40 subjects is a ridiculously small sample, especially when it’s non homonegenous (ages spread from 50 to 90!). Worse, it means only 20 with curcumin + 20 with placebo. And the result, 28% improvement in ill defined metrics, is vanishingly small.
I call it junk science, typical of modern epidemiology’s statistics twisting.
I tend to agree with you, but would like to read the study. The before and after PET data sounds interesting.
This is one small study. There have been dozens of them. No study is perfect since humans are not inbred, except maybe in NJ or San Fran.