Paul Saladino· MD
curcumin has also been shown to be damaging for normal native human cells in addition to cancer cells so curcumin doesn't look like a good thing to hurt cancer cells because it also damages our endogenous healthy cells
Loading…
We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
curcumin has also been shown to be damaging for normal native human cells in addition to cancer cells so curcumin doesn't look like a good thing to hurt cancer cells because it also damages our endogenous healthy cells
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
in over a hundred and twenty randomized placebo-controlled trials curcumin has never shown a benefit I will repeat that in every single randomized placebo-controlled trial that has ever been done with curcumin there has never been a benefit shown
in the case of curcumin it's been shown to damage DNA directly it's been shown to inhibit DNA repair it's been shown to affect the potassium channel called the her channel and it's been shown through other negative things
curcumin is much the same there are over 120 failed randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials with curcumin and then if we actually look at what curcumin is doing in the rest of the body it can interfere with a potassium channel called the her Channel it can affect DNA replication and inhibit topoisomerases which are DNA repair unwinding enzymes