Fact check: What clinical trial registration entries (ClinicalTrials.gov) exist for MemoMaster trials and what were their results/publication status?

Executive Summary — No Registered MemoMaster Drug Trials Found; Confusing Signals from Similar Names and Criticism

The evidence shows no ClinicalTrials.gov registration entries for a branded supplement called “MemoMaster”, with recent marketing pages emphasizing ingredients and testimonials rather than trial registrations or published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Independent traces point to unrelated or older research using names like “MeMo” or “Memo” (a 2013 natural-formula study and a 2017 MeMo cognitive-training RCT), and there are contemporaneous critiques alleging deceptive marketing and lack of scientific backing for MemoMaster’s claims ^{[4] [5] [6]}. This analysis distinguishes those different claims, summarizes available registration or publication records, and flags likely sources of confusion and potential agendas.

1. Why people conflate MemoMaster with registered trials — a name game that misleads

Multiple documents make clear that MemoMaster the supplement has no ClinicalTrials.gov entries cited on its official pages or recent reviews, which focus instead on ingredient lists, manufacturing claims, and customer testimonials ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The public can easily conflate that brand name with legitimately registered studies because similar names appear in the research record: a cognitive-training platform named “MeMo” had a randomized controlled trial registered and later reported in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, and a product named “Memo” (distinct formula) was the subject of a 2013 study in Clinical Interventions in Aging ^{[5] [4]}. The shared syllable “Memo” creates a false appearance of continuity between marketing materials and clinical science, and the sources suggest this semantic overlap is central to public misunderstanding ^{[1] [6]}.

2. Direct evidence: what registration and publications actually exist and how they differ

The strongest registration-related record present in the dataset is for the MeMo web application cognitive-training trial, a randomized study registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and later published in a peer-reviewed venue reporting cognitive and behavioral benefits in patients with neurocognitive disorders ^[5]. Separately, a 2013 clinical study evaluated a dietary supplement named “Memo®” combining royal jelly, Ginkgo biloba, and Panax ginseng and reported improvements on cognitive screening measures, a finding tied to that specific formulation rather than the 2025-branded MemoMaster ^[4]. There is no registration or RCT result tied to the 2025 market product “MemoMaster” in the provided sources, and official MemoMaster content emphasizes product narrative over trial citations ^{[2] [3]}.

3. Publication status and quality: what to make of published studies that look similar

The 2017 MeMo trial is registered and reported in a scientific journal, representing a legitimate RCT of a cognitive-training digital intervention, but it is not a trial of the MemoMaster dietary supplement; the intervention, population, and outcome measures differ from marketing claims made for supplements ^[5]. The 2013 study on Memo® involves a distinct multi-ingredient supplement and reports improvements on Mini-Mental State Examination scores, but that product’s formulation and the study’s date limit its applicability to a newly marketed MemoMaster in 2025 ^[4]. Neither study provides direct evidence that a 2025-branded MemoMaster supplement underwent a registered clinical trial or produced peer-reviewed results that substantiate current marketing claims ^{[4] [5]}.

4. Counterclaims, critiques, and possible agendas: deceptive marketing vs. legitimate transparency claims

Contemporary reviews and the MemoMaster official pages present competing narratives: company materials stress ingredient transparency, manufacturing standards, and consumer testimonials absent trial citations ^{[2] [3]}, while investigative reviews accuse the marketing campaign of false endorsements, deepfake clips, and lack of legitimate clinical trials supporting dramatic claims about reversing memory loss or curing Alzheimer’s ^[6]. These conflicting portrayals suggest an agenda tension: commercial marketing seeks persuasive customer narratives without RCT evidence, while watchdog reviewers emphasize consumer protection and scientific rigor. Readers should treat marketing claims unsupported by ClinicalTrials.gov registrations or peer-reviewed RCT publications as unproven ^{[2] [6]}.

5. Bottom line: what an evidence-minded consumer should conclude and next steps to verify claims

Based on the available sources, the prudent conclusion is that MemoMaster (2025 supplement brand) lacks registered clinical trials on ClinicalTrials.gov and has no identified peer-reviewed RCT publications in the provided record, while similarly named interventions (MeMo, Memo®) have separate, nontransferable evidence bases from 2017 and 2013 respectively ^{[5] [4]}. Consumers seeking verification should request trial registration numbers, protocols, and peer-reviewed publications from the manufacturer; absence of those should be treated as a red flag given the high bar required to substantiate clinical claims for cognitive benefit ^{[2] [6]}.