#prevagen

[goldom]

"Oh! I need to order some!”

“Fuee~ I hope they didn’t hurt them.”

[never-was-has-been]

Prevagen

This may offend or upset Prevagen users.

It's not my intention to do that.

However, there is information that can be verified medically and scientifically that Prevagen is not worth the money someone would spend over 1 month (let alone 3 months for the extra strength!) to see any actual cognitive improvement.

Prevagen has an ingredient that is a *synthesized* calcium-binding protein originally found in jellyfish known as Apoaequorin.

Apoaequorin injected as the natural substance in rats showed much better results than synthesized Apoaequorin in Prevagen because the human digestion system can alter the actual chemical before it gets to the brain.

Also an issue is that it would need to remain intact during digestion and then cross the blood-brain-barrier (BBB) for it to be effective.

I'll use 2 sources here for further explanation.

My family doctor told me about a year ago, that buying Prevagen would be a waste of money and time: Prevagen Review: A Word Of Caution * https://www.forbes.com/health/healthy-aging/prevagen-review/ * * BRAIN DOCTOR reviews PREVAGEN: Scam or worth the cost? * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA2xlw8YoR8

[elaindurham]

Need improved memory? Need healthier brain function? Need a sharper mind? Need clearer thinking? Prevagen may be what you need...

[spectember]

Ok, but how can i tell if it works? Or am i just gonna be eating jellyfish for no reason. 😕 #prevagen https://www.instagram.com/p/CKKfodIri8Uj9KTkclY_-aZhvO83Xai8x7MJAk0/?igshid=149h4cv30aat4

[doctom]

Mark Underwood...

21st century creep

Americans Took Prevagen for Years—as the FDA Questioned Its Safety

From the memory supplement’s launch in 2007 through 2016, agency officials repeatedly raised concerns as the number of consumer complaints g

[timkglenn]

#GrtArtcl I just found after watching a commercial for #Prevagen . #FactsMatter from #ReliableSourcesMatter . Do yourself a favor, and always #DoTheResearch -- it really doesn't take much time. Just be careful that yiu only click on reliable sourcrs...many commercial sites masquerade as independent reviewers touting the very products they sell. Harvard Business Publishing is clearly not one of those. #ScienceMatters #ProfTimRN #CSIBUS605 https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/fda-curbs-unfounded-memory-supplement-claims-2019053116772 (at College of Staten Island) https://www.instagram.com/p/CGm3UjHh9MK5LSYR7rmUgQ2IEfVX5SZT2eSrY80/?igshid=u4gwmz6ztgs6

[blastkat]

This is the Prevagen sample. It arrives free by request, free shipping and handling by mail. I'm not entirely certain what's going on with the request site. I can verify I sent for and received 4 sample packs containing 2 tablets each. I'm waiting to test these. I'd like a manner by which to quantify if there's a physiological change. If you're interested in trying it, I did check. The request site is still up.

[cognitionrewired-blog]

Apoaequorin & The Dangers Of Post-Hoc Analysis

A new supplement is causing quite a stir at the moment.

You’ve probably heard of it; it’s called Prevagen.

To look at the commercials, ads, and testimonials, you’d think we had just discovered the cure for dementia, Alzheimer’s, even occasional memory loss.

The makers claim that it is able to significantly improve memory function in people living with mild cognitive decline.

They’re quite explicit that Prevagen isn’t a cure for serious cognitive decline. Yet there are definitely insinuations that it can help older people beginning to show signs of age-related memory loss.

The manufacturers say that it helps with mental clarity, focus, and overall cognition. 

They claim that their patented ingredient – apoaequorin – is a revolutionary new substance that is going to turn the nootropics world upside down.

They say that it has substantial scientific backing.

Yet this same company are currently being sued by the United States government over false claims.

The charge is that Prevagen’s claims are false. According to Uncle Sam, Prevagen is claiming to do things that it has never been shown to do. The makers are claiming things that have no basis in reality.

Prevagen deny these charges – I believe they intend to challenge in court.

So what’s going on here?

Who’s right?

Is Prevagen making claims it shouldn’t be?

Or is the US government being overzealous in taking legal action against this company?

Let’s find out.

Let’s take a look at the evidence offered by Prevagen and see if it is fair to draw the same conclusions that they are.

 The Study

To support the claim that Prevagen helps restore memory function and prevent age-related cognitive impairment, the manufacturer provides just a single study on the main ingredient – apoaequorin.

Not one meta-analysis; we mean a single, standalone study.

Here it is in case you want to see it – it’s hosted on their website and nowhere else; big surprise!

That in itself would be enough to make us sceptical.

But the lack of follow-up studies isn’t even the most ridiculous thing about this whole business.

The thing that leaves me most confused is the fact that the study doesn’t even conclude in their favour!

If you take a look at the study conclusion, you’ll see the following: “No statistically significant results were observed over the entire study population”.

You will then see a table showing the results of the various cognition tests issued to the participants’ sub groups. The annotation reads: “In the AD8 0-2 and AD8 0-1 subgroups, no statistically significant differences were noted in Baseline values between the Experimental and Control groups in any of the nine variables. The randomization was successful.”

No difference between those given apoaequorin and those given plain rice flour capsules.

No difference whatsoever.

In fact, the table shows that some participants must have scored LOWER on the cognition tests after being given apoaequorin!

So at best, this substance does nothing, and at worst, it hinders cognitive function!

How then can Prevagen be using this study to sell their product?

How can they be using this to back up their fantastical claims?

The answer is that they are using a very clever (and extremely dishonest) for of data analysis.

 Post Hoc Analysis & False Conclusions

If you read the details of the study linked above, you might notice something curious. The study itself was carried out between December 2009 and April 2011. Yet the publication date reads August 2016, and it was published on the Prevagen website in early 2017.

Why the hiatus?

As we’ve mentioned, the research found no statistically significant difference in cognitive function between groups given apoaequorin and those given placebo.

But the full results stamen reads as follows: “While no statistically significant results were observed over the entire study population, there were statistically significant results in the AD8 0-1 and AD8 0-2 subgroups. These subgroups contain individuals with either minimal or no cognitive impairment, and are the appropriate population for a dietary supplement intended to support people with mild memory loss associated with aging.”

Clearly, the guys at Prevagen undertook a post hoc analysis of the original data.

A post hoc analysis is when you go back and take another look at a data set with new parameters that weren’t originally specified.

Or to put it another way, it’s where you look at a data set and do your best to find a relationship that the original researchers weren’t looking for.  

They obviously did this in the hope of finding some kind of positive relationship between apoaequorin supplementation and improved cognitive function.

The problem here is that it is almost impossible NOT to find some kind of correlation when you look hard enough and long enough at a data set.

The longer you look at a data set, the more likely it becomes that you will find something…it’s almost inevitable. Correlations exist everywhere, whereas causal relationships do not!

This is why the US FDA does not accept post hoc analyses when considering pharmaceuticals.

Every substance can eventually be shown to positively influence some aspect of health and longevity if we go by post hoc analyses. If we look at a study done on inhalers for long enough, I’m sure we’ll find that they have some sort of correlation with back pain, or near sightedness, or liking spaghetti.

Sometimes post hoc analyses can be useful when they identify an interesting relationship that needs further examination.

But until further study is done, I’m afraid they mean pretty much nothing from a scientific point of view.