No "new study" matching the post could be identified. The post names no journal, author, institution, sample size, or date. The strongest evidence in this area is not new; it is a body of small trials dating from roughly 2000 to the present, synthesized in meta-analyses.

On blood pressure, the evidence is real and reasonably consistent. A meta-analysis of 8 RCTs found significant reductions in both systolic blood pressure (weighted mean difference −4.96 mmHg, 95% CI −7.67 to −2.25, p < 0.001) and diastolic blood pressure (−2.01 mmHg, 95% CI −3.71 to −0.31, p = 0.021) . A later and larger synthesis reached a very similar figure: a meta-analysis of 14 clinical trials involving 573 individuals demonstrated a reduction in systolic blood pressure of −5.02 mmHg (95% CI −7.55 to −2.48, p < 0.001) . Note the total pooled sample of 573 people is small by cardiovascular research standards.

On arterial structure, the largest and longest trial found nothing. In a randomized, double-blind, parallel trial assessing carotid intima-media thickness progression in people at moderate risk for coronary heart disease, participants consumed 240 mL/day of pomegranate juice (n = 146) or a control beverage (n = 143) for up to 18 months, and no significant difference in overall CIMT progression rate was observed between pomegranate juice and control.

This study was funded by Roll International Corporation, the parent company of POM Wonderful. That is directly relevant: the industry-funded trial designed to demonstrate arterial benefit at exactly the 8 oz dose in the post did not find one on its primary endpoint.

The widely circulated "35% plaque reversal" figure traces to a different and much weaker source. A 2004 study by Michael Aviram published in Clinical Nutrition followed 19 patients with severe carotid artery stenosis, reporting that intima-media thickness decreased by 35% after one year while increasing by 9% in the control group. Nineteen patients is a very small, unblinded study, and it was not replicated by the 289-person controlled trial above.

On the antioxidant comparison, the source is a laboratory chemistry paper, not a human study. Commercial pomegranate juices showed antioxidant activity of 18 to 20 TEAC, roughly three times higher than red wine and green tea at 6 to 8 TEAC, with activity higher in juices extracted from whole pomegranates than from arils only. This is a test-tube measurement of chemical radical-scavenging capacity. It does not establish that drinking the juice produces a corresponding antioxidant effect inside the human body.

On nitric oxide, the mechanism cited in the post is drawn from cell culture work. Researchers tested whether pomegranate juice could reverse the downregulation of endothelial nitric oxide synthase induced by oxidized LDL in human coronary endothelial cells, observing a dose-dependent reduction in nitric oxide bioactivity after oxLDL exposure. These are isolated cells in a dish, not people drinking juice.

On regulatory history, this exact category of claim has already been formally adjudicated as unsubstantiated. The FTC found that a number of POM Wonderful's ads contained implied claims that its products treat, prevent, or reduce the risk of heart disease, prostate cancer, or erectile dysfunction, and concluded that the company lacked sufficient evidence to substantiate those claims and that the claims were material to consumers.

An administrative law judge ruled against POM after a lengthy trial, finding that 19 specific advertisements lacked sufficient substantiation.

The D.C. Circuit affirmed the Commission's decision on January 30, 2015.

On the drug interaction warning, the evidence points the opposite way from the post's caution about cholesterol medication. A pharmacokinetic study in healthy subjects found that pomegranate juice does not affect the disposition of simvastatin and does not appear to have a clinically relevant inhibitory potential on CYP3A4 activity, in contrast to grapefruit juice.