so do regions that eat these spices every day have less cancer?
No.
This was published in MDPI, a predatory publisher with a poor track record for peer review.
The entire study was done in one cell line in vitro.
this post was submitted on 12 May 2026
56 points (84.1% liked)
Science
7055 readers
32 users here now
General discussions about "science" itself
Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Fair enough, I'm not an expert, but agree that you'd need far more evidence before making the bold claim.
Which is what proper peer review would conclude.
But how do you know that? I don't know what the reputable and predatory nutrition journals are.
It's not always obvious. Science journalists should know.
Science Daily, which is linked here, is well rated. cf https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/science-daily/ So you can hardly be blamed here. But this article appears to be bad reporting.
This article makes or repeat bold claims about treating a medical condition from an in-vitro experiment, without any measurement of the effect on actual humans. Not an expert, but my understanding is a clinical trial is necessary to draw conclusion about the effect on a medical condition in human.
Although additional studies in animals and humans are needed to confirm these effects, this work provides a clearer explanation of how everyday foods and natural compounds may help regulate chronic inflammation. Over time, this could play an important role in supporting long-term health.
Hopefully what they saw with a few cells in vitro can help prepare a medical trial with proprer controls. If and when such trial occurs, then maybe it'll be possible to draw early conclusions about a (probable) effect on medical conditions.
Good point.
Is the publishing journal a better indication of low-quality research than the research institution that conducted the study (the Tokyo University of Science, in this case)?
Probably, generally you want to publish in the best journal you can, and if the journal is know for bad/easy publishing then that would correlate better. Universities have many many research groups, so while generally good research institutions will probably have better research and paper quality you can still have worse ones.
Disclaimer: I am not in academia and decent amount of this is either directly from or based upon recently watching Explosions & Fire's recent video on academia: https://youtu.be/4CbdVkcr-Nw
Institutions don't dictate quality. Harvard has a long history of garbage studies an various wankers.
TUS is NOT University of Tokyo.
Quality can only be judged by critically reading the paper.
In higher doses, it extends life and grants prescience, allowing one to navigate fold-space.
Are there any culinary sources of eucalyptus (or cineole)?
bay leaf, rosemary, sage, peppermint, spearmint, sweet basil, thyme, oregano, cardamom, galangal, ginger, and cannabis.
All I have seen is marinading and infusing oil.
Hmm. Not quite groundbreaking, being a study on cells in isolation and no animal or human trials, but I would be interested to see how mice react to the combinations. It’s easy to cure cancer when working on a few cells on a dish.