Genetic mutations are a result of metabolic issues not the other way round. Even clinical trials which are supposed to have worked well, in my experience, may not be as portrayed. For example my wife was on a particular phase 1 trial at Royal Marsden hospital, as major trials centre in UK, and it was supposed to have gone well.
Prior to this particular trial she was on a range of complementary treatments, many of them proposed by other what broadminded oncologists, which had been keeping her “one year terminal cancer” at bay for many years. Going on the trial meant she had to stop all this. So she then did not want to be part of any trial. So they scared her into participating. (We recorded all meetings, so we know what was said, and I suggest everyone asked to go on a trial do the same). One suggestion is that they needed to get the numbers up.
The trial proceeded and initial results look good, but the moment the trial finished the tests started looking bad again but she was told not to get too hung up on them. This appears perhaps to be so that publicity could be made out of a “successful trial”. I am trying to get it properly investigated, which is not yet proving easy, which just makes one more suspicious of trials.
It should be noted that in the replication crisis the worst offenders are medical researchers, and the worst offenders in that group are cancer researchers with that with up to 89% Of research unable to be replicated. I’m actually a physicist, we are much more strict about the scientific method, statistical analysis and analysis overall of data. So there’s plenty of reasons trials do not work and there are few reasons at all to participate in them..