Haven’t curated a study for a while that actually detracted from science. This 2022 human clinical trial that polluted broccoli sprout compounds research provoked me into it:

“Forty-nine participants enrolled, including 26 (53%) females with median use of 20 cigarettes/day. Low and higher-dose broccoli seed and sprout extracts (BSSE) showed a mean bioavailability of 11% and 10%, respectively.

Participants were treated for 2 weeks with both low and higher-dose BSSE (148 µmol vs. 296 µmol of glucoraphanin daily), separated by a 2-week washout. A multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating the sustainability of benzene and acrolein detoxification by higher-dose BSSE over 12 weeks is now planned in otherwise healthy, heavy tobacco smokers.”

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/14/9/2129/htm “Randomized Crossover Trial Evaluating Detoxification of Tobacco Carcinogens by Broccoli Seed and Sprout Extract in Current Smokers”

A few unanswered questions:

• Why would anyone who had a grasp of the reality of their life in this century still smoke? Could their lack of cognition be helped by anyone other than themself?
• Why would researchers use a suboptimal, ethically compromised product that delivered much less than sulforaphane’s 70-80% bioavailability? Why did they ignore previous research, and neither find nor develop a product that delivered adequate sulforaphane?
• Why would researchers not consider combined aspects of known insufficient dose / product efficacy / subject sample size / treatment delivery mode and duration? Because sponsors’ money was available, and will continue – regardless of screwups – with another all-expenses-paid, worthless clinical trial?
• Do “healthy, heavy tobacco smokers” even exist outside of statistical models?
• Do researchers feel broccoli sprout compounds research is nothing more than a gravy train to keep money flowing to them? If not, why don’t they act differently?
• Why do I spend even one minute of my one precious life to highlight their and my unconscious act-outs of unsatisfied needs? Maybe if readers understand these misshapenned agendas, they may understand similar circumstances?