As others have pointed out, the two studies examining the effectiveness of Fortibone were funded by Gelita which produces Fortibone. I’m less concerned about the funding because the majority of the researchers were identified as working for University of Freiburg. Their final research manuscript likely went through peer-review to be accepted for publication in the scientific journal Nutrition. As a retired academic researcher, I’ve been involved in studies funded by organizations who sent out requests for research proposals to evaluate their product. This is a common model for researchers in my field of study to receive funding this way. I can’t speak for other researchers, but I know that I could only evaluate the measures I collected. I wouldn’t manipulate the numbers to make it appear favorable for the funder. My data was open-source meaning that I had to provide my data to any researcher so they could evaluate my claims. This helps to keep researchers honest. The pressure to publish is enormous in academic research.

I am concerned about the very small effect sizes the researchers found. While the findings were statistically significant, the effect sizes (i.e., increase in bone markers) were negligible. However, I have osteoporosis and I am breaking bones, so I’m using Fortibone because, at this point, I’ll try just about any promised magic with hopes that it will help my bones. I recently switched to the product sold by Dr. McCormick because it’s only Fortibone and that’s all I want.

If I don’t see an improvement in my next DEXA, which is in a year, I may stop Fortibone.

Lastly, I hope other researchers replicate the study to evaluate the original findings, but it appears that science doesn't value replication.

Off my soapbox.