So, what's the point of the product, if it doesn't do anything? Or, if it does something, why don't they find the proof, and substantiate it?
It is much more profitable in the short-term to make a supplement and sell it to millions without prescriptions than to make a drug and sell to thousands with Rx.
If they spend money on trials and subtantiate their hypotheses, they have to stop selling it as a supplement because now they know it is a drug... but as long as they don't run the trials and don't know it's a drug, they can keep going.
Stands in contradiction with this (in the article).
>The company stresses that it is using only compounds supported by hundreds of peer-reviewed papers, that it enforces high manufacturing standards, and that it is conducting a human trial (currently 120 people between the ages of 60 and 80 are participating)
--
Your overall point about how it's a profit seeking venture first and foremost is accurate. Personally, I find it ethically wrong to imply that your product will help people without knowing for sure that it will. There's always the edge case where the less savvy consumer goes for the ineffective supplement instead of consulting with their doctor.
Couldn't they continue to do both even after it's certified as a drug?
Instead of a supplement, perhaps they could make a lower dose over-the-counter version of the same drug. They could still sell millions without prescription.