What clinical trials or peer‑reviewed studies exist testing IQ Blast Pro’s safety and efficacy?

1. No published randomized controlled trials of the finished product

Multiple investigative summaries and consumer‑health writeups state explicitly that IQ Blast Pro “lacks extensive clinical trials on the final product” and that credible, peer‑reviewed studies testing the finished supplement’s safety and efficacy are not available in the public literature ^{[2] [1]}. Independent watchdog reporting has flagged the absence of randomized, double‑blind, placebo‑controlled trials of the formulated capsule itself and warns that claims of product-level clinical validation are unsupported by verifiable publications ^[1].

2. Ingredient‑level research exists — but it is not the same as product trials

Marketing materials and many reviews lean on peer‑reviewed and clinical research for ingredients commonly found in nootropic blends — for example, Bacopa monnieri trials and studies of citicoline, ginkgo, phosphatidylserine and lion’s mane are cited as the scientific foundation for IQ Blast Pro’s formulation ^{[4] [3] [5]}. A specific Bacopa trial is referenced repeatedly in the coverage as “Bacopa monnieri supplementation and cholinergic activity in early memory impairment: A randomized open‑label trial” ^[4], and a 2024 lion’s mane paper is listed by the manufacturer as a supporting reference ^[4]. However, reviewers caution that evidence for isolated ingredients does not automatically validate the efficacy or safety of a proprietary multi‑ingredient product without formal testing of that specific formulation ^{[2] [6]}.

3. Company and affiliate claims: consumer trials and third‑party testing versus peer‑review

The manufacturer and promotional sites assert third‑party batch testing, GMP compliance, and in some materials cite consumer trials or large sample “self‑tracking” studies purportedly run in 2025 ^{[4] [3]}. Several review sites reprint or amplify those claims, with one source stating composite consumer‑trial data of 1,000+ users and others claiming thousands of trial participants ^{[4] [7]}. These documents are promotional in nature and are not equivalent to peer‑reviewed clinical trials; independent reviewers note that marketing‑style “consumer trials” and internal data lack the methodological transparency required for scientific validation ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Conflicting coverage and red flags in the reporting landscape

Coverage is polarized: some supplement reviewers and the product website present the formulation as “clinically proven” by virtue of ingredient studies and in‑house testing ^{[3] [5]}, while safety and consumer‑protection commentators describe IQ Blast Pro’s ads as viral marketing with fabricated testimonials, refund complaints, and no credible product‑level clinical evidence ^[1]. Several sources explicitly label the product’s clinical‑evidence claims as unsupported and warn consumers that testimonials and large‑sample figures are often unverified marketing content rather than peer‑reviewed science ^{[1] [7]}.

5. Bottom line — what can be stated with confidence

There is peer‑reviewed literature and randomized trials for many individual ingredients promoted in IQ Blast Pro, and the manufacturer cites specific ingredient studies in its references ^{[4] [3]}. What cannot be substantiated in the available reporting is any peer‑reviewed, independently replicated randomized controlled trial of IQ Blast Pro as a final, branded formulation; multiple credible reviewers and watchdog pieces state that such product‑level trials do not exist or have not been published ^{[2] [1]}. Where the reporting is silent or promotional (claims of thousands of trial participants, guaranteed refunds, FDA registration), transparency is limited and independent verification is lacking ^{[7] [4]}.