Honey, what should we do with the Ginkgo biloba?

How many people are asking that question after scientists at the University of Virginia proved the popular plant supplement does not reduce the risk of developing dementia of any kind nor Alzheimer’s disease specifically.

Ginkgo also did not impede progression to dementia in those having mild cognitive difficulties to begin with.

Subgroup analyses of younger patients, older patients, both sexes and those with all degrees of baseline cognitive impairment all came up dry, and there was no impact on overall mortality.

Pretty much, the stuff didn’t work.

Steven T. DeKosky and colleagues randomized 3,069 community-dwelling people who were at least 75 years of age to receive either 120 mg Ginkgo twice a day or a placebo. 482 study participants had mildly impaired cognition at study onset. Participants were evaluated twice yearly during the 6-year study.

The results were just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. 

Annual US sales of Ginkgo products are $250 million, driven by some bench research showing neuroprotective effects that have been attributed to flavonoids contained in Ginkgo, an animal study showing mild protective effects during a stroke, and good old-fashioned hope that it could improve or at least maintain memory.

The present study did not exclude the possibilities that starting the extract at a younger age or continuing it longer than 6 years might have beneficial effects, though these seem unlikely.

A second large, randomized trial of Ginkgo biloba is nearing completion. We’ll try to remember to look for it.

In a letter to Congress, 8 FDA scientists accuse senior FDA officials of “serious misconduct” in squelching their opinions and approving ineffective and potentially unsafe medical devices.

The letter was sent a month ago and made public in redacted form last week. It says the scientists can prove that FDA managers “corrupted the scientific review of medical devices” by coercing experts to alter conclusions about certain devices, according to the New York Times.

The scientists claim that top officials in the Center for Devices and Radiological Health told them they might be fired or given poor performance reviews if they did not alter their reports to hide unfavorable data and legal violations such as not obtaining informed consent from participants.

Public information on the matter does not specify which devices are being called into question.

“This misconduct reaches the highest levels of CDRH management including the Center Director and Director of the Office of Device Evaluation,” according to the letter received by Congress.

The FDA scientists initially raised the matter with FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach in May. Eschenbach asked Assistant Commissioner William McConagha to investigate. The FDA scientists say McConagha concurred that the evidence was “’sufficient’ to justify curative and disciplinary actions” according to the letter received by Congress.

The matter was then referred to the CDRH Director who concluded there was no cause for disciplinary action. He told the FDA scientists to “move forward.”

Indeed they have.

 “These allegations are deeply concerning,” Representative John Dingell (D-Mich) told the New York Times. The chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce added, “We intend to uncover whether any FDA activity has compromised the health and safety of American consumers.”

In the Jurassic period of the information age, otherwise known as the late 1970s, there were no cable-ready TVs, electronic games or cell phones and of course there was no Internet. Times were good for TV marketers. They could reach 90% of US households with prime-time ads on just 3 networks.

In 2008, they would be happy to reach 30% with such a strategy, and DVRs mean viewers can skip the ads anyway.

But now things might be looking up for TV ad sellers. Researchers from the Carroll School of Management at Boston College have found that TV advertisements can influence brand preferences even when viewed in fast forward mode.

James Gips and Adam Brasel tracked the eye-movements and subsequent brand selections of participants watching a nature documentary on TV. The scientists showed that viewers focus intensely on the screen while fast forwarding commercial sequences so they don’t miss the start of normal programming.

In fact they’re paying closer attention than when ads are displayed at normal speed.

This explains why fast-forwarded brand images displayed for just a third of a second influenced future preferences, but only if they were centered on the screen and surrounded by little clutter. 

The scientists had inserted ads for Flake and Aero, two UK chocolate bars unfamiliar to most US viewers. Study participants fast-forwarding though ads in which the brand logo was displayed simply and on center screen were twice as likely to choose that brand during follow-up. Such preferences were not observed when ad lay-out deviated from the centered, uncluttered presentation.

So get ready to see brand images parked squarely and simply in mid-screen next time you’re leaning on fast forward.