Why is this interesting? They will have 8 people take different formulations of of TA-64/cycloasrageol to see if those improve bioavailability. It was "First r

Why is this interesting? They will have 8 people take different formulations of of TA-64/cycloasrageol to see if those improve bioavailability. It was "First received: April 4, 2016", with an expected start date of May 2016, but "This study is not yet open for participant recruitment". Who knows if this study will ever occur. Some background: anyone can register on clinicaltrials.gov. As a consequence, less than ethical researchers (and frauds and quacks) will register some experimental protocol. Why? Quoting https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/want-to-enroll-in-a-clinical-trial-nih-database-is-huge--but-lacks-a-few-key-details/2016/07/26/52e5eda8-4518-11e6-88d0-6adee48be8bc_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/want-... : > Critics worry that some people seeking to participate in clinical trials may be desperately sick or in pain and vulnerable to requests for money they don’t have. These patients see the “.gov” domain and the NIH imprimatur as stamps of approval that mean the research is legitimate, they say. > “The average patient and even people in health care . . . kind of let their guard down when they’re in that database. It’s like, ‘If a trial is listed here, it must be okay,’ ” said Paul Knoepfler, an associate professor at the University of California at Davis School of Medicine who writes a blog about stem-cell research. “Most people don’t realize that creeping into that database are some trials whose main goal is to generate profit.” I am not saying that this trial is in that category. I am saying that the existence of an entry in clinicaltrials.gov is not, on its own, interesting. Instead, references to it might be going around specifically to hype something beyond its intrinsic value.