You are here

Curcumin follow up From oncology pharmacist re the articles Scuba references

Who do I believe? Driving me nuts!😱

This data was interesting as an early proof of concept.

Of note, this analysis is ex-vivo.  Essentially this concept/theory arose from studies in a petri dish environment that mimics some of the cellular function pathways seen in CML.

It is tough to translate this to clinical practice, as this environment is a simulation, a "perfect and predictable cellular world" with carefully chosen features to not skew results (quite the opposite of an actual human body). There also does not seem to be any follow up after 2004 (this is an incomplete study).

Additionally, the doses/regimen needed to show any kinetic differences are super small and do not reflect what may, in theory, work in a person since the cellular environment is so microscopic and nowhere  near as complex as an animal or person.

Usually these types of studies need to be employed in animal models, followed by early phase I in humans to suggest clinical benefit in man.

Bendicco - Thanks for pointing this out.  You will never sway proponents of supplements, particularly curcumin, from their beliefs, however.  There could very well be benefits, but there can be such an overwhelming overlay of strong emotion (the desire to take back control, find a way out, desperation or despair, a feeling of abandonment by the medical establishment, etc) that the truth is hard to find.  I think it's high time for the research world to take curcumin (and other ideas, like boosted vitamin D levels) seriously and do gold standard studies.  Get it out of the petri dish and animal cages and into CML patients.  The theories are plausible.  True medical advances have been made from the natural world, many times - it's one of the reasons to not let the undiscovered flora and fauna of the world go extinct, because there may be something miraculous there.  I worry that the powers that be scoff because the chemistry has not originated on paper first, and they know their peers will jeer and no proposed studies will be underwritten.  They should be braver than that and find out:  can these theories PROVE to be really, measurably beneficial in the fight against CML?  Or not?

I agree

Bravo Kat! Excellent summary.