MemoHoney Disclaimer: the claims ceiling in one place

The sentence at the foot of every page on this site is not decoration and it is not a formality. It is the condition on which a dietary supplement is permitted to say anything at all about supporting a part of the body.

A supplement may make structure/function claims: statements about supporting the normal working of something. It may not make disease claims. The asterisk on the front of the bottle and the disclaimer at the foot of these pages are a matched pair, and the FDA's questions and answers set out the boundary between the two.

The practical consequence for a reader is worth stating plainly. Nothing sold here has been through the evaluation a medicine goes through. No regulator has reviewed this formula for efficacy, and the ingredient amounts have not been published by the manufacturer. That is the category, and it is the same category as every other supplement on every other shelf.

• A dietary supplement rather than a medicine, and a capsule rather than a gummy, a powder or a liquid.
• Not FDA-approved, and not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.
• Written for healthy adults of 18 and over, and for nobody younger.
• The supplied artwork has no Supplement Facts panel on it, so how much of each named ingredient a capsule holds is a question for the seller rather than a figure this desk can quote or estimate.
• Memory that has changed in a way you or the people around you have noticed is worth having looked at properly, once. Six months on a capsule instead is six months.
• The amount on the bottle is the amount to take, unless a clinician who knows your history says otherwise.
• People differ, and so do outcomes. Sleep, hearing, blood pressure and how much you move all act on the same thing this formula is sold for, and all four have randomised evidence behind them.
• The star score, the review count and the order total on this website belong to the distributor. They are its own summary of its own sales rather than audited transcripts, and they are not evidence.
• Lot MEM-26/ME-7435 identifies a production run and MEM-7435-26-ME identifies a filing. Neither is a laboratory result.
• An email to the website address reaches an editor, not an order screen. Refunds start on the telephone.
• A money-back window is a promise about money. It says nothing about what the capsule will do.

Memohoneya sells this product. Orders placed through the links on this website are orders with this counter, and this counter earns from them. That is the commercial relationship and there is nothing hidden about it.

What it does not buy is the content. The pages here print what the artwork does not carry, name the emblem this desk would drop, list three interventions with better evidence than the product being sold, and say plainly which of the seller's five claims has the least behind it. A site that could not do those things would not be worth reading, and a reader who could not tell the difference would be right to distrust all of it.

Every outbound citation on this website is to a public record or a government health page. None of them is an affiliate link, and none of them pays anything to this desk.

Support is the most-used word in this category and the most easily misread. It does not mean improve, it does not mean restore, and it does not mean a measured effect was found. In the legal sense it means the product is offered in relation to the normal working of something, and that is all it means.

This site uses the word because the label does and because the alternative would be to paraphrase a regulated phrase into something that sounds like more. Where a page can say something stronger and defend it, it does: the ingredients page prints amounts and populations, and the benefits page ranks the seller's five claims by what sits behind them.

A useful habit for reading any supplement page, this one included: every time you see supports, ask what was measured, in whom, and at what amount. If the page cannot tell you, the word was doing the work of a result it does not have.

• A published Supplement Facts panel. Several pages would be rewritten the day one arrives, and the comparison table would gain the column it is missing.
• A certificate of analysis from a named laboratory. It would move the testing page from describing emblems to reporting results.
• A trial of this formula. Anything randomised and placebo-controlled, at any size, would be the most significant thing on the site.
• A named clinician behind the emblem. One line of text would turn a graphic into a checkable fact.
• New evidence on any of the six ingredients. The citation set is dated, and a better-designed trial changes what the ingredient page says.

Listing the conditions under which a page would change is a reasonable thing for a publisher to do, and an unusual one. It is here because it turns the claims on this site into something falsifiable rather than something asserted, and because the first item on the list would improve the product as much as the website.