Have you seen those ads for Prevagen , the memory - raise supplement ? It ’s find “ a protein in the beginning found in Portuguese man-of-war , ” so you know ithas to be good . The company that makes the drug , Quincy Biosciences , is currently being sue in federal court by the FTC and the New York Attorney General for “ clear - snub fraud . ” So we got our hands on some of the complaint .
“ The marketers of Prevagen preyed on the fear of older consumer have eld - related storage loss , ” Jessica Rich , manager of the FTC ’s Bureau of Consumer Protection , said in a instruction when the FTCfiled suit of clothes in January . “ But one decisive thing these marketer forgot is that their claims need to be backed up by real scientific evidence . ”
https://gizmodo.com/makers-of-prevagen-memory-pills-sued-by-government-over-1790981406
Gizmodo filed a Freedom of Information Act petition with the FTC for complaints lodge against Prevagen . The stories come from both emails and the FTC ’s Call Center and you ’ll notice a distinct pattern . merely put , multitude are afraid that Prevagen is bullshit . And on the more heartbreaking side , they had some faith that it might work wonder to “ make Alzheimer ’s slice off . ”
A fistful of the complaints obtained by Gizmodo are below . Quincy Biosciences did not respond to a petition for comment today .
Stockton , California – August 2016
I am a recently retired pharmacist . Prevagen is an OTC drug that is promoted in its television ad inaccurately to do thing ( for instance , re : improving memory and other systema nervosum centrale functions ) that are unproved . Sure , it very briefly show your little box seat ( “ These statements have not … ” ) , but what typical American observation that when the screen is fill with pictures of jellyfish , 3D mentality picture , etc . ? I believe this boob tube ad is deceptive , misleading and absent basis in proven fact ( for instance , via doubled - blind , placebo - controlled , crossover trial ) and should be taken off the breeze . What is your opinion ?
Tylor , Texas – August 2015
Port Chester , New York – December 2014
At almost $ 3 per oral contraceptive , Prevagen professional strength is a very expensive accessory . Tao of herbaceous plant have found a way to temper with the bottle and murder 1/3 of the pill . I have adjoin the FDA about it and I will still have to test it for the potence and if the production is at all Prevagen . I just find it unknown that with such shady practices no one complained about them before . Or have they ? — Additional Comments : I ’d like to have them closed for good so they do n’t defraud anybody else and stop exercise the lowest form of rapacity . This is America and we have to protect our standards of quality and trade . It is precisely those sort of ophidian oil salesman that had brought about the organization of FDA . I get it on I will never grease one’s palms anything from them ever again , but in the meantime , I require my money back .
Phoenix , Arizona – August 2013
Southport , Connecticut – October 2015
I saw a comercial for the Quincy Bioscience ware Prevagen on television receiver and decided to expect at their website because they made bold claims about their product ’s demo effectiveness . After looking at the “ clinical trial ” they produced , it was clear that the claims were not made in good faith . My rationality for this conclusion are based on the FTC advertising rule of thumb for substantiating claims of dietary supplements . These intellect include but are not limit to : the survey was not direct in an objective manner as it was done in - house without independent review , the written report was not performed by citizenry qualified to do so and the evidence provided would not be considered fair to middling by experts in the theater . It has also come to my attention that there is currently a class action cause against Quincy Bioscience about their fictive claims . For these reason , it seems unethical and perhaps illegal for Quincy Bioscience to keep advertising and selling their products .
unnamed fix – June 2016
Consumer allow for agreement concerning Prevagen – Short Memory Supplement Spot marketed by Quincy Bioscience LLC . the correspondence also points out the chase ; In 2012 , the FDA admonish Quincy that ( a ) several claims made for Prevagen were illegal , ( b ) clinical trials it had frequent were illegal because they lack FDA blessing , ( c ) the fellowship had failed to adequately report untoward reaction to its products , and ( d ) the ship’s company had failed to follow with various Good Manufacturing Practices .
Davie , Florida – July 2016
It is my scientific assessment that call made for Prevagen are fraudulent . In furtherance of this fraud Quincy Biosciences has conspired with Innovision Publishing to publish a falsified paper in a “ peer - go over ” journal to derail claim that Prevagen has not been clinically prove to ameliorate memory . percentage of my alphabetic character to the editor program are : In the Winter 2016 issue of Advances in Mind - Body Medicine , Vol 30 , No . 1 , pp . 4 - 11 , is an clause entitled “ issue of a Supplement Containing Apoaequorin on Verbal Learning in Older Adults in the Community ” , by DL Moran , MY Underwood , TA Gabourie , and KC Lerner . After reading this clause I question its scientific hardiness for the travel along ground : The primary rationality this written report is scientifically invalid is that there is no evidence that a protein the size of apoaequorin , administered in a birth control pill form can enter the body via absorption from the digestive pathway . Indeed , there is abundant grounds that proteins are metabolized in the digestive tract into component amino acids . To make a simple equivalence , this is the reason insulin must be injected into the body rather than take by word of mouth . to boot , even if apoaequorin was administered parenterally , it would not be able to scotch the blood - genius - barrier and infix into the brain to exert its therapeutic effects in brainpower nerve cell that arbitrate cognitive functions . It is notable that in the manuscript the author cite to show the putative benefits of apoaequorin to protect hippocampal neurons from shot legal injury , the apoaequorin was administered intracranially since this was the only way that the drug could gain access into the mental capacity . Additionally , the protective effects described for apoaequorin in that study related to hypoxic / glucose privation condition relate with stroke leading to massive increases in intracellular atomic number 20 , as opposed to normoxic / glucose useable conditions . Notably missing from the article is any mention of a mechanism by which orally dispense apoaequorin could gain access to neurons in the learning ability to arbitrate the improvement in cognitive function . Another reason that this clause is scientifically invalid is that there was no statistical comparison made between the apoaequorin handle group and the placebo control group . The primary rationality for admit a placebo control group in clinical trials is to determine if the treated group improves significantly more than the placebo group . The deletion of this information invalidates any claim the source might seek to make regarding the efficacy of by word of mouth administered apoaequorin . Additional statistical inadequacies that make the clause scientifically invalid are : there is no representation of the error variance for the data presented in Figures 1 – 6 of the manuscript , nor is such error variance report in the text of the ms . The Statistical depth psychology section account the usage of paired and sovereign thyroxin tests , a repeated measures analysis of covariance ( ANCOVA ) test , Mann - Whitney U trial and Wilcoxon signed - ranks test to examine group differences . However , the only one of these statistical test presented in the results are paired t tests with degrees of freedom that differ from the level of exemption expected based upon the chemical group sizes that were reported in Table 1 . Only 2 subjects are indicated as not having nail the testing , yet the act of subjects per grouping which should be the routine of degree of freedom plus 1 , reveals 51 miss value .
Damascus , Oregon – October 2016
Prevagen ’s website and tv ads claim to make the genius work well using scientifically prove enquiry . I went to their internet site to see such enquiry and I regain studies that are not legitimate . The site say : * These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration . This product is not intended to name , dainty , therapeutic or foreclose any disease … This is contradictory to their ad and infuriating . Prevagen should not be allow to take it works if it does n’t .
And last , but not least , we have a ill that demonstrates perhaps how vulnerable and put off some of the people who are targeted to buy Prevagen are . Someone called the FTC Call Center and complain that they ’d been charged for international fee that they had n’t concord to . The price ? 76 cents .
Kearney , Nebraska – June 2016
The consumer call to describe that he signed up for a lead with Prevagen . The consumer states that troupe charge outside fees without the consumer consent . The consumer was charged 76 cents .
press down all around , plain .
Daily Newsletter
Get the best tech , science , and polish newsworthiness in your inbox day by day .
News from the future , delivered to your nowadays .
