Eine von Experten begutachtete Studie mit realen Erkenntnissen zeigt, dass 75,3 % der Erwachsenen, die täglich das Antioxidanspräparat ACEMg einnahmen, die objektive Hörfunktion über 2 Jahre hinweg aufrechterhielten oder verbesserten, im Vergleich zu 26,8 % der unbehandelten Kontrollpersonen (N=190).

„The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: B.S. Seifer is Impact Director of the Keep Hearing Initiative 501(c)(3) nonprofit, **holds minority equity shares in Soundbites Public Benefit Corporation (PBC), the ACEMg manufacturer and distributor, and serves as its CEO**. R.A. Detweiler and L.A. Minor hold Soundbites PBC shares indirectly through family trusts. The authors acknowledge these relationships represent potential conflicts of interest that readers should consider when evaluating the findings.“

Notice the primary finding reported in the abstract

„OAE scores remained unchanged or improved for **75.3%** of those in the ACEMg treatment group, as contrasted with 26.8% in the no ACEMg group.“

They find this to be statistically significant. What’s not mentioned in the abstract is the actual OAE scores.

If you look at the full text, you can see the mean scores in figure 2. Indeed the treatment group did have improved mean OAE scores after ACEMg treatment. The figure states „Asterisks indicate significant between-group differences at *P* < .001 (Tukey HSD)“. There is no asterisk in the figure. So i assume the difference in scores was not significant at any time point. They also generate this figure without error bars, which is strange.

„The significant age difference between groups (Treatment: M = 62.3 years vs Control: M = 75.6 years) represents an important limitation“

„The no-treatment group was examined in an earlier time period (2015-2020) than the ACEMg treatment group (2020-2023). The use of historical rather than concurrent controls represent a significant methodological limitation.“

All that being said, these authors seem to have properly declared their conflict of interest, and were, IMO, much more thorough with their discussion of study limitations than most authors are. I would agree with their overall conclusion that there **may** be a „**potential** association between ACEMg supplementation and higher OAE scores over time, although alternative explanations cannot be excluded. **These findings warrant additional investigation**, given the widespread incidence of SNHL.“

I certainly wouldnt be rushing to purchase the product until there is more data.

if its really just vitamins a,c,e and magnesium for that price why not just buy a multivitamin with exactly the same ingredients + more for alot cheaper