What clinical trials, if any, have tested MemoBlast or Memo Blast ingredients for memory improvement?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
There are no peer‑reviewed clinical trials publicly available that test the MemoBlast/Memo Blast proprietary product itself; independent fact‑checking sources and consumer‑facing reviews report no published clinical studies for the branded supplement [1] [2]. Ingredients commonly listed in MemoBlast-type formulas — for example Bacopa monnieri, Ginkgo biloba, phosphatidylserine, quercetin/EGCG and various amino acids — have been the subject of clinical research in other contexts, but evidence varies by compound and depends on dose, population, and study design [3] [4] [5].
1. No clinical trial evidence for the branded product
Searchable clinical‑trials databases and independent reviewers cited in reporting show no registered, peer‑reviewed randomized controlled trial that evaluates MemoBlast or “Memo Blast” as a finished product; consumer watchdog coverage explicitly states there are no published clinical studies supporting MemoBlast [1] [2]. Manufacturer sites claim “clinical research” behind the formulation and cite research on individual ingredients, but those marketing claims are not the same as a clinical trial of the finished supplement and the sites do not point to a published RCT for the product [6] [7] [4].
2. Individual ingredients have mixed clinical histories
Several ingredients commonly promoted in MemoBlast‑style formulas have clinical studies in other settings: Bacopa monnieri and Ginkgo biloba appear repeatedly in the marketing and have been investigated for memory and verbal recall in older adults and people with mild impairment [4] [3]. Compounds like quercetin and EGCG are discussed in product pages as neuroprotective in preclinical and some human studies, but those sources summarize the literature rather than present new RCTs proving memory restoration in humans [5]. The reporting notes that clinical evidence for many herbal and amino‑acid interventions is “inconclusive” or modest and often sensitive to dose and trial quality [8] [2].
3. Dose transparency and formulation matter — and are often missing
Independent reviews flag a critical limitation: many MemoBlast vendor pages use proprietary blends and fail to disclose exact ingredient quantities, which prevents assessment of whether the product delivers doses shown effective in trials of single ingredients [2]. Without transparent dosing, cross‑referencing ingredient trials to a specific product is impossible; the presence of an ingredient that has some evidence does not prove the product produces the same effect [2] [5].
4. There are clinical trials of other multi‑herbal formulas, but they are not MemoBlast
A randomized, double‑blind, placebo‑controlled trial tested a product named “Memo®,” a different natural triple combination (Ginkgo biloba, Panax ginseng, royal jelly) in patients with mild cognitive impairment — demonstrating that multi‑ingredient natural formulas can be and have been tested clinically, but that particular trial is not testing MemoBlast and should not be conflated with the brand’s claims [8]. Large institutional clinical trial infrastructures (UCSF, NIH/NIA, Alzheimer’s centers) maintain ongoing research into cognition and memory but list pharmaceutical and device trials rather than over‑the‑counter branded supplements like MemoBlast [9] [10] [11].
5. Balanced verdict and reporting gaps
Marketing materials for MemoBlast assert clinical backing and cite ingredient research, while independent reviews and scam‑tracking pieces say no published trials support the specific product and warn about opaque dosing [6] [4] [2] [1]. The available sources do not provide any registered trial IDs, peer‑reviewed papers, or clinical‑trial registry listings for MemoBlast itself, so the most evidence‑based conclusion is that no product‑level clinical trial results are publicly available and claims rest on extrapolations from ingredient studies whose applicability depends on dose and formulation [1] [2] [3]. Reporting limitations: the collection of sources reviewed does not include a systematic literature search beyond the cited pages, so it cannot definitively rule out unpublished or future trials not reflected in these sources [2] [1].