Are there peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials testing IQ Blast Pro or Memo Blast formulations for efficacy and long-term safety?

1. The core finding — branded RCTs are absent from the reporting

None of the supplied sources documents a peer‑reviewed randomized controlled trial that tests IQ Blast Pro as a finished product; reviews and investigatory pieces explicitly note the lack of major clinical trials on the final formulation ^{[1] [2]}, and several consumer/press pieces that promote the product rely on testimonials, company trial summaries, or ingredient references rather than publishing controlled, peer‑reviewed trial results ^{[5] [6]}.

2. What the reporting does document — ingredient studies and company data

Reporting and product pages repeatedly point to peer‑reviewed or pilot studies on individual ingredients — for example, Bacopa monnieri and ginkgo extracts are referenced as having trials showing memory or perfusion effects ^[3], and other items like phosphatidylserine appear in small pilot human trials cited by reviewers ^[3]. At the same time, several sources acknowledge that these are ingredient‑level findings or small consumer trials rather than randomized, peer‑reviewed trials of the marketed multi‑ingredient formula ^{[4] [1]}.

3. Marketing, testimonials, and “consumer trial” language muddy the evidence

Many of the accessible articles and press releases emphasize user testimonials, “consumer trial data” or company‑commissioned 60–90 day satisfaction studies, and claims of GMP/FDA‑compliant manufacturing — all of which are not substitutes for independent, peer‑reviewed RCTs measuring efficacy and long‑term safety ^{[5] [6] [4]}. Some outlets present glowing summaries of benefits without linking to or citing independent, peer‑reviewed clinical trial publications for the finished product ^[7].

4. Safety and long‑term effects — no definitive peer‑reviewed evidence for the finished product

The sources note that ingredients are “widely recognized for their safety” in general terms ^{[8] [6]}, but they also concede that there are no major clinical trials of the final product to establish long‑term safety profiles specific to IQ Blast Pro ^[1]. Independent critiques warn that the branded product “lacks credible scientific evidence or clinical research” as a packaged formulation ^[2], underscoring that ingredient safety does not equal proven long‑term safety of the multi‑ingredient marketed supplement.

5. Alternative viewpoints and potential conflicts of interest in the coverage

Some promotional sites and newswire pieces present the product as “science‑informed” and cite selective ingredient studies or proprietary consumer data to bolster credibility ^{[6] [3]}, while watchdogs and tech blogs call out the absence of peer‑reviewed clinical research and highlight that aggressive marketing may prey on vulnerable consumers ^[2]. The reporting mix includes press releases, affiliate reviews, and investigatory posts — an implicit agenda to sell or to caution — so claims should be weighed against the absence of independent RCT publications for the branded formulation ^{[5] [7]}.

6. Limits of the available reporting and next steps for verification

The supplied sources do not mention Memo Blast at all, so no conclusion can be drawn about peer‑reviewed RCTs for that formulation from this material; verifying Memo Blast would require additional targeted searches or requests for published trial data (no source coverage). For IQ Blast Pro, the reporting consistently points to ingredient studies and internal/consumer trial summaries rather than peer‑reviewed randomized controlled trials of the final product, meaning the claim that such RCTs exist is unsupported in the provided material ^{[1] [2] [3]}.