That's why you should read properly. All of those cases used RUCAM except one and even that did causality assessment. The links include a systematic review, which is considered as a highest level of evidence. The links I posted were also cited by your own paper. Anyone could have figured it out in a few minutes had he wanted to do a genuine discussion.
So, now you've accepted your fault but buried it in a 1000-word rant. I know what the study said, but you fabricated something that it never mentioned.
There is a medicinal herb in China called Polygonum Multiflorum, known to be liver-toxic. A systematic review published a few years back concluded that the herb was indeed toxic. Do you know how many cases it considered? About 450 cases over the last 20-25 years. Now go argue with them about the statistics. Go tell them that they need more trials. The safety assessment of a supplement, which lands in the market without trials, starts from the reporting of adverse events. You cannot say that these are individual cases or rare cases and ignore these.
So now you've realized that herbal supplements are a mixture of multiple substances and how difficult it is to identify the precise cause of injury. I explicitly told you not to try to be an expert and judge the scores based on probability alone. The cause can never be established definitively. There is no 'definite' in RUCAM; the maximum you can get is 'highly probable.' Multiple times they tested the supplement and found no other substance; many times, abstaining from the use of turmeric healed the liver completely while no other medications were discontinued. They drew conclusions based on their experience that curcumin was the cause of liver injury. So, stop trying to be an expert and let real experts debate the significance of these reports.
Furthermore, the health burden of these supplements may be huge because most cases go unreported. Many times, a lot of liver injuries were reported as 'unknown cause.' Doctors have observed that patients tend to consider these supplements as herbal and safe and never report their use. The Twitter profile of theliverdoc is full of such instances.
Again, stop trying to be an expert. Even the exact mechanism of liver damage from Polygonum Multiflorum is unknown. It is also dose and duration independent; it sometimes takes 10, other times takes 200 days to cause the damage. Millions of people so far have taken it safely. That doesn't mean experts who are calling it liver toxic are fools. Now, we will get another rant from you, 'ohh, you compared a herb with another herb, you are desperate.' Another nonsense rant incoming in 3...2...1...
There are plenty of people on the internet who try to show a mirror to others and end up getting owned in the process.. 
You failed to comprehend your own paper and wrote "My paper debunked every other study, bla bla bla....," you tried to mislead everyone, and now you are accepting your fault. You even tried to downplay every study counter to your narrative while claiming to listen to 'the experts.'
You could have made a reasonable point that, yes, there are genuine cases, but the numbers seems less. That would have been a meaningful contribution to the thread and I would have given more examples how the findings may be significant. Instead, you tried to be an expert, even quoting a systematic review and foolishly attempting to find flaws in it. Mr. Smarty Pants, you aren't fooling anyone here.
hahaha achha? No one has any obligation to establish or show anything to you. Your sense of entitlement, thinking that people somehow owe an explanation to you, is laughable. Everyone can see how you blatantly lied, tried hard to deflect and finally got caught.
You are still trying hard to downplay every study and opinion which is counter to your narrative. Why don't you leave it to experts ?
I trust experts, and I trust evidence. There is no evidence of turmeric being useful. No clinical society recommends turmeric for any disease condition. An expert who specializes in herb-induced liver injury is stating that turmeric could be harmful as a supplement and advising people to keep it confined to the kitchen. I believe his advice based on the evidence surfaced so far.
The problem here is two fold:
1) You either consume a herb with no proven benefits, diverting you from real medicines, or you create a potentially harmful cocktail of herbs and drugs that could impede your healing or cause harm.
2) The second issue is that you may end up being directly harmed by these herbs.
If you don't want to believe him, then move on. Others have found the information helpful.
Don't lie in front of everyone. You posted a "comment" talking about efficacy of turmeric, you said multiple times that research have been posted in this thread which says turmeric is beneficial, you even asked me to prove that turmeric is not a food supplement (since according to your logic if it has health benefits then it must be a food supplement ). May be open 9th standard book next time.
This is the last time I am repeating this. Reporting of adverse cases is an essential step in safety assessment. This is where we start to find problems and issue warnings. Since randomized-controlled clinical trials are not mandated for supplements, reporting of adverse cases is the beginning of the safety assessment of these supplements. Doctors report individual cases, and these reports are later consolidated in systematic reviews. Adverse event reporting is the only way to catch harmful supplements; that's why these cases are given importance. Many times, toxicity may be idiosyncratic, meaning it is dose and duration independent, so it is extremely difficult to be caught in randomized controlled trials anyway.
Anyway, even the herbal supplement manufacturers themselves do not use the logic you are trying to push here. They provide mice/labs and other poor studies as proofs of efficacy and safety for their products. This is a new level of enlightenment even for them—shifting the burden of large-scale trials to the customers. Wow!
A person who had some commonsense would have figured out that turmeric is being sold as a food supplement with medicinal properties which doesn't make any sense.
How many times do I have to tell you that these so-called 'food supplements' do not come under any regulations? You just need a GMP certificate, and you can sell anything. These supplements are never even tested for banned substances. A drug is rigorously tested, and the best brands are free from any banned substances, while the best brand of these herbal supplements is recently caught in a legal battle with the liver doc because the doc found banned substances in it.
There you go again. So, you will not drop your habit of schooling the experts. For once in your life start listening to your own advice. There may be some doctors working in real hospitals, managing real patients who know more than you. This is getting laughable now. Why don't you write a counter paper, "genetic studies, a baseless accusation on turmeric, which I don't consume but defend on internet", and see if it gets accepted ?
You are the one who said that a genetic predisposition has no significance so I told you that it does. Someone like you who is an expert in whataboutery better not talk about irrelevant things. You compared turmeric to water, salt, cigarettes. That shows what kind of discussions you are capable of doing. Enough said.
It is not my fault if you cannot read and comprehend. I never said it is harmful to "everyone". Writing 'lol' in a sentence is not going to improve the quality of your argument.
Who made you the doorkeeper of the places? Anyway, you are contradicting yourself.
I accepted all quality evidence by default. When your paper talked about RUCAM, I accepted it. I only pointed out flaws when a paper came with mice studies.
You on the other hand, foolishly tried to point flaws in a systematic review as if you know more than the experts, then you wrote a silly comment about the genetic observations one study has made, Then you write another rant on American journal of medicine study and even sifted the burden of proofs, you even ignored reports of patients because you had no idea about how adverse effects are reported. You have no idea about anything yet you have to rant endlessly on everything under the sun.
So you have the license to poke your nose in every study, every expert opinion and every medical practice? We indeed have a serious problem with 'self-appointed rant specialists' who can't even comprehend what is written in their own links but love to find flaws in every expert opinion. Yes, you will continue to lie, continue getting caught, continue to endlessly defend it and continue try to be an 'self-appointed expert'. I have seen what you have done so far.
