In this study, G biloba at 120 mg twice a day was not effective in reducing either the overall incidence rate of dementia or AD incidence in elderly individuals with normal cognition or those with MCI.

It would be fabulous if there were a simple intervention that would block the onset of such a cruel disease, but it looks as if Gingko isn’t that intervenion (not that anything else is as yet).

In 2002 it was, “Overall there is promising evidence of improvement in cognition and function associated with Ginkgo.”

Then the 2007 revision, “There is no convincing evidence that Ginkgo biloba is efficacious for dementia and cognitive impairment” (as cited).

So I think I have some sympathy, as it seems to have been a bit of a moving target. Still the 2002 version did carry caveats:

“However, the three more modern trials show inconsistent results. Our view is that there is need for a large trial using modern methodology and permitting an intention-to-treat analysis to provide robust estimates of the size and mechanism of any treatment effects.”

I wonder if it shows the dangers of accepting too low a standard of evidence to support the recommendadtion of a product to the general public. From what I’ve read I don’t see even the positive trials being large enough and of sufficient quality for that. Perhaps part of the classic double standard in the burden of proof required for alternative and conventional therapies?

Anyway, I’ll see what they have to say and perhaps suggest that they review their position.

“Gingko…*huh*
What it is good for?
Absolutely nothing!
Say it again…!”

While it might not be strictly 100% accurate for Gingko, it seems to be getting prophetically close. And a lot closer than Mr Holland and Mr Barrett.