Which clinical trials has neurocept conducted under dr paul cox's leadership?
Executive summary
Under Paul Alan Cox’s leadership the primary clinical work documented in these sources centers on human trials of the amino acid L‑serine run through his nonprofit research arm (Brain Chemistry Labs / Institute for EthnoMedicine), including a small Phase I six‑month ALS safety trial reported in 2017 and later Phase II programs for ALS, Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) — notably a 125‑patient Phase II MCI study launched in collaboration with Houston Methodist in 2022; there is no sourced evidence that a commercial company called “Neurocept” itself conducted those clinical trials [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. The 2017 Phase I ALS trial: what was done and how it’s described
Cox published results in early 2017 of a six‑month clinical trial testing varying doses of L‑serine in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS); the trial is described as a Phase I safety study conducted by independent laboratories in San Francisco and Phoenix and reported to show that L‑serine was safe for human use in that small study [1].
2. Subsequent Phase II work for ALS and Alzheimer’s: collaborators and scope
Following the Phase I safety readout, reporting indicates Dartmouth physicians moved forward with Phase II trials: Elijah Stommel is cited as overseeing a Phase II trial of ALS patients on 30 grams/day of L‑serine, while Aleksandra Starck (Starck) is described as supervising a Phase II trial of Alzheimer’s patients at the same dosage, signaling a translational push from the nonprofit into modestly sized efficacy studies rather than large registrational trials [1].
3. The 2022 Phase II MCI trial with Houston Methodist: size and status
Multiple organizational summaries report that Brain Chemistry Labs, under Cox’s executive directorship, began a 125‑patient trial of L‑serine for Mild Cognitive Impairment in collaboration with the Houston Methodist Research Institute in August 2022; this is repeatedly framed as an FDA‑approved Phase II clinical trial aimed at testing L‑serine’s potential to slow cognitive decline [2] [5].
4. Preclinical work and the scientific rationale Cox cites
Cox’s program rests on observational and laboratory findings: studies of longevity and diet in Ogimi, Okinawa, and nonhuman primate/cell studies are used to argue that dietary L‑serine protected against formation of brain tangles and plaques, and those preclinical signals motivated the human trials and the FDA interactions described in Cox’s accounts [2] [3] [5].
5. What “Neurocept” shows in the public record and the limits of available reporting
Public review sites and promotional material reference a product or company named Neurocept and list Cox’s name in marketing, but the available sources do not document Neurocept itself sponsoring or operating the clinical trials described; instead, the trials are attributed to Brain Chemistry Labs / Institute for Ethnomedicine and academic collaborators [4] [6] [2]. The reporting analyzed does not supply clinical‑trial registry identifiers, full protocols, or peer‑reviewed Phase II results for the Alzheimer’s/MCI trials, so assertions about outcomes or regulatory success cannot be substantiated from these sources alone [1] [2] [3].
6. Alternative perspectives and implicit agendas in the reporting
Sources include nonprofit and promotional outlets (Brain Chemistry Labs pages, organizational press releases, and sympathetic profiles like GoodNewsNetwork and GCA news) that emphasize promise and positive framing of Cox’s work; Fortune supplies more traditional investigative context about the wider Alzheimer’s R&D crisis while confirming the Phase I ALS safety paper, so readers should weigh nonprofit advocacy and marketing (which may seek funding or attention) against independent peer‑reviewed trial outcome reporting, which is not fully present in the documents provided [1] [3] [7] [2].