← Back to the article

Ingredient & advertising guide

This page has two jobs. First, it explains every one of the seven ingredients printed on the label of the powder we sell, what each is, and what the research does and does not say about it, including who was in each trial and at what dose. Second, and this is the part most advertising pages leave out, it lists the headlines we run, tells you which ones are exaggerated, and separates the small number of things that are genuinely supported by evidence from the many that are not.

1. Our headlines, and what is actually true

These are the headlines we have run, grouped by the claim they make. The right-hand column is our own plain assessment. We have marked each family of headlines as Exaggerated, Partly true, Withdrawn or Broadly supported.

The headline as you saw it	What is actually behind it
"Mental Decline Begins When Seniors Can't Spell These 3 Words. Test Now""Top Doctors Say Mental Decline Begins When Seniors Can't Pronounce These 3 Phrases. Can You?""MDs Say Mental Decline Begins When Seniors Can't Pronounce These 3 Phrases. Can You?""Memory Decline Begins When Seniors Say These 3 Phrases (See The List)""Declining Memory Begins When Seniors Say These 7 Phrases. See Which Ones"	Exaggerated There is no set of three words, three phrases or seven phrases whose spelling or pronunciation marks the beginning of mental decline. Nothing "begins" at a word. Word-finding and naming tasks do appear inside real cognitive screening tools, but those tools are administered and interpreted by a clinician alongside your history, your medications and a physical exam. Failing a word online means nothing on its own: plenty of people with perfectly healthy brains stumble over a word when they are tired, anxious, or being timed. "Top doctors" and "MDs" refer to no specific doctor. See section 5.
"Japan's Oldest Doctors Say Memory Loss Isn't Age: Just Avoid Drinking These 3 Beverages""Japan's Greatest Doctors Say Memory Loss Isn't Age: Just Avoid Drinking These 3 Beverages""Japan's Oldest Doctors Say Memory Loss Isn't Age: Just Avoid Eating These 3 Foods""Japan's Oldest Doctors Say Memory Loss Isn't Age: Just Stop Eating These 3 Foods"	Exaggerated No group of Japanese doctors issued this statement. There is no such panel, no such list, and no source we can point you to. Japan appears in the headline because it is widely associated with long life, which makes the claim feel credible. That is a marketing decision, not a citation. The second half is also wrong in an important way. Memory loss is strongly related to age. Age is the single largest risk factor for dementia, and no diet removes it. What is true is narrower: certain long-term drinking and eating patterns are associated with faster cognitive decline in large population studies. Association is not proof of cause, and "just avoid these three" is not how any of it works.
"Nobel Prize's Doctors Say Memory Loss Isn't Age: Just Stop Eating These 3 Foods"	Withdrawn We retract this one outright. No Nobel laureate has endorsed this page, this product, or any list of three foods on our behalf. Attaching the Nobel Prize to an advertisement implies an authority that does not exist and we should not have run it.
"The Overlooked Boxed Cereal Now Tied to 8 Out of 10 Memory Cases"	Our headline was wrong There is no such statistic. No study ties any cereal to eight out of ten cases of anything, "memory cases" is not a category any researcher uses, and no cereal has been "overlooked" by anyone: the sugar figure is printed on the side of every box. The number was invented for the headline and we withdraw it. The grain of truth is the same as for the other cereal headlines below: sugary cereals are mostly refined starch and added sugar, and diets heavy in both are associated in population studies with poorer memory scores [3] and with faster cognitive decline over years. [4] That is a modest association across thousands of people, not eight in ten of anyone. See section 3.
"Brain Experts Now Say These 3 Cereals Age the Brain Faster Than Time""Scientists Now Say This 1 Cereal Ages the Brain Faster Than Time"	Exaggerated No food ages the brain "faster than time." That phrase was written for effect and it is not a finding from any study. It is also internally inconsistent: in one version it is three cereals, in another it is one, because the number is something we test for click-through, not something we measured. The grain of truth: diets high in added sugar and refined starch are associated with poorer memory scores and greater cardiovascular risk over years. That is a modest effect across a population, not a fate sealed by a bowl of cereal. See section 3.
"Doctors Now Say This Popular Evening Drink Is Behind Memory Loss""Doctors Now Say This Popular Evening Drink Is Behind Brain Health Decline"	Partly true The "evening drink" is alcohol, and of everything our ads point at, this is where the evidence is strongest. Heavy and even moderate regular drinking has been linked in long-running studies to worse brain outcomes, including shrinkage of the hippocampus, the region most involved in forming memories. Excessive alcohol is one of the risk factors named in the 2024 Lancet Commission on dementia. [5] [6] What is overstated is the word "behind." Alcohol is one contributing risk factor among many, not the cause of memory loss. Cutting back is a genuinely good idea. It is not a cure, and it will not undo damage already done. It is also worth saying plainly: the powder we sell contains no alcohol and no caffeine; it is stirred into the coffee you already drink, and its label prints no amount for any of its six plants.
"Doctors Name 5 Popular Drinks Now Tied To Memory Decline. Coffee Tops The List""Seniors: These 4 Drinks May Be Aging Your Brain Faster""The 4 Drinks Brain Doctors Want Seniors to Quit""Neurologists Say Cognitive Decline Isn't Age: Just Stop Drinking These 2 Popular Drinks""Doctors: 3 Popular Drinks Now Tied to Memory Loss in Seniors"	Exaggerated Notice that the count changes: two drinks, three, four, five. It changes because it is an advertising variable we rotate, not a number that came out of a study. No neurologist is named in any version, because none was consulted. "Coffee tops the list" is the clearest thing we have got wrong. Large reviews of coffee and cognition have generally not found ordinary coffee drinking to be a risk factor for dementia; several report a neutral or modestly favorable association. If you drink coffee and enjoy it, this headline gave you a reason to worry that the evidence does not support. Our own article about this powder says keep your coffee: the powder has no caffeine and is sold to be stirred into the cup you already pour, so the coffee is doing the waking up. That is a fact about the product, not a claim that coffee harms memory. See section 2.
"Brain Doctors: Quit These 4 Drinks Before It's Too Late"	Exaggerated No brain doctor was consulted for this headline, and there is no "too late." The deadline was invented to make you click. The four drinks are the ones in section 2: alcohol, sugar-sweetened soft drinks, energy drinks and sweetened coffee-shop drinks. Cutting back on them is sensible for your heart, your sleep and your weight, and long-running population studies link heavy use of the first two to poorer cognitive outcomes over years. There is no evidence that quitting them on any particular day changes anything about your memory, and there is no age after which the change stops being worth making. See section 2.
"Memory Slipping? Check These 4 Everyday Drinks First"	Partly true Half right, in the wrong order. If your memory is slipping, the first thing to check is not a drink; it is your doctor, because several treatable causes listed in section 6 look exactly like memory loss and none of them is fixed by changing what you pour. The four drinks are the everyday ones in section 2: alcohol, sugary soft drinks, energy drinks and sweetened coffee drinks. Reviewing them is a reasonable second step, mostly for sleep and for your heart. Not enough plain water belongs on the list too. See sections 2 and 6.
"America's Top Experts Say Mental Decline Isn't Aging: Just Avoid These 5 Kitchen Drinks"	Exaggerated The same construction as the "Japan's doctors" headline above, with the country changed. No panel of American experts issued this statement, and we cannot point you to one. Mental decline is strongly tied to age, and no drink removes that. The five kitchen drinks are alcohol, sugar-sweetened sodas, diet sodas, energy drinks and sweetened coffee-shop drinks, all in section 2, where the honest version of each is written out. "Just avoid" overstates what any of that evidence shows. See section 2.
"Still Sharp at 90? Seniors Are Rethinking These 3 Everyday Foods"	Partly true The gentlest of our headlines, and still an overstatement. Nobody knows what keeps a particular person sharp at 90. The largest studies point to blood pressure, hearing, physical activity, social contact and education far more than to any food; see section 7. The three everyday foods are sugary breakfast cereals, processed meats and packaged baked goods, all in section 3. Eating less of them is associated in population studies with better long-term brain and heart outcomes. That is a modest, slow effect across a population, and no food is a guarantee at any age. See sections 3 and 7.
"Drink one cup a day and watch your memory change"	Exaggerated There is a cup, and it is yours. The powder is stirred into the coffee or tea you already drink, one level teaspoon a day, and it contains no caffeine, so whatever wakes you up in that cup was going to wake you up anyway. Nothing in the jar has been tested as this blend. The plant with the best trial in people over 50, lion's mane, was given at 3.2 grams a day on its own in that trial, [1] which is more than the whole teaspoon weighs, and the plant with the largest trial in older adults, ginkgo, changed nothing at 240 milligrams a day over six years. [2] What one cup a day can honestly give you is your usual coffee, six plant extracts at doses the label does not print, and a fourteen-day test with a notebook. "Watch your memory change" should not have been written. See sections 7 and 9, and the ingredients below.
"Seven names and one number on the back of a Los Angeles jar: three grams for the whole blend, sweetener included, fourteen teaspoons to the jar, and what each plant weighed in the trial that tested it on its own"	Broadly supported This is the reading our article is built on, and it is on the label. The panel prints one line, Proprietary Blend Brain Dust 3 g, and beneath it seven names in order of weight, heaviest first: organic lion's mane mushroom extract, organic maca root extract, organic astragalus root extract, rhodiola root extract, organic ashwagandha root and leaf extract, ginkgo leaf extract, organic stevia leaf extract, with no amount beside any of them and the sweetener inside the same 3 grams. The jar holds 42.5 grams, which the seller counts as fourteen servings. The trials weighed each plant on its own: 3.2 grams a day of lion's mane in 31 adults over 50 for twelve weeks, [1] and a single 1.8-gram dose in 41 adults aged 18 to 45; [7] 120 milligrams of a standardized ginkgo extract twice a day in 3,069 adults aged 72 to 96 for a median of six years, with no difference from placebo, [2] and 120 milligrams a day in 93 adults aged 55 to 79 for twelve weeks, with a moderate result on one memory task and nothing else; [8] one tablet a day of a standardized rhodiola extract in 56 young physicians on night duty; [9] and 300 milligrams a day of an ashwagandha root extract in 125 adults aged 20 to 55 for 90 days, [10] with 225 milligrams a day of a root-and-leaf extract in 59 adults averaging 23 years old. [11] Maca and astragalus have no trial on memory or attention in healthy older adults that we can cite. The headline is meant to state what the label prints and what the trials weighed, not to raise expectations. It is not a claim that the powder works.
"Neurologists Name 5 Popular Prescriptions Now Tied to Memory Decline"	Partly true, and the most dangerous to act on This one is closest to real research. Several widely prescribed drug classes have been linked in large studies to higher dementia risk, and prescribing guidelines already flag some of them as poor choices for older adults. [12] [13] [14] But an advertisement is the worst possible reason to change a prescription. Stopping some of these medicines suddenly can cause seizures, dangerous rebound anxiety, or a return of the condition being treated. Never stop or change a prescribed medicine because of something you read in an ad, including ours. Read section 4 before you do anything.

2. Every drink our ads point at

Our headlines have referred, in different versions, to "3 beverages", "4 drinks", "5 popular drinks", "2 popular drinks" and "this popular evening drink" without ever naming them. Here is the complete list of what we were pointing at, and what the research actually supports for each one. Where a study is cited, it is observational unless stated otherwise: it can show that two things travel together in a population, not that one causes the other.

3. Every food our ads point at

The food headlines referred to "3 foods" and to "cereals": one cereal in some versions, three in others. Again, the number was ours, not a finding. Here is what was meant, and what stands behind it.

4. The "5 prescriptions" headline

Our headline said "5 popular prescriptions now tied to memory decline." It named none of them. These are the drug classes that research has actually flagged. "Tied to" means associated in observational studies, not proven to cause.

What this section is not. It is not a claim that these medicines cause dementia, not medical advice, and not a suggestion that a teaspoon of plant extracts is an alternative to any of them. It is a prompt to have one specific conversation with a professional who knows your history. Two things in the powder we sell deserve a mention in that conversation of their own accord: the ginkgo leaf extract, worth naming if you take anything that affects clotting, because ginkgo may increase the risk of bleeding in people who take anticoagulant drugs, ^[20] and the ashwagandha root and leaf extract, worth naming if anyone is watching your liver or your thyroid, because rare reports of liver injury have been described with ashwagandha products. The amount of either in a teaspoon is not printed on the label, and the cautions for the other roots are on their cards in section 8. One more reason to have that conversation before you make it a daily habit.

5. The "3 words" and "7 phrases" tests

Several of our headlines invite you to test yourself on words or phrases: spell these three words, pronounce these three phrases, see whether you say these seven phrases. There is no such validated test, and we cannot give you a real one, because a real one does not work that way.

What actual cognitive screening looks like. Clinicians use short structured tools. The Mini-Cog, the MoCA (Montreal Cognitive Assessment) and the MMSE are the common ones. They do include word tasks: recalling three unrelated words after a delay, naming animals, repeating a sentence. But three things make them different from an online quiz:

• They are administered in person, in a standard way, by someone trained to do it.
• The score is interpreted against your age and education, not against a fixed pass mark.
• A low score is a reason for further evaluation (bloodwork, medication review, history from a family member, sometimes imaging), never a diagnosis by itself.

Screening tools also produce false alarms. Anxiety, poor sleep, hearing loss, depression, pain and simply being nervous all lower scores in people whose brains are fine. This is precisely why an online word quiz is meaningless: it has none of the context that makes the real instrument useful.

6. Real warning signs, and the causes worth ruling out

The genuinely useful list is not about spelling. It is about whether memory or thinking has changed enough to interfere with everyday life. Signs that deserve a medical appointment include:

• Memory loss that disrupts daily life: repeatedly asking for the same information, relying on notes and family for things you used to handle yourself.
• Difficulty completing familiar tasks: a routine recipe, a regular route, paying the usual bills.
• New trouble following or joining a conversation, stopping mid-sentence, or calling things by the wrong name.
• Confusion about time or place: losing track of dates or seasons, or how you got somewhere.
• Trouble judging distance, or reading. Worth checking, since it can also be vision.
• Putting things in unusual places and being unable to retrace steps, sometimes with a sense that others are to blame.
• Noticeably poorer judgement, especially about money.
• Withdrawing from work, hobbies or social life; changes in mood, personality, suspicion or apathy.

Ordinary aging looks different: occasionally forgetting a name and recalling it later, misplacing your glasses and finding them, needing help with an unfamiliar device, taking a moment to find a word, rereading a paragraph after lunch and getting it on the second pass. That is normal and common at every age.

7. What actually has the best evidence

If we only had one section to be useful in, this would be it. The 2024 report of the Lancet standing Commission on dementia concluded that nearly half of dementia cases worldwide, around 45%, could potentially be prevented or delayed by addressing fourteen modifiable risk factors across the life course. ^[5] Not one of them is a supplement, a jar of powder, or a list of three foods.

• Treat hearing loss. Use hearing aids if you need them.
• Control blood pressure from mid-life onward. Take the medication as prescribed.
• Treat high LDL cholesterol and manage diabetes.
• Do not smoke.
• Stay physically active. Regular walking counts, and it is free.
• Limit alcohol.
• Treat depression, and take it seriously in older adults.
• Stay socially connected. Isolation is a measured risk factor, not a soft one.
• Correct vision loss: get cataracts treated, keep the prescription current.
• Protect your head from injury; reduce fall risk at home.
• Sleep properly. Persistently short sleep in mid-life has been associated with higher dementia incidence. ^[16]
• Keep learning: education and continued mental engagement across life.
• Maintain a healthy weight and reduce exposure to air pollution where you can.

These are unglamorous. They cannot be delivered in a headline, they take years, and none of them can be sold to you by us. They are also, by a wide margin, the best-supported things on this entire page.

---

8. Ingredient guide: what is actually in the powder we sell

What each of the seven ingredients printed on the label of Moon Juice Brain Dust is, what it is traditionally used for, and what the cited research says, including who was in each trial and at what dose. The panel prints, per level teaspoon of 3 grams: 10 calories, 2 grams of carbohydrate, 1 gram of fiber, 0 grams of sugar, and then a single line, Proprietary Blend Brain Dust 3 g, under which seven names run in order of weight, heaviest first, with no amount for any of them: organic lion's mane mushroom extract, organic maca root extract, organic astragalus root extract, rhodiola root extract, organic ashwagandha root and leaf extract, ginkgo leaf extract, organic stevia leaf extract. There is no "other ingredients" line, because the sweetener is inside the blend, so the six plants together weigh less than 3 grams; the label prints no extract ratio, no standardization and, for the rhodiola and the astragalus, no species. The jar says vegan, gluten-free, non-GMO and caffeine-free. Where a study is cited below, it used one plant at a time, in a measured dose, and none of them tested this blend; the lion's mane trial in adults over 50 used 3.2 grams a day of the mushroom alone, more than this entire teaspoon weighs. Read the statement at the end of this section before you buy anything.

Lion's mane (Hericium erinaceus), fruiting body

An edible mushroom with long, white, downward-hanging spines that grows on older beech and oak trees in temperate forests across the Northern Hemisphere. It is eaten as food, especially in East Asia and the United States, with a texture often compared to crab or lobster.

Traditional and everyday use. Known as yamabushitake in Japan and houtougu in China, it has a long history of use as a food and in East Asian and Native American traditions.

What the research says. In a 12-week placebo-controlled trial of 31 healthy adults over 50, a daily lion's mane fruiting-body preparation (3.2 g/day) was associated with higher scores on a standard mental-status test compared with placebo.^[1] A visual-retention test in the same trial did not change, and the dose was far larger than most blends and extracts deliver. In a separate pilot trial in 41 healthy adults aged 18 to 45, a single 1.8 g dose was associated with faster performance on the Stroop task an hour later, while 28 days of it produced only a non-significant trend on self-rated stress.^[7]

Amount per serving in Brain Dust®. part of a 3 g proprietary blend; amount not printed (listed first, so the largest share; extract ratio not printed; the trial in adults over 50 used 3.2 g a day of the whole mushroom, more than this entire blend)

Good to know. Generally regarded as safe as a food. Stomach discomfort, nausea and skin rash were reported by a few participants in one clinical study. Avoid if you are allergic to mushrooms.

Maca (Lepidium meyenii), root extract

A root vegetable of the mustard family grown at high altitude in the Peruvian Andes, where it is dried and cooked into porridge, baked goods and drinks. The dried root is mostly starch, with about 10 % protein and a nutty, malty taste; in supplements it is sold as a powder or an extract.

Traditional and everyday use. Eaten in the central Andes for centuries as a highland staple; the label says "traditionally used".

What the research says. No trial of this ingredient on memory or attention in healthy older adults is on file. Descriptive only.

Amount per serving in Brain Dust®. part of a 3 g proprietary blend; amount not printed (a root vegetable from the Peruvian Andes, eaten there as food; the label says "traditionally used")

Good to know. Eaten as food in the Andes; the long-term effects of daily concentrated extracts have not been studied. It is a cruciferous root, so people with a thyroid condition should ask a clinician before taking it daily, and so should anyone pregnant or nursing.

Astragalus (Astragalus membranaceus), root extract

A perennial legume native to northern China and Mongolia whose long, fibrous root is dried and sliced. The slices are simmered in soups and broths in Chinese home cooking and sold as a powder or an extract in supplements; neither label prints the species.

Traditional and everyday use. Called huang qi in Chinese practice, where it has been added to broths for centuries as a tonic root.

What the research says. No trial of this ingredient on memory or attention in healthy older adults is on file. Descriptive only.

Amount per serving in Brain Dust®. part of a 3 g proprietary blend; amount not printed (species not printed; a root used in Chinese herbal cooking and broths)

Good to know. The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health notes that astragalus may interact with medicines that suppress the immune system; people taking one, and anyone pregnant or nursing, should ask a clinician first. Some other species of the genus are toxic to livestock, which is why the species on a label matters; these labels do not print it.

Rhodiola rosea root extract

A plant known as arctic root, golden root or rose root that grows in cold regions and at high altitude in Europe, Asia and North America. The root is the part used.

Traditional and everyday use. A long history of use in Russia, Scandinavia and other parts of Europe for fatigue and work performance.

What the research says. In a double-blind crossover study of 56 healthy young physicians on night duty, one tablet a day of a standardized extract was associated with better scores on tests of mental fatigue during the first two weeks.^[9] The National Institutes of Health states there is not enough reliable evidence to say whether rhodiola is useful for any health-related purpose.

Amount per serving in Brain Dust®. part of a 3 g proprietary blend; amount not printed (species not printed; the trials are in young adults, not in men past 55)

Good to know. Possibly safe for up to 12 weeks; side effects reported include dizziness, headache, trouble sleeping and dry mouth. Little is known about safety in pregnancy or breastfeeding. Talk to your doctor before use if you are under a doctor's care.

Ashwagandha (Withania somnifera), root extract

A short shrub of the nightshade family that grows in India, the Middle East and parts of Africa. The root is dried and extracted; the plant is also called Indian ginseng or winter cherry.

Traditional and everyday use. Used in Ayurveda, the traditional medicine of India, for more than 3,000 years, usually as a root powder taken with milk or ghee.

What the research says. In a placebo-controlled trial of 125 healthy adults aged 20 to 55 who reported stress, 300 mg per day of a sustained-release root extract for 90 days was associated with better memory and focus scores, better sleep and lower stress ratings than placebo.^[10]

Amount per serving in Brain Dust®. part of a 3 g proprietary blend; amount not printed (root and leaf together; the wiki entry and its trial concern the root extract alone)

Good to know. Rare reports of liver injury have been described with ashwagandha products. Not for use in pregnancy. Talk to your doctor before taking it if you have a thyroid or liver condition or are under a doctor's care.

Ginkgo biloba leaf extract

An extract of the fan-shaped leaves of the ginkgo tree, a species so ancient it is called a living fossil, planted along city streets across the world. This is the herbal extract, a different thing from the homeopathic dilution of ginkgo found in some sprays.

Traditional and everyday use. Ginkgo leaf extract has been sold as a "memory herb" for decades.

What the research says. In the largest trial to date, 3,069 adults aged 72 to 96 took 120 mg of a standardized extract twice a day for a median of 6.1 years and declined at the same rate as the placebo group in memory, attention, language and every other domain measured.^[2] The National Institutes of Health states there is no conclusive evidence that ginkgo is helpful for any health condition.^[20]

Amount per serving in Brain Dust®. part of a 3 g proprietary blend; amount not printed (standardization not printed; the large trial in adults 72 to 96 used 240 mg a day for six years and found no difference)

Good to know. Ginkgo may increase the risk of bleeding in people who take anything that thins the blood; fresh ginkgo seeds are toxic. Talk to your doctor before use if you are under a doctor's care or are due for an operation.

Stevia (Stevia rebaudiana), leaf extract (rebaudioside A)

A sweet-leaved shrub of the daisy family native to Paraguay and Brazil. Its leaves hold steviol glycosides, of which rebaudioside A (Reb A) is the most refined and least bitter; a purified extract is 200 to 300 times sweeter than sugar and adds no calories.

Traditional and everyday use. The Guaraní people of Paraguay have sweetened maté with the leaves for centuries; purified Reb A has been used in US foods and drinks since 2008.

What the research says. No trial of this ingredient on memory or attention in healthy older adults is on file; it is the sweetener, not an active. Descriptive only.

Amount per serving in Brain Dust®. part of a 3 g proprietary blend; amount not printed (the sweetener, listed last inside the same blend; one 4-star review calls it overwhelming)

Good to know. Purified steviol glycosides such as Reb A have been accepted by US regulators as a food sweetener since 2008; whole-leaf and crude stevia extracts have not. The licorice-like aftertaste is the most common complaint.

*These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. This information does not constitute medical advice and it should not be relied upon as such. This product is not a substitute for medication or other treatment prescribed by a physician or health care provider. Consult your doctor before starting any dietary supplement.

9. What we can and cannot promise

Set against the headlines that brought you here, this is the complete and honest position.

Things we cannot promise, and that nobody selling you a supplement can:

• That this powder will improve your memory, your attention or your concentration.
• That it will prevent, delay, slow or reverse dementia or Alzheimer's disease.
• That it offsets alcohol, sugar, processed food, or any drink or food named on this page.
• That it can replace a prescribed medicine, or make a medication review unnecessary.
• That any doctor in Japan, any Nobel laureate, any neurologist or any "brain expert" recommends it. None has.
• That a word or phrase quiz can tell you anything about your brain.
• That the trials of its plants settle anything about the jar. Each one weighed a single plant, on its own, at a printed dose, for a set number of weeks: 3.2 grams a day of lion's mane in 31 adults over 50, ^[1] 240 milligrams a day of ginkgo in 3,069 adults over 72 that changed nothing, ^[2] one standardized rhodiola tablet a day in 56 physicians on night duty, ^[9] and 300 milligrams a day of ashwagandha root extract in 125 adults aged 20 to 55. ^[10] The label prints none of those figures, two of the roots have no trial on memory at all, and nobody has tested this blend.
• That the phrase on the front of the jar, the benefits the seller's listing gives each plant, or the 736 reviews describe a proven benefit. The phrase on the jar carries the asterisk every supplement carries, the listing names no study beneath any plant, and 62 of the 100 most recent reviews were written by customers who received a store reward for writing, which the seller's review system discloses. They are label words and sales words, and the same label carries the FDA disclaimer.

Things we can say honestly:

• It is a dry powder of six plant extracts and a leaf sweetener, sold in a 1.5-ounce amber glass jar of fourteen level teaspoons by Moon Juice Inc. of Los Angeles, California, a company with a street address in its terms, an email that handles orders, returns and questions, two shops of its own in Los Angeles, and no telephone number anywhere on its site; the jar says vegan, gluten-free, non-GMO and caffeine-free, and the seller's site says its plants are tested for identity. Every ingredient printed on the label is listed above.
• It contains no caffeine, no alcohol and no sugar; its sweetener is a stevia leaf extract. All seven ingredients sit inside one proprietary blend of 3 grams per teaspoon, and no line has a printed amount.
• The label's direction is one teaspoon per serving, blended into coffee, tea, chocolate or milk; the seller's page says one teaspoon a day; a jar is fourteen days. The label gives no time of day.
• The price (thirty-eight dollars for one jar the day we read it, about two dollars and seventy cents a teaspoon; the seller's page opens with a cheaper monthly plan already selected), the shipping terms (at no charge on orders over sixty-five dollars from the seller's website, so a single jar pays shipping; to the United States and Canada) and the refund terms (returns accepted within 45 days of delivery through the seller's online returns page with the order number, damaged or unsatisfactory product by email, refunds processed within two or three business days of receipt; the policy does not say whether an opened jar qualifies or who pays the return postage) are exactly what is written on the seller's pages. Nothing more, and no promise made elsewhere overrides them.
• The customer reviews we quote are real and public on the seller's site; we quote them word for word, we mark "Verified Buyer" only where the seller's review system does, we mark as paid the three whose writers received a store reward, and we left out reviews that made claims we cannot check. Individual experiences are not evidence.
• We earn a commission if you buy. That is our interest in this, stated plainly.
• Nothing here is medical advice, and none of it replaces your doctor.

10. Questions people ask us

Did a Japanese doctor, a Nobel laureate or a neurologist really say this?

No. Those attributions are advertising language. No named or identifiable expert made those statements, and none has endorsed this product.

So is coffee bad for my memory or not?

Ordinary coffee is not an established risk factor for cognitive decline, and reviews generally find neutral to modestly favorable associations. Our "Coffee Tops The List" headline overstated it. What is worth watching is added sugar in coffee drinks, and caffeine late enough in the day to spoil your sleep. The powder we sell has no caffeine of its own and is meant for the cup you already drink, which is why our article says keep your coffee.

Should I stop my sleeping tablet or my anxiety medication?

Not on your own, and not because of an advertisement. Some of these drugs cause seizures or severe rebound symptoms if stopped abruptly. Take your full medication list to your doctor or pharmacist and ask whether anything on it is a poor fit for your age. See section 4.

Is this product a treatment for Alzheimer's or dementia?

No. It is not a treatment for any disease. If you or a family member is facing a diagnosis, the people to talk to are your doctor and a support organization such as the Alzheimer's Association helpline listed above.

How much of each plant is in a teaspoon, and how does that compare with the studies?

The label does not say. It prints one figure, 3 grams, for six extracts and the sweetener together, in order of weight, so lion's mane is the largest share and stevia the smallest, and nobody outside the company knows the split. The trials weighed each plant alone: 3.2 grams a day of lion's mane in adults over 50, ^[1] 240 milligrams a day of ginkgo in adults over 72 with no difference from placebo, ^[2] 300 milligrams a day of ashwagandha root extract in adults aged 20 to 55, ^[10] and a standardized rhodiola tablet in physicians in their twenties and thirties. ^[9] None of those figures can be laid beside this jar. The same label carries the statement that its claims have not been evaluated by the FDA and that the product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Does it contain caffeine, sugar or alcohol?

No caffeine, no sugar and no alcohol. The jar says caffeine-free and the panel prints 0 grams of sugar; the sweetener is a stevia leaf extract inside the blend, and the seller's idea is that you stir the powder into the coffee or tea you already drink.

Which of the seven does something?

Lion's mane has one small twelve-week trial in adults over 50, at more than this teaspoon weighs. Ginkgo has the largest trial of any plant here, six years in adults over 72, and it found nothing at 240 milligrams; a smaller twelve-week study at 120 milligrams found a moderate result on one memory task and nothing else. ^[8] Rhodiola and ashwagandha have trials in people in their twenties and thirties. Maca and astragalus have no trial on memory or attention in healthy older adults that we can cite. Stevia is the sweetener. The article goes through them one by one, and section 8 has the card for each.

How long does a jar last, and can I call the company?

Fourteen level teaspoons, which is two weeks at one a day. The seller's monthly plan delivers once a month, and one reviewer we quote ran out before the next jar came. There is no telephone number anywhere on the seller's site; there is an email, [email protected], and a street address in Los Angeles.

What if it arrives and I don't like it?

Within 45 days of delivery, start a return on the seller's online returns page with your order number, or email the company about a damaged or unsatisfactory jar. The policy does not say whether an opened jar qualifies or who pays the return postage, so ask by email first and keep the reply. Once the jar is back, the seller says the refund is processed in two or three business days.

Are the reviews real?

They are public on the seller's page, 736 of them, and most carry its buyer mark. Of the 100 most recent, 62 were written by customers who received a store reward for writing, which the review system discloses and which we mark as paid beside the three we quote. Most of the reviewers are women in their thirties; one of the six we quote is a woman between 55 and 64.

Why does this page talk about medicines if the product is not one?

Because one of our headlines pointed at "5 prescriptions", and you deserve to know what was behind it. Nothing in section 4 is advice to change a medicine, and the product is not an alternative to any of them.

If your own headlines are exaggerated, why should I believe this page?

A fair question. Do not take our word for it. The references below are real, published sources you can look up yourself, and nothing in sections 5, 6 and 7 requires you to buy anything or trust us. If this page and our headlines disagree, believe this page.

Does this page cost anything?

No. It is free, there is nothing to sign up for, and you are welcome to read it, close the tab and never come back.

Can I check these claims myself?

Yes, and you should. Every numbered reference below can be found by searching its title. For general information, the National Institute on Aging (nia.nih.gov) and the Alzheimer's Association (alz.org) publish plain-language material and sell nothing.

References

These are the sources behind the claims marked with a number above. Most are observational studies, which can show association but not cause. The trials of the plants each tested one plant on its own at a printed dose: lion's mane in 31 adults over 50, ginkgo in 3,069 adults over 72 and in 93 adults aged 55 to 79, rhodiola and ashwagandha in adults in their twenties and thirties; none of them tested this blend, and the label prints none of their doses. We have deliberately not cited anything for the claims we describe as exaggerated, because there is nothing to cite.

1. Saitsu Y. et al. (2019). Biomedical Research 40(4):125-131 doi.org
2. Snitz B.E. et al. (2009). JAMA 302(24):2663-2670 doi.org
3. Pase M.P. et al. (2017). Alzheimer's & Dementia 13(9):955-964 doi.org
4. Gonçalves N.G. et al. (2023). JAMA Neurology 80(2):142-150 doi.org
5. Livingston G. et al. (2024). The Lancet 404(10452):572-628 doi.org
6. Topiwala A. et al. (2017). BMJ 357:j2353 doi.org
7. Docherty S. et al. (2023). Nutrients 15(22):4842 pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
8. Burns N.R. et al. (2006). Human Psychopharmacology 21(1):27-37 doi.org
9. Darbinyan V. et al. (2000). Phytomedicine 7(5):365-371 doi.org
10. Gopukumar K. et al. (2021). Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2021:8254344 doi.org
11. Leonard M. et al. (2024). Nutrients 16(12):1813 doi.org
12. Gray S.L. et al. (2015). JAMA Internal Medicine 175(3):401-407 doi.org
13. Coupland C.A.C. et al. (2019). JAMA Internal Medicine 179(8):1084-1093 doi.org
14. American Geriatrics Society 2023 Beers Criteria Update Expert Panel (2023). Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 71(7):2052-2081 doi.org
15. Pase M.P. et al. (2017). Stroke 48(5):1139-1146 doi.org
16. Sabia S. et al. (2021). Nature Communications 12:2289 doi.org
17. EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (2015). Scientific Opinion on the safety of caffeine. EFSA Journal 13(5):4102 doi.org
18. Poly C. et al. (2011). American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 94(6):1584-1591 doi.org
19. Morris M.C. et al. (2015). Alzheimer's & Dementia 11(9):1015-1022 doi.org
20. NIH NCCIH. "Ginkgo" (updated February 2025) nccih.nih.gov

Citing a study does not mean the study is about this product. The trials above tested single plants at doses this label does not print, not the powder itself; none of the research tested Moon Juice Brain Dust, and none of it supports it.

---