced with “unclear” as successful human studies from independent labs refute the “no confirmed”. From the next sentence, I also removed “not” and replaced it with “poorly” bioavailable since curcumin has some bioavailability.

Under Research: (I ADDED) Many in vitro studies and in vivo rodent studies have demonstrated beneficial curcumin activities including anti-oxidation, anti-inflammation, anti-microbial and other (Mehta, Tasneem, Jamwal, Ramirez, Tabrizi, Khurana). The extent to which these apply to human health, however, is unclear and in some cases, controversial. Nonetheless, numerous clinical trials have reported curcumin benefits in humans (Heger, Salehi, Padmanaban, Tabrizi) underscoring its medicinal potential, and this list will likely continue to grow due to the emergence of new preparations of curcumin with much enhanced bioavailability (Jamwal). (I LEFT) “In vitro, curcumin exhibits numerous interference properties which may lead to misinterpretation of results.[3][10][15]

I removed the following sentence as the evidence does not support this statement: “Although curcumin has been assessed in numerous laboratory and clinical studies, it has no medical uses established by well-designed clinical research.[16] “

I modified the following: According to a 2017 review of over 120 studies, curcumin has not been successful in any clinical trial, although this is clearly refuted by the above. Nonetheless, this same review’s major concern and conclusion that "curcumin is unstable” is universally agreed upon by scientists in the field, and a main reason for the emergence of next-generation curcumin preparations. I removed the following as the evidence does not support the statement that no support has been found for curcumin as a medical treatment: “The US government has supported $150 million in research into curcumin through the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, and no support has been found for curcumin as a medical treatment.[3][17] “

Mehta J, Rayalam S, Wang X. Cytoprotective Effects of Natural Compounds against Oxidative Stress. Antioxidants (Basel). 2018 Oct 20;7: 147

Tasneem S, Liu B, Li B, Choudhary MI, Wang W. Molecular pharmacology of inflammation: Medicinal plants as anti-inflammatory agents. Pharmacol Res. 2018 Nov 3;139:126-140

Jamwal R. Bioavailable curcumin formulations: A review of pharmacokinetic studies in healthy volunteers. J Integr Med. 2018 Nov;16(6):367-374

Tabrizi R, Vakili S, Akbari M, Mirhosseini N, Lankarani KB, Rahimi M, Mobini M, Jafarnejad S, Vahedpoor Z, Asemi Z. The effects of curcumin-containing supplements on biomarkers of inflammation and oxidative stress: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Phytother Res. 2018 Nov 7. doi: 10.1002/ptr.6226. [Epub ahead of print]

Ramirez CN, Li W, Zhang C, Wu R, Su S, Wang C, Gao L, Yin R, Kong AN. 2017. In Vitro-In Vivo Dose Response of Ursolic Acid, Sulforaphane, PEITC, and Curcumin in Cancer Prevention. AAPS J. 2017 Dec 20;20(1):19

Khurana S, Venkataraman K, Hollingsworth A, Piche M, Tai TC. Polyphenols: benefits to the cardiovascular system in health and in aging. Nutrients. 2013 Sep 26;5(10):3779-827

Heger M. 2017. Drug screening: Don't discount all curcumin trial data. Nature. 543(7643):40

Salehi B, Stojanović-Radić Z, Matejić J, Sharifi-Rad M, Anil Kumar NV, Martins N, Sharifi-Rad J. 2018. The therapeutic potential of curcumin: A review of clinical trials. Eur J Med Chem. 163:527-545

Padmanaban G, Nagaraj VA. Curcumin May Defy Medicinal Chemists. ACS Med Chem Lett. 2017 Feb 15;8(3):274 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DNA0089 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Note I said "in reputable journals". So a journal like Antioxidants is a no-no (maybe have a look a WP:CRAPWATCH?). Also a study like PMID 29264822 is not a secondary source, but primary research. Alexbrn (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll add that "in vitro studies and in vivo rodent studies" really have no place in the article. It's human clinical studies that matter. Also, the fact remains that curcumin is not approved for treating any medical conditions, and statements about "potential" are aspirational and non-encyclopedic. The burden of proof has not been met. Remember that WP is an encyclopedia, not a compendium of basic research nor a forum for unproven hypotheses. Lastly, a reminder -- when your edits get reverted with cause, the onus is on you to gain WP:CONSENSUS first, so best not to plow forward with contentious edits. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Good evening all - sorry for my delay in this discussion as I am new to Wiki editing and was unable to get a response from Wiki for a month or so regarding the process.

I checked all the journals I cited on Beall’s 2016 list prior to listing them and none were on it (including Antioxidants) but I am glad to remove Antioxidants if preferred. I also am confused by the comment that “a study like PMID 29264822 PMID 29264822 is not a secondary source, but primary research” since it’s a review.

You comment that "in vitro studies and in vivo rodent studies" really have no place in the article. It's human clinical studies that matter. I disagree. These (in vitro and rodent) studies establish basic biological properties – in this case, of curcumin. Such properties increase the likelihood of the same in human. A common sequence of scientific investigation is test tube, cell culture, animal (usually rodent) in vivo; small clinical trial, and finally, larger clinical trial. This stepwise gradual approach makes intuitive sense that many researchers (myself included) are taught and on board with, with each an incremental contribution to eventually assessing the effect of a given intervention on human health. That is, each of these steps is of value. Curcumin has established benefit in all but the last category, and just because it’s presently lacking here doesn’t necessarily mean the same in the future. In fact, it’s demonstrated benefit in all other steps including small clinical trials suggest that it will be found effective in at least some future large clinical trials. This is counter to the tone of the present Wiki curcumin article that concludes no clinical benefit (“it has no medical uses”).

I will also add that dismissing curcumin benefits is critical of the decisions of a very large number of scientists who have investigated, studied, researched and published on this topic. In general, they typically put a lot of consideration into committing to these studies since it involves cost, time, and future success. Are these many scientists and in some cases, nutritionists, all making poor and misguided decisions regarding the worthiness of investigating curcumin? Doubtful.

Regarding human clinical studies, I went through each of the Heger references and found all but two to demonstrate positive health benefit in the cited clinical trials when considering physiological endpoints, and all to demonstrate health benefits if including the modulation of markers as hoped. There are additional ones since this article. Thus, the statement “curcumin has not been successful in any clinical trial” is erroneous. Plus, improved curcumin preparations are likely to improve efficacy beyond these and other studies. And there’s also the demonstrated anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidant, anti-microbial and other activities shown in cells and rodents that you want to dismiss as having “no place in the article”. Combined – respectfully - I still honestly feel the same: that a cautious tone regarding curcumin human benefit is preferential and more accurate that the dismissive one now present. Thus, I recommend that the edits I presented a few months ago at the top of this page still be implemented including references with the exception of removing the Antioxidants journal reference. Please note that I also don’t totally agree with other statements in these sections but have left them in the spirit of compromise. DNA0089 96.236.22.193 (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Some advice: (1) try to keep your comments succinct and to the point; focus on specific editorial suggestions and avoid WP:SOAP. (2) Take some time to get acquainted with WP policy (e.g., WP:MEDRS). Your personal POV on in vitro and rodent studies is directly contradicted by WP:MEDANIMAL. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Regarding the first point on specifics, I have previously made a number of editorial suggestions that I believe are all clear and specific. Regarding the second point, I agree that WP:MEDRS is a very helpful read and I re-read it based on your recommendation to me. My cited papers adhere to the preferences outlines on this page such as using reviews, avoiding primary sources, and using quality journals that are not listed in predatory journal listings. Regarding the third point, I disagree with your comment that my POV “on in vitro and rodent studies is directly contradicted by the WP-MEDANIMAL section” because my discussion regarding these studies is not limited to them only, but considers them IN COMBINATION WITH clinical studies. That is, the Wiki guidance is to avoid drawing human conclusions using in vitro and rodent studies, but they are referring to their use as stand-alone data. This recommendation – also depicted in the first figure as the bottom of the pyramid representing the weakest evidence - is understandable and I certainly agree with this assessment. However, I reference these in vitro and rodent studies to point out that such curcumin studies established basic biological properties for curcumin that have also been reported and therefore confirmed in human clinical trial. Thus, again, using cell culture and rodent studies by themselves to draw human conclusions: weak and not advisable. But in combination with human clinical trials, they STRENGHTEN the argument for curcumin’s medicinal properties. There has been some discussion since my original suggested edits a few months ago but to me, nothing that justifies the continued misrepresentation of claims currently on that page that curcumin “has no medical uses” and “curcumin has not been successful in any clinical trial”. I recommend checking other sources such as the Natural Medicines database for additional perspective. There, multiple clinical studies are listed that have shown curcumin/turmeric benefit for disorders such as depression, hyperlipidemia, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, osteoarthritis, pruritus, and ulcerative colitis. For these, it is concluded that curcumin is “Possible effective”, which includes the criteria that “Evidence shows POSITIVE outcomes for a given indication without substantial valid evidence to the contrary. Some contrary evidence may exist; however, valid positive evidence outweighs contrary evidence.” There are also many more disorders for which clinical evidence for curcumin benefit has been demonstrated, but is more limited and therefore classified as “Insufficient reliable evidence’. For all these studies, the use of curcumin is a work in progress. The wide range of pathologies for which curcumin benefit has been reported combined with improved bioavailable preparations suggest that at least some of these curcumin benefits will eventually be confirmed in larger clinical trial. At this stage, I recommend moving forward with adding my previously outlined edits to the page, which were cautious and tempered, and summed up by “I believe a cautious tone regarding curcumin human benefit is more accurate that the dismissive one now present. DNA0089 96.236.22.193 (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

You're missing the point of writing for an encyclopedia rather than a term paper, thesis or journal article discussion where considering lab research is worthwhile background. In an encyclopedia, we write about the best-established facts based on scientific consensus "which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles, in statements and practice guidelines issued by major professional medical or scientific societies." See WP:MEDSCI, the left pyramid in WP:MEDASSESS, and #6-7 of WP:NOTJOURNAL. --Zefr (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that inflammatory language such as “You’re missing the point” – and doing so using the second person - is frowned upon. I have met the criteria of citing recent secondary source reviews from non-predatory journals (e.g., Tabrizi et al., 2019. The effects of curcumin-containing supplements on biomarkers of inflammation and oxidative stress: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Phytother Res. 33:253-262, and the Natural Medicines database mention in my last post).

An editor recently questioned my focus and advised me to “advised keep my comments succinct and to the point and focused on specific editorial suggestions”, so if this person can identify the parts they object to, I’ll be glad to revisit them. Here, we are referring to my recommended edits in the below earlier post (excluding references): ¬Under the first section: (I ADDED) Biologically, curcumin has been found to possess numerous desirable activities including anti-oxidation, anti-inflammation, anti-microbial and others and so has significant potential in treating various human pathologies and conditions (Mehta, Tasneem, Jamwal, Ramirez, Tabrizi, Khurana). However, (I LEFT) “Curcumin has unclear medical use in spite of efforts to find one via both laboratory and clinical research. It is difficult to study because it is both unstable and not bioavailable. It is unlikely to produce useful leads for drug development.[3]“ From the sentence ““Curcumin has unclear (no confirmed) medical use in spite of efforts to find one via both laboratory and clinical research”, I removed “no confirmed” from this second line and replaced with “unclear” as successful human studies from independent labs refute the “no confirmed”. From the next sentence, I also removed “not” and replaced it with “poorly” bioavailable since curcumin has some bioavailability. Under Research: (I ADDED) Many in vitro studies and in vivo rodent studies have demonstrated beneficial curcumin activities including anti-oxidation, anti-inflammation, anti-microbial and other (Mehta, Tasneem, Jamwal, Ramirez, Tabrizi, Khurana). The extent to which these apply to human health, however, is unclear and in some cases, controversial. Nonetheless, numerous clinical trials have reported curcumin benefits in humans (Heger, Salehi, Padmanaban, Tabrizi) underscoring its medicinal potential, and this list will likely continue to grow due to the emergence of new preparations of curcumin with much enhanced bioavailability (Jamwal). (I LEFT) “In vitro, curcumin exhibits numerous interference properties which may lead to misinterpretation of results.[3][10][15] I removed the following sentence as the evidence does not support this statement: “Although curcumin has been assessed in numerous laboratory and clinical studies, it has no medical uses established by well-designed clinical research.[16] “ I modified the following: According to a 2017 review of over 120 studies, curcumin has not been successful in any clinical trial, although this is clearly refuted by the above. Nonetheless, this same review’s major concern and conclusion that "curcumin is unstable” is universally agreed upon by scientists in the field, and a main reason for the emergence of next-generation curcumin preparations. I removed the following as the evidence does not support the statement that no support has been found for curcumin as a medical treatment: “The US government has supported $150 million in research into curcumin through the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, and no support has been found for curcumin as a medical treatment.[3][17] “

Regarding “established fact”, the anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory and anti-microbial activities of curcumin have been clearly established in in vitro and rodent studies AND extended to clinical studies – that is why they are of value as opposed to stand-alone in vitro studies. I previously stated this and perhaps it bears repeating: no one here is willing to use STAND-ALONE in vitro and rodent studies to draw conclusions about an agent’s (here curcumin) human efficacy. This type data is justifiably listed at the bottom of the pyramid as noted by others and me as well. However, their use in combination with similar clinical results in further confirming these activities and their relevance to human health is different and I feel justifiable (see previous post; I don’t want to keep repeating these points). Furthermore, I am not “over-emphasizing” this in vitro/rodent data, as we are instructed to avoid. Without it, I still draw the same conclusions from secondary data reviews and clinical data accumulated so far. Nonetheless, I think it is valuable to include for the reason I indicated.

From this end, I continue to question why what I see as a continued erroneous misrepresentation that curcumin “has no medical uses” and “curcumin has not been successful in any clinical trial” is still on the current Wikipedia page.

Hopefully we can move forward with tangible edits as it’s starting to feel like we are going in circles. As I understand it, formal dispute resolution form Wikipedia is an option and so might be a next step.

DNA0089 DNA0089 (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is going to bother with your [TLDR] ranting because you are not basing any of it upon Wikipedia Policy and Guideline WP:PAG. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

You mean you aside from his actual links to wikipedia policy guidelines? Maybe instead of "too long, didn't read" you should actually read enough not to make false replies. I made a slightly longer glance at what he wrote than you did, and he makes some fair points. I'd imagine there's also some guidelines about being respectful as well... Derwos (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Preliminary research vs. MEDRS

This edit was reverted because it is unencyclopedic to infer lab research makes a compound relevant to medical uses. Editor NutriTraci stated: "there are over 13,000 studies on curcumin and it's [sic] benefits listed on pubmed." First, there are no systematic reviews of high-quality clinical research to show that curcumin supplementation lowers disease risk or improves disease outcome. Second, PubMed is only a listing service and does not review citations for quality. Wikipedia medical editors have to evaluate source quality by WP:MEDRS and WP:CIR. The 2017 Nelson review describes the problems of working with curcumin and the reasons why it hasn't developed as a drug lead beyond the basic science lab and its quackery uses in Ayurveda and other forms of traditional medicine. The Research section as stated is correct for the status of curcumin in 2019. --Zefr (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I’m not sure why some basic changes are not being allowed on this site. Curcumin benefit has been shown in many studies including clinical and these benefits reviewed in reputable journals as reviews, which is the required criteria. In this most recent post, NutriTraci’s edits are reversed in part due to “no systemic reviews of high-quality clinical research” but this is untrue; for example https://media.nature.com/original/nature-assets/nature/journal/v543/n7643/extref/543040c-s1.pdf, and there are other papers as well. Reading back through the recent history and discussion on this page indicates rationale justification and cited papers by DNA0089 especially (his/her detailed and logically justified comments seem to have been largely ignored or dismissed) and others such as NutriTraci, Derwos, Msr120 (I hope I’m not misrepresenting any editor’s intent here). Additionally, a cherry-picked Nelson article is cited here and in previous discussions as if it’s the final word, but this ignores many other articles showing the opposite and that support curcumin clinical benefit as above. Even the use of the word “quackery” by this editor seems biased to start. Finally, calling the research section “accurate” is…well…not accurate in view of the above. I therefore have some suggested edits but can we have some feedback discussion first? Roseyheart (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Roseyheart, you should present here your choice of publications showing "benefits reviewed in reputable journals as reviews" for curcumin, keeing in mind Wikipedia is not a textbook or journal article relying on basic research, but rather is an encyclopedic reference (WP:NOTTEXTBOOK #6), which - for medical content - follows WP:MEDSCI and WP:MEDASSESS for choosing review sources. You could add your suggested content and sources here for review by other editors. Fyi, the talk page comments here by DNA0089 mainly addressed early-stage lab research or referred to a review published in Phytotherapy Research which is not a reliable publication for high-quality clinical research. --Zefr (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Here are some such publications for discussion/review/okay before I proceed to suggest specific page content changes:

1. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials on Effects of Turmeric and Curcuminoids on Blood Lipids in Adults with Metabolic Diseases. Yuan F, Dong H, Gong J, Wang D, Hu M, Huang W, Fang K, Qin X, Qiu X, Yang X, Lu F. Adv Nutr. 2019 Jun 18. pii: nmz021. doi: 10.1093/advances/nmz021. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 31212316

The source is a pre-publication with only an abstract to review. The dietary studies appear to not specifically isolate curcumin, and the authors state in the abstract that their conclusions are uncertain and inconclusive. Unencyclopedic.

2. Use of Curcumin in Achieving Clinical and Endoscopic Remission in Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis By: Iqbal, Umair; Anwar, Hafsa; Quadri, Abdulhadi Affan AMERICAN JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL SCIENCES Volume: 356 Issue: 4 Pages: 350-356 Published: OCT 2018

Only an abstract is available, and it describes studies where curcumin was used in combination with a drug. Impossible to discern specific effects of curcumin. Journal has a low impact factor. Unusable.

3. Curcumin or combined curcuminoids are effective in lowering the fasting blood glucose concentrations of individuals with dysglycemia: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials By: Vieira de Melo, Ingrid Sofia; dos Santos, Aldenir Feitosa; Bueno, Nassib Bezerra PHARMACOLOGICAL RESEARCH Volume: 128 Pages: 137-144 Published: FEB 2018

Only an abstract. Difficult to judge the quality of the studies reviewed and specific dose of curcumin alone or in combination with other dietary agents among the studies. Impossible to discern specific effects of curcumin. Unencyclopedic.

4. The Effects of Curcumin on Glycemic Control and Lipid Profiles Among Patients with Metabolic Syndrome and Related Disorders: A Systematic review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials By: Tabrizi, Reza; Vakili, Sina; Lankarani, Kamran B.; et al. CURRENT PHARMACEUTICAL DESIGN Volume: 24 Issue: 27 Pages: 3184-3199 Published: 2018

Only an abstract. Same comments as #3.

5. Metabolic benefits of curcumin supplementation in patients with metabolic syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials By: Azhdari, Maryam; Karandish, Majid; Mansoori, Anahita PHYTOTHERAPY RESEARCH Volume: 33 Issue: 5 Pages: 1289-1301

Only an abstract. Same comments as #3. Phytotherapy Research is not a journal where high-quality clinical research is published.

6. Effects of curcumin on glycemic control and lipid profile in prediabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis By: Poolsup, Nalinee; Suksomboon, Naeti; Kurnianta, Putu Dian Marani; et al. PLOS ONE Volume: 14 Issue: 4 Article Number: e0215840 Published: APR 23 2019

Full article here. Although providing preliminary evidence of dietary curcumin having efficacy in improving diabetes biomarkers, the authors discuss several areas of potential design problems in the trials reviewed, and could not be conclusive. With evaluation by other editors, I feel this review may be included, but with a caveat about its weaknesses.

7. Lipid-modifying activity of curcuminoids: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials By: Simental-Mendia, Luis E.; Pirro, Matteo; Gotto, Antonio M.; et al. CRITICAL REVIEWS IN FOOD SCIENCE AND NUTRITION Volume: 59 Issue: 7 Pages: 1178-1187 Published: APR 12 2019

Only an abstract. Same comments as #3.

The following is another possible such publication but is published by Frontiers Media SA, whose predatory journal standing is in a grey zone. The Effects of Curcumin on Weight Loss Among Patients With Metabolic Syndrome and Related Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials By: Akbari, Maryam; Lankarani, Kamran B.; Tabrizi, Reza; et al. FRONTIERS IN PHARMACOLOGY Volume: 10 Article Number: 649

Unusable per WP:CITEWATCH.

None of the other above publications are on Beall’s list and are not listed as controversial or predatory in their respective Wikipedia pages (as opposed to Frontiers). This includes Phytotherapy Research (which also has a decent 3.1 Impact factor) although this journal is questioned by Zefr so perhaps there’s another issue with it.

Additionally, there are numerous other single trial randomized double-blind placebo-controlled studies clinical studies concluding curcumin benefit, and some of these are summarized in M Heger’s publication references: https://media.nature.com/original/nature-assets/nature/journal/v543/n7643/extref/543040c-s1.pdf, (Drug screening: Don't discount all curcumin trial data. Heger M. Nature. 2017 Mar 1;543(7643):40. doi: 10.1038/543040c. PMID: 28252078)

Primary research, unusable.

Other comments: The success of curcumin in these as well as a number of other clinically-related studies also argues against the many concerns raised by the Nelson paper when extending to in vivo. (Note: This is another discussion but serum levels of parent compounds are not the be-all end-all in assessing drug or botanical efficacy)

In vitro studies in the Nelson paper are also mentioned and emphasized on this current curcumin page but this seems at odds with an earlier comment by one editor in the curcumin page discussion history that “in vitro studies have no place in the article”

Regarding this paper, the comment “According to a 2017 review of over 120 studies, curcumin has not been successful in any clinical trial” leading the authors to conclude that "curcumin is an unstable, reactive, non-bioavailable compound and, therefore, a highly improbable lead".[3] Is yet another seeming inaccurate/misleading comment on this page. Checking that Nelson paper, the authors cite 135 registered clinical trials of which only 8 have reported study results, and only 4 of these are detailed. The papers interference and this curcumin site’s inference that there have been over 120 failed curcumin trials is very misleading. Even moreso based on the above citations.

As previously stated, the phrase “Curcumin has no confirmed medical use” also seems misleading for the same above reasons.

It's absolutely true that there are no confirmed medical uses of curcumin. Stated here for turmeric, "It is not certain whether turmeric is effective in treating any medical condition. Medicinal use of this product has not been approved by the FDA. Turmeric should not be used in place of medication prescribed for you by your doctor." If there were, it would be used clinically and internationally as an approved drug which requires proof of dose-response effects (efficacy) and a mechanism of action (specificity) for a defined medical condition. As a dietary agent, curcumin can never achieve these specifications because its fate as a compound or its metabolites once consumed cannot be defined.

Among other things, the major emphasis on the Nelson paper and lack of other counter evidence references (in effect cherry picking); the misleading summary of this paper as well as the dismissal of any curcumin benefit on this page; the of the word “quackery” by Zefr (sorry Zefr – not trying to be confrontational by just saying); and the seeming dismissal of the previous well-presented DNA arguments (which editor Derwos even called out as “Maybe instead of "too long, didn't read" you should actually read enough not to make false replies. I did more than glance at what he wrote and he makes some fair points“) makes the current page seem pretty strongly biased against curcumin. Roseyheart (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that if we changed our sourcing rules for Curcumin, to enable the Curcuminist lobby to write what they wanted, we'd have to do the same thing for all the other true believers in the world, and the value of wikipedia as a reasonably accurate resource would be lost, so a thousand times no, we wont be relaxing our sourcing rules. We use WP:RS and in this case, for medical claims, wp:medrs. Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Looked at the first source: Chinese junk. This just strikes me as a waste of time. If there is just *one* decent source in existence, produce it. Otherwise we are done here. Alexbrn (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Disturbing number of SPAs soapboxing here. Might have a WP:SOCK issue. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Help me out here – what is still lacking as your responses seem angry? I was asked to supply “your choice of publications showing benefits reviewed in reputable journals as reviews for curcumin” and so provided seven (excluding the Frontiers one). All articles are published secondary source systemic reviews of randomized control studies (i.e., they’re at the top of the Wiki pyramid guidelines); are published in Medline-indexed journals; and none are predatory journals. I’m also not sure what “Chinese junk” means when referring to the first source, Advances in Nutrition (this journal is published by the American Society for Nutrition, a well-respected organization).

Didn’t see any but also curious about editor responses to my “Other comments” section on my multiple concerns related to the Nelson paper and emphasis Roseyheart (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Roseyheart: I have numbered your sources above with comments in red. Other editors have responded above, indicating absence of consensus to change the article content, WP:CON. --Zefr (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

All references are full manuscripts, not just Abstracts. If you are unable to access the full papers to review more thoroughly, I’ll be glad to anonymously send them to you as they are available from commonly subscribed publishers at my academic institution’s library (5 of the 7 papers) or interlibrary loan (the other two papers).

I feel there are a number of inaccuracies on this current page and recommend the following changes:

- Remove the inaccurate statement that “According to a 2017 review of over 120 studies, curcumin has not been successful in any clinical trial”. The above systemic clinical paper reviews list clinical trial papers showing curcumin efficacy as do the many Heger references, and so directly contradict that statement

- Regarding this same statement and reference to 120 studies, it came from the (IMO) cherry-picked Nelson paper, and my interpretation is that these authors cite 135 registered clinical trials of which only 8 have reported study results, and only 4 of these are detailed. That paper’s inference and this curcumin site’s inference that there have been over 120 failed curcumin trials is thus very misleading

- The success of these many clinical trials indicate that the statement “curcumin is an unstable, reactive, non-bioavailable compound and, therefore, a highly improbable lead".[3] is moot and so should probably be edited or removed

- Remove the “$150 million…no support for curcumin as a medical treatment” statement since successful clinical trials technically “support” curcumin use. Also, one of the two references is a non-peer reviewed Forbes magazine opinion piece

- My issue with the phrase “Curcumin has no confirmed medical use” is that it’s misleading and strongly infers that curcumin is medically useless. We don’t know that yet but there are certainly numerous above (and more) successful studies that suggest otherwise. I understand and appreciate the editors effort here to maintain a high bar and so technically, the phrase is correct (depending upon you editors review of references 1-7 full papers), but ignores the many studies demonstrating curcumin efficacy that might prove true on a large scale when more studies are done (e.g., as a treatment for depression), especially with improved delivery technology. Before dismissing this as aspirational or the like, note there are also a number of health care practitioners who already include curcumin for treatment. For example, I am aware of well-respected wellness centers that include curcumin in some treatments, mainly as an anti-inflammatory (in combination with other anti-inflammatories; curcumin by itself is admittedly likely not enough here) and it is also much more valued as a treatment in Asia including by some Indian MDs I know who claim anti-cancer benefit in their patients. It might even prove very medicinal in the future. Many therapeutics start out this way; e.g., cancer immunotherapies were ineffective until second and third generation trials and improvements. Dismissing these early studies as “no confirmed medical use” would also have been misleading. So again, rephrasing this statement with a few words could make it much more accurate/informative without removing the point that it is not yet used as a common treatment. Perhaps something along the lines of keeping the phrase “Curcumin has no confirmed medical use” but following it with “although numerous benefits in individual clinical research trials have been reported and so require further investigation.”

- Even the comment – also from the Nelson paper - of a predicted high risk of toxicity if able to gain higher plasma concentration is very speculative; e.g., affected Phase 1 and 2 enzymes are mainly liver enzymes due to the first pass liver uptake effect, and the highest exposures occurs in liver due to first pass in the absence of much if any toxicity at doses studied (i.e., the FDA gives curcumin a “Generally recognized as safe” rating even at multi-gram doses).

- Consider removing the in vitro studies cited on this page (e.g., first line under “Research”). As you know better than me, in vitro studies are usually frowned upon for Wiki medical articles and so for consistency, should either be removed or the many reported in vitro benefits of curcumin (e.g., ant-inflammatory and antioxidant) added.

The current curcumin page reads as a strong dismissal of curcumin medical benefit, at odds with numerous studies (and some healthcare professionals) whose results “support” its medical benefit. It would seem that a minor amount of rewording would maintain the lead editor’s laudable high standards and conclusion of questionable curcumin treatment effectiveness while providing a more accurate and improved overview. Roseyheart (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

So far as I can see, from the strongest RS, there is zero clinical application for curcumin, while there is also a known history of research fraud and quackery. WP:REDFLAG applies and I would want to see multiple statements from top-tier MEDRS (e.g. NEJM, the NHS or FDA etc) before Wikipedia shifts position. Alexbrn (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

A review

With this edit I removed a sentence. happy to discuss. my edsum read "Everything we know about curcumin contradicts this paragraph, and the conclusion drawn here" -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 21:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5664031/

The provided source is not a primary study, but a review (secondary summarizing study - meta-analysis) with many citations, published in a reputable journal. As such it satisfies WP:MEDRS. I dont see why it should be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaspie55 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

How do you reconcile the conclusions of the review you cite with the conclusions of everything in the rest of the article, including all the other reviews and reports on the subject? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 05:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

As such it satisfies WP:MEDRS — not true: not indexed for MEDLINE means bah-bah. MDPI is a predatory publisher, therefore bah-bah-bah. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

MEDRS

@Researcher.sherif: Please note that MDPI is not a WP:MEDRS-compliant publisher. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hangover remedy?

This revert was justified because a) the topic is rare and non-notable, WP:WEIGHT, as it is not a "significant viewpoint published by a reliable source," b) the source, a blog, is too weak to justify the content being included among "uses", and c) curcumin is not mentioned in this or any science-based source about hangover remedies, and so fails WP:V. The common user may not recognize curcumin as a constituent of turmeric, which is mentioned. Overall, BrayLockBoy, it is just a weak topic having an equally weak source. Why is it justified to be included? Zefr (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, I understand. I attempted to pare it down, and thought that the statement at the start indicating that there wasn't sufficient evidence to justify its use as a remedy would be sufficient to include the information - at the time I was adding the second, reduced version, I found this retracted study - removed for a conflict of interest - which would have further supported the initial section that mentions a lack of evidence, but wasn't sure if adding it would be sufficient or add further undue weight, so I chose not to. I can see my edit stuck this time, but if it's reverted again, I won't add it again. Thanks for the insight, though, as it has given me a bit of guidance on how to approach this sort of thing from now on. --BrayLockBoy (talk) 10:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Msri20.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Reverted change to add metastudy showing efficacy

I added a metastudy from Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry showing efficacy. To quote the abstract conclusion, "Curcumin improves depressant and anxiety behavior in humans." Also, "may inhibit the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines".

The two textual additions were a word-for-word copy-paste of the conclusion, and the sentence fragment, "though it shows some promise in treatment of depression, anxiety, and inflammation", which is very clearly borne out by the above quotes.

The changes were undone due to: "THe actual words you copied from the conclusion of the report contradict what you have said here"

They were LITERALLY a copy-paste of the conclusion, and a shorter summary which is clearly representative.

I'm going to put this study and its effects back in. Rather than completely undoing my legitimate work to add studies which are 5 years more recent than those already in the article, please use the Talk page or edit those specific parts you think are not representative.

CobaltBlue (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

This journal does not show a Medline listing, raising concerns about its reliability. There are no reviews in high-quality publications to confirm such conclusions, which appear to be highly speculative and based on lab studies or poorly-designed human research. There are no rigorous WP:MEDRS reviews stating anything similar to the conclusions of this report. Zefr (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The journal is in fact indexed, see item 3 in the following query: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/?term=currentlyindexed%5BAll%5D+psychiatry+australian+new+zealand

I suspect that the nih site is having issues or this query is malformed, if you go to their full index and click on ANY journal they all result in a blank page. Click on ANY journal here to see the same blank result.

Alternatively, looking at the most cited works in this article, from which nearly all the claims of no efficacy are founded, they result in the same blank page: abrev1 , abrev2 , direct link. Should we delete the majority of the article for not meeting WP:MEDRS since every journal currently results in the same blank page?

---

This seems to be a sensitive subject for some reason, but as it turns out there has been a wealth of meta studies published since 2017, and the sources which make up the majority of the current article's claims are quite old.

So I'm going to again submit changes, referencing multiple Medline-listed, WP:MEDRS-appropriate journal articles, and once again ask that if there are concerns, they be discussed on the Talk page rather than reverted wholesale.

To save you some time since the medline database is behaving wierdly, here are links that show each of the journals indexed by medline: Journal of the American Medical Directors Assosiation (1st result), Pharmalogical Research (4th result), European Journal of Medicinal Chemisty (3rd result), Nutrition Reviews, Nutrition Research (6th result), CNS Drugs (16th result)

CobaltBlue (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted your Bold change per WP:BRD until I am able to see what changes you have made. The pepperpot nature of the changes you want mean that I may take some time to parse them. Had you done a series of edits it would have been easier, better would have been to discuss them here first, particularly for such a major change in POV. Thanks. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 04:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

For the record, your first link in the lead fails WP:MEDRS - (it is a narrative review) - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 04:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

First, narrative reviews do not "fail" WP:MEDRS, the guidelines state that they are more valuable than primary sources and "Narrative reviews can help establish the context of evidence quality."

Furthermore in the depression section alone, its meta-analyzing 16 studies, 14 of which are randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials, which is highlighted by WP:MEDRS as the highest possible form of source: "The best evidence for efficacy of treatments and other health interventions is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)" CobaltBlue (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The conclusion of your second ref does not support your contention. ("More robust randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes and follow-up studies carried out over a longer duration should be planned to ascertain its benefits." My emphasis) Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 04:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

First, you ignored the first sentence of the conclusion which says that curcumin appears to be "efficacious among depressed patients". It further gives a meta-analysis of multiple clinical studies which shows amelioration of depressive symptoms, with a p-value of 0.002.

Suggesting that more research continue does not constitute proof that the current research did not show significance, and meta-analysis showing significant results and very low p-value IS significant. CobaltBlue (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't ignore it, I just commented on the significant bit. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 04:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I am unable to read the third one and will not comment. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 04:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The fourth one doesn't support you either. Have you perhaps not thoroughly read the reviews you cite? - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 04:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

You really need to be more specific than "the Xth one, I can't even be sure we're talking about the same article.

Assuming we are talking about the ref named "NutrRevAIEOSC", it is LITERALLY quoting the journal article. CobaltBlue (talk) 04:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Its the one after the third one you added. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 04:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I can only assume you're being deliberately obtuse, as we both know how to count to 4. CobaltBlue (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Fifth one is not available to me, the sixth reports its own uncertainty. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 04:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, please somehow refer to which study you are talking about, I'm assuming the one named EJMC_TPC

First, please show me where in WP:MEDRS it says that there can be 0% uncertainty in cited research. I can't find it, and its a ridiculous proposition, all research deals with uncertainty, but we consider it significant when we reduce the uncertainty to within accepted levels.

The article does state that more research is needed BUT prior to that states that, "Based on the currently available SRs, the efficacy of curcumin-containing nutraceuticals has been demonstrated for several conditions". So to a rigourous enough scientific standard to be published in a WP:MEDRS applicable journal ("up-to-date and rigorous syntheses" according to the journal article), efficacy has been demonstrated. CobaltBlue (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I have already told you the last one does not support your contention. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 04:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

You did, but then never came to the talk page that you requested to discuss it until now. And I already replied in my first post here, that I was literally quoting the article, so you need to be more specific on how the quote from the article is not supported by the article. CobaltBlue (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I used this version of the page to look at the references you added to the lead, despite not needing to reference per WP:LEAD it was actually useful that they all appeared sequentially, numbered 3 to 9. In my notes above, the first one I refer to is number three, and on from there. refnames mean little to me I'm afraid. I'm actually surprised that nobody has commented since las night, and I expect someone to happen bye sooner or later. I haven't yet looked at the rest of your edit because it's Jubilee weekend and I'm doing other stuff. If nobody else comments, I may raise this page at an appropriate noticeboard to ask for input. I would like to point out that it isn't just the publication route that determines the quality of a WP:MEDRS source. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Assessment of the proposed sources claiming an effect of curcumin falls into the category of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", which is not met in the proposed revision. Comments on individual sources:

• Lopresti - exaggeration and speculation based on animal and poor-quality human research - unusable.
• Ng - only 6 low-quality studies with a total of 377 subjects; a meta-analysis of weak primary research is a weak unusable source.
• Sahebkar - a 2016 report with tentative conclusions and no MEDRS follow up; outdated and unusable.
• Ferguson - unusable, as the authors state that "clinical evidence remains inconclusive because of discrepancies regarding optimal dosage, duration, and formulation of curcumin".
• Salehi - unable to read the subscription article; abstract does not provide any firm conclusions.
• Pagano - the authors conclude that "due to the poor quality of the primary trials and the low-to-moderate level of some SRs, there is still some uncertainty," which is not "extraordinary evidence", and is insufficient as an encyclopedic source.
• Matias - unable to read the subscription article; only 10 trials reviewed, with oral use of curcumin to treat people having depression indicating weak alternative medicine studies; the authors conclude: "Studies with larger samples and standardized dose and formulation are required to demonstrate the benefits of curcumin in depression treatment since there are many variations in this compound’s use." Does not meet the "exceptional evidence" quality.

The statement, "the efficacy of curcumin-containing nutraceuticals has been demonstrated for several conditions", is not supported by the sources, which are unexceptional and inconclusive, and is not adopted by any reputable medical association. The draft statement, "recent meta-studies have indicated that curcumin may exhibit a variety of medical benefits in humans", is too premature and without clinical weight, WP:UNDUE, to be included. Zefr (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

No mentioning of its well established anti-inflammatory effects

Update due to established research... 2A01:598:D004:AA1A:4B2D:A6E:524C:140 (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no WP:MEDRS evidence for such an effect. See the Medical research section. Zefr (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

No research allowed ?

Even umbrella review : "Umbrella reviews are among the highest levels of evidence currently available in medicine.[2]" ??? Atchoum (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello Atchoum and welcome to Wikipedia. I note that you have never tried to edit the article or this Talk page during your brief wiki career. Why do you think this way? Do you have any evidence that good policy compliant reviews have been disallowed for some reason? -Roxy the dog 17:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is supposed to be the "Encyclopedia that anyone can edit, however a small cabal of editors combine to disallow valid editing on certain pages such as this one. Blantant violations of Wikipedia policy seems to be done with impunity. For a good example, look at the page history for "Turmeric" and Talk:Turmeric. One must look at the history since even the archived discussion links have been simply eliminated from the Talk page for Turmeric, or it can be seen here: Talk:Turmeric/Archive 1. I repeatedly tried to edit "Turmeric" using updated and improved sources from peer-reviewed medical journals, including up-to-date meta-analysis, but all edits just ended up being deleted, against Wikipedia policy and protocol, and generally in bad faith. The page history for "Turmeric" shows that even adding dispute tags etc. were merely removed on the specious grounds that I needed "consensus" from the cabal of editors which assert control over these pages to even do this, and frankly the interest of these editors is to impede the improvement of articles such as "Turmeric" and "Curcumin". So, don't feel bad, Atchoum, it is not you or your contributions which are at fault but rather a small cabal of editors which are not following the best interests of Wikipedia. There is a reason why "Curcumin" seems to be stuck back in 2017. You and I are hardly the only ones unreasonably shut out of the editing process. There is a Request for Comment process which may be useful in this case (Wikipedia:Requests for comment), and may be essential to improving Wikipedia. I was going to do this before, but haven't followed through with it yet. I don't blame you if it is not worth your trouble to try to work on this article; however, since I have already more than exhausted all reasonable efforts to work with this group of editors, any further effort would be a mere exercise in futility, as I have already proven. Thus the Rfc is already the appropriate next step. This step can be taken by merely adding an Rfc tag between curly brackets in a new section explaining what the case is here. This might work. Cheers, Dcattell (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I remember you trying to use non MEDRS or non RS sources, so they couldn't be used. Your interpretation of what happened is a bit of a stretch. Perhaps you should try a less difficult article to edit? On the other hand, just use reliable sources (see WP:MEDRS and WP:RS that support what you want to say.

Interestingly, you used the phrase "I repeatedly tried to edit "Turmeric" using updated and improved sources from peer-reviewed medical journals, including up-to-date meta-analysis, but all edits just ended up being deleted, against Wikipedia policy and protocol, and generally in bad faith" is just nonsense. Your edits were reverted by editors trying to maintain the article in line with policy, including myself (I don't remember doing it at all) . -Roxy the dog 17:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear Roxy the dog, such completely mendacious comments should generally be avoided, not just on Wikipedia, but in life in general. Really for your own sake as much as anyone else's. Do you ever think about that? I'm sorry that you feel necessitated to claim to have such a terrible memory. However, you can certainly refresh and correct your memory through the historical resources available at Wikipedia, as so mentioned above. And, please, always remember WP:DNB. Dcattell (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Mendacious. I see. -Roxy the dog 22:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Missing data

Looking at PubMed, I can see a few interesting 2023 review studies that rather contradict the negative tone on curcumin's effects seen on the WP page. Someone should update the article. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Nearly all of those are in low-quality journals, and review even lower-quality clinical studies, alternative medicine views or lab research. MDPI publications are not used as they are suspected of predatory publishing. I don't see anything useful in the list.

Observe WP:NOTFORUM. The WP:TALK guidelines (above) are that you make a specific recommendation to improve the article and supply - in this case - a quality WP:MEDRS review. Zefr (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Citation for Ayurvedic medicine not valid

Citation currently numbered 6, a 2011 Wilken paper (https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-4598-10-12) is cited as the source for a claim that curcumin has historic ayurvedic use. This paper does not make that claim itself, instead it cites a 2007 paper by Aggarwal (doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-46401-5_1). I've just been informed that this researcher is not considered a valid source due to fraud - therefore, this claim has no valid source. Kiwilolo (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

With this edit, I made the statement succinct and consistent with the sources. Zefr (talk) 05:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Cheers, a tidy solution. 125.239.16.217 (talk) 10:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)