Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What are the active ingredients in Memo Master?
Executive Summary
Memo (also referenced as Memo Master in some documents) is consistently described in clinical and review sources as a three-ingredient natural formula combining lyophilized royal jelly (750 mg), standardized Ginkgo biloba extract (120 mg), and Panax ginseng root extract (150 mg) per dose, a formulation tested for mild cognitive impairment in multiple reports [1] [2]. Independent testing of memory supplements raises quality-control concerns about whether products always contain labeled ingredients and amounts, though the available clinical reports on Memo report the composition as stated [3] [2]. The evidence base is limited and emphasizes reported composition rather than comprehensive market-wide verification.
1. Why the composition claim keeps appearing and what it says about Memo’s marketed identity
Multiple clinical articles and reviews published between 2013 and 2024 repeatedly list the same three-component formula—royal jelly, Ginkgo biloba, and Panax ginseng—and the same milligram breakdown, which anchors Memo’s identity in the literature and clinical testing [1] [2]. The repetition across sources suggests researchers used a single proprietary preparation for trials, rather than disparate formulations, which strengthens internal consistency for the product tested. However, these sources originate from research contexts and reflect the product formulation used in those studies, not necessarily independent verification of every commercial bottle labeled “Memo Master” on the open market [4].
2. What the clinical sources report about ingredient roles and claimed benefits
Clinical summaries emphasize that royal jelly, Ginkgo biloba, and Panax ginseng have antioxidant, neuroprotective, and circulation-related effects and were chosen for potential cognitive benefits, and the Memo formulation was evaluated for effects on Mini‑Mental State Examination scores in mild cognitive impairment [1] [4]. The literature frames these components as biologically plausible contributors to cognitive outcomes, but the clinical reports focus primarily on outcome measures rather than exhaustive pharmacological mechanistic proof, leaving open the degree to which each ingredient contributed to observed effects in the studied cohorts [2] [1].
3. Where quality-control concerns complicate the straightforward ingredient list
A separate government testing report on memory supplements found that some commercial memory products did not contain their stated ingredients or quantities, highlighting industry-wide quality-control problems and the possibility that any single labeled product could diverge from its declared formula [3]. That GAO-style finding does not specifically name Memo Master, but it raises a material caveat: the formula reported in clinical trials is not a guarantee of identical content in all commercially available preparations bearing the same or similar names. Consumers and clinicians should regard the trial formulation as evidence of what was studied, not proof of market-wide consistency [3].
4. How recent and diverse the corroborating sources are, and what that implies
The primary corroborating articles span from 2013 to 2024, with clinical trial reports and reviews repeating the same composition details, which demonstrates longitudinal consistency in the scientific literature about the Memo formula [1] [2]. The presence of both trial reports and literature reviews strengthens the claim that this specific composition was intentionally tested. Conversely, regulatory or product-testing sources from 2018 emphasize variability across the supplement market, introducing an independent angle that tempers certainty about any one retail product labeled Memo Master [3].
5. What is omitted from the available analyses and why that matters to users
Available documents detail the formula used in trials but omit broad-scale independent batch testing, third-party certificate-of-analysis reviews, and up-to-date market surveillance for products sold under the Memo/Memo Master name—key gaps if the question is about what an individual can expect to find on a store shelf today [1] [3]. The literature’s omission of routine post-marketing analyses means that composition claims are robust for the trial material yet remain unverified for every commercial instance, creating a real-world uncertainty not addressed by the clinical reports.
6. How to reconcile clinical formulation with consumer safety and verification needs
Clinicians and consumers seeking certainty should treat the listed formulation—750 mg royal jelly, 120 mg Ginkgo biloba, 150 mg Panax ginseng—as the studied recipe, while acknowledging industry testing that found discrepancies in other supplements [1] [3]. Practical next steps include looking for products with recent third-party testing (e.g., USP, NSF), consulting batch-specific certificates of analysis, and preferring manufacturers with transparent quality systems. These steps bridge the gap between the formulation proven in trials and the product actually purchased.
7. Bottom line: what can be stated with confidence and what remains open
With high confidence, the clinical literature consistently reports Memo’s active ingredients and milligram composition as royal jelly 750 mg, Ginkgo biloba 120 mg, Panax ginseng 150 mg, based on multiple trial descriptions [1] [2]. What remains open—and where independent oversight is required—is whether every commercial product labeled Memo Master matches that formulation in practice, given broader supplement-market discrepancies identified by product-testing reports [3].