What clinical trials exist for products named 'Memo' or 'MemoBlast,' and how do their formulations compare?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Two distinct threads share the name “Memo.” One is MemoBlast (and variant brandings “Memo Blast”), a commercial dietary supplement marketed for memory and focus that offers proprietary blends of plant extracts and nootropics but has no published, product-specific clinical trials in the public record; independent reviewers and scam‑watchers explicitly note the absence of peer‑reviewed studies for MemoBlast’s formulation [1] [2]. The other is Memo Therapeutics AG, a biotech company whose drug candidates (monoclonal antibodies such as potravitug and MTx‑COVAB) are in registered clinical trials — a fundamentally different class of products with documented Phase I/II studies and corporate disclosures [3] [4] [5].
1. What clinical trials actually exist for “Memo” as a company name — the biotech Memo Therapeutics AG
Memo Therapeutics AG is a life‑science company developing antibody therapeutics and publicly reports active clinical programs: potravitug, described as their lead program in Phase II for BK polyomavirus infection in kidney transplant recipients and presented as having completed recruitment in a large placebo‑controlled trial (SAFE KIDNEY II), and MTx‑COVAB, a fully human monoclonal antibody program that underwent first‑in‑human dose cohorts in Phase I [3] [4] [5]. Synapse/patent‑pipeline aggregators and the company site list multiple clinical trials and pipeline assets, and the company has posted Phase I safety/tolerability statements and Phase II results for potravitug in conference presentations [3] [4]. Those trials are for biologic drugs (antibodies) and follow the standard Phase I→II pathway; the public reporting is consistent with registered clinical programs rather than consumer supplement claims [3] [4].
2. What clinical trials exist for products named “Memo” or “MemoBlast” as consumer supplements
There are no published, peer‑reviewed clinical trials evaluating a consumer supplement explicitly called “MemoBlast” or “Memo Blast” that can be substantiated by the independent reporting in the provided sources; multiple critical reviews and scam‑watch outlets assert there are no published clinical studies supporting MemoBlast’s specific formulation [1] [2]. Official MemoBlast marketing pages make broad claims that the “formula is backed by clinical research” and that ingredients are “clinically researched,” but these sites do not point to independent, product‑specific clinical trials in the medical literature, and reviewers warn that the product uses proprietary blends with undisclosed dosages that prevent independent verification of efficacy (p1_s2, [9], [10], [7], [8]; criticism [1], p1_s3).
3. How the formulations compare — nutraceutical blend versus monoclonal antibodies
The formulations could not be more different: MemoBlast is described across product pages and reviews as a dietary supplement composed of natural nootropics, antioxidants and plant extracts (commonly cited ingredients include Ginkgo biloba, Bacopa monnieri, Rhodiola and similar botanicals), packaged as capsules with proprietary blends and undisclosed exact dosing [1] [6] [7] [8]. In contrast, Memo Therapeutics’ programs are engineered biologic monoclonal antibodies (for example, potravitug for BKPyV and MTx‑COVAB for SARS‑CoV‑2 neutralization) with defined molecular targets, GMP manufacturing and formal dose cohorts in randomized trials — a regulated drug development pathway very different from dietary supplement marketing [3] [4] [5].
4. What the evidence supports and what remains unproven
For Memo Therapeutics AG, the evidence consists of standard clinical‑trial reporting channels and company disclosures about Phase I/II studies and conference presentations, which supports the existence of bona fide clinical research for named antibody drugs [3] [4]. For MemoBlast as a consumer product, the best available sources show marketing claims but no independent, product‑level clinical trials or peer‑reviewed publications to validate those claims; independent reviewers specifically flag the lack of published studies and the problem of undisclosed ingredient dosages, undermining asserted clinical backing [1] [2] [9]. Where official sites claim “clinical testing” or “clinically researched ingredients,” that may reference literature on individual ingredients (not trials of the finished product), but the provided reporting does not document product‑specific, registered clinical trials for MemoBlast [6] [10] [7].
5. Practical takeaway and transparency issues
The shared name “Memo” is a naming collision that masks a crucial distinction: one is a regulated biologics developer running registered drug trials; the other is a consumer supplement brand making marketing claims without publicly verifiable, product‑level clinical trial evidence in the sources provided. Consumers and clinicians should treat the two very differently — antibody therapeutics reported by Memo Therapeutics AG undergo clinical trial standards, whereas MemoBlast’s efficacy claims rely on ingredient histories and marketing rather than disclosed, peer‑reviewed trial data (p1_s4, [4]; absence noted [1], p1_s3).