Has Dr. Gupta’s Alzheimer’s relief formula undergone peer-reviewed clinical trials and what were the outcomes?

1. Who Dr. Gupta is, and what the sources actually say

Dr. Sanjay Gupta is presented in these sources as CNN’s chief medical correspondent, a practicing neurosurgeon and an author who reports on brain health and Alzheimer’s, not as an inventor of a clinically tested drug; CNN and affiliated outlets describe his reporting, books and podcasts on brain health rather than clinical‑trial sponsorship ^{[3] [6] [7]}. A CNN podcast item specifically debunks a circulating ad that uses Gupta’s likeness to promote a “natural cure” for Alzheimer’s and calls the clip a deepfake or false ad, warning consumers that the claim is untrue ^[1].

2. No peer‑reviewed clinical trials of a “Gupta formula” are shown in the results

Search results include major trial reporting and industry overviews — for example, a Nature Medicine phase 2b trial of liraglutide in Alzheimer’s and a 2025 pipeline review — but none of the provided items report a peer‑reviewed clinical trial of a formula attributed to Dr. Gupta ^{[8] [4]}. Clinical‑trial registries are referenced as the place trials must be registered, and a center listing shows active trials, but no entry in the supplied snippets ties Gupta to an investigational product or published trial results ^{[5] [4]}.

3. Examples of legitimate trial reporting in the sources, for contrast

The Nature Medicine item describes a multicenter, randomized, double‑blind, placebo‑controlled phase 2b trial (ELAD) of liraglutide in 204 people with mild‑to‑moderate Alzheimer’s, concluding safety but no significant slowing of brain metabolism decline — this is an example of the type of peer‑reviewed clinical trial reporting that would substantiate a therapeutic claim, and it is present in the results ^[8]. Industry communications about Merck’s early‑phase candidates likewise show the standard pathway: first‑in‑human and phase 2 data presented at conferences and registered trials on ClinicalTrials.gov ^[9].

4. Why the social‑media claim about “Gupta’s formula” is suspect

A CNN podcast explicitly labels an ad claiming Gupta discovered a natural cure as a deepfake and warns audiences not to trust it; that source also notes Gupta would publicly announce any real breakthrough — a media figureing claiming personal discovery without verifiable trial registration or peer‑review is a red flag ^[1]. The supplied materials emphasize that legitimate Alzheimer’s interventions appear via registered trials and peer‑reviewed journals, not anonymous social ads ^{[4] [5]}.

5. What peer‑reviewed clinical evidence would look like — and is missing here

Peer‑reviewed evidence would include trial registration (ClinicalTrials.gov or equivalent), published methods, sample size, endpoints and statistical outcomes in a journal (examples of such reporting appear in Nature Medicine for liraglutide). The available search results contain those kinds of published trials for other agents but have no equivalent published, peer‑reviewed study attributing a tested “relief formula” to Dr. Gupta ^{[8] [4]}.

6. How to verify any future claim about a “Gupta” treatment

Require (a) trial registration number on ClinicalTrials.gov, (b) peer‑reviewed publication with methods and results (as in the ELAD liraglutide paper), and (c) confirmation from independent academic or regulatory sources. None of these verification breadcrumbs are present in the supplied reporting about a Gupta formula; instead, the materials warn about false ads and deepfakes ^{[1] [4] [5]}.

Limitations: The provided set of sources may not be exhaustive. Available sources do not mention any peer‑reviewed clinical trial of a “Dr. Gupta Alzheimer’s relief formula” nor do they report trial identifiers or results tied to him ^{[1] [8] [4]}.