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.
What safety concerns or adverse events have been reported with Memoblast use?
Executive summary
Available reporting on “Memoblast” — a name that appears variably as “MemoBlast” (dietary supplement) and is easily confusable with Mesoblast/Remestemcel‑L (cell therapy) — is sparse and fragmented in the provided sources. Consumer-facing pages for MemoBlast claim no side effects and safety but offer little independent evidence [1] [2], whereas Mesoblast’s remestemcel‑L/ryoncil® clinical reporting documents specific adverse reactions in trials (infections, fever, hemorrhage, edema, abdominal pain, hypertension) and regulatory scrutiny focused more on manufacturing and evidence gaps than safety signals across ~1,300 treated patients [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. Identity confusion matters: supplement vs. cell therapy
The phrase “Memoblast” in the search results maps to two different product classes in the supplied sources: MemoBlast/Memo Blast — a dietary nootropic sold via direct‑to‑consumer pages that claim safety and low adverse events [1] [2] [7] — and Mesoblast’s biologic cell therapies (remestemcel‑L / ryoncil®) whose clinical trials and FDA interactions are documented with explicit adverse event lists [4] [3]. Any safety assessment must begin by clarifying which product you mean because the available evidence applies to different risk profiles (not found in current reporting).
2. What consumer pages claim for MemoBlast (no independent verification)
Promo and retailer pages for MemoBlast assert the product is “safe to use,” “made with high‑quality, natural ingredients,” and report “no side effects” or only mild gastrointestinal discomfort in passing [1] [2]. These are manufacturer/retailer claims rather than peer‑reviewed safety data; independent clinical trials, ingredient disclosure at therapeutic doses, or regulatory review are not cited on those pages [1] [2]. Consumer‑review sites recommend stopping use if adverse effects occur and consulting a clinician, which implicitly acknowledges uncertainty [7].
3. What Mesoblast’s reporting documents about adverse events in trials
Mesoblast’s remestemcel‑L (ryoncil®) trial and regulatory summaries list concrete adverse reactions observed in clinical testing: infections, fever, hemorrhage, edema, abdominal pain, and hypertension among the most common in the pivotal trial dataset cited by a CGTLive summary [3]. News outlets covering FDA interactions note the agency raised no safety issues across the roughly 1,300 patients treated to date, even while denying approval at one point for other reasons (manufacturing/data) — showing regulatory focus can separate safety signals from other deficiencies [4] [5] [6].
4. Regulatory posture: safety flagged or not?
Mesoblast public statements and reporting indicate FDA inspections “resulted in no observed concerns” regarding manufacturing and that the regulator “hadn’t raised any safety issues” across >1,300 patients who received remestemcel‑L in trials [4] [5]. Yet the FDA did at times deny approval for reasons beyond simple safety or raised questions about evidence and manufacturing documentation — an important nuance: absence of a regulatory safety hold does not mean absence of adverse events in trials, and trial reports list specific reactions [4] [3].
5. Seriousness and frequency: what the trial data say
Trial reporting summarized in the provided sources lists several common adverse reactions (infections, fever, hemorrhage, edema, abdominal pain, hypertension) but does not provide incidence rates or grading in the supplied snippets; the FDA and CGTLive summaries highlight these categories as “most common adverse reactions” without quantitative breakdown in the extracts [3]. Public statements note long‑term survival benefits in some pediatric cohorts while also acknowledging the recorded adverse reactions in trial participants [4] [3].
6. What is missing from the provided reporting (limitations)
The supplied sources do not include full clinical study reports or FDA review documents with detailed incidence, severity grading, causality assessment, or patient subgroup analyses for either MemoBlast (supplement) or remestemcel‑L (cell therapy). For MemoBlast, independent safety trials, transparent ingredient dosing, and third‑party adverse‑event reporting are not present in the extracts [1] [2] [7]. For remestemcel‑L, detailed numeric AE tables and post‑marketing surveillance data beyond the cited trial summaries are not in the snippets [3] [4].
7. How to interpret these mixed signals in practical terms
Manufacturer and retailer claims of “no side effects” for dietary supplements should be treated cautiously absent independent trials or ingredient transparency [1] [2]. For cell therapies like remestemcel‑L, documented trial adverse reactions (infections, fever, hemorrhage, edema, abdominal pain, hypertension) mean clinicians and patients should expect a profile of serious and non‑serious events typical of severe‑disease biologic interventions, even where regulators did not cite safety holds [3] [4].
8. Next steps for someone seeking reliable safety information
If you mean MemoBlast the supplement, request independent ingredient lists, third‑party testing certificates, and search adverse‑event databases; those are not provided in current reporting [1] [2]. If you mean Mesoblast’s remestemcel‑L/ryoncil®, seek the full FDA review or published trial reports for incidence rates and severity grading beyond the headline adverse reaction categories cited here [3] [4]. Available sources do not mention more granular post‑marketing surveillance results in the excerpts provided.