Are there publicly available clinical trial registrations (clinicaltrials.gov) linking Dr. Paul Cox to Neurocept studies?
Executive summary
There are claims in media and organizational materials that Dr. Paul Alan Cox has advanced L‑serine research into human trials and that his Brain Chemistry Labs has run or planned clinical studies, but the documents provided here do not include any ClinicalTrials.gov registrations that explicitly link Dr. Paul Cox to studies run by or on behalf of a company called Neurocept (or similarly named sponsors) [1] [2] [3]. The official U.S. clinical trials registry exists and is cited in reporting about Alzheimer’s research, but no specific clinicaltrials.gov record tying Cox to “Neurocept” appears in the supplied reporting [4] [5].
1. What the public reporting actually says about Cox and human trials
Multiple profiles and organizational pages describe Cox taking preclinical L‑serine data to regulators and setting up clinical trials, and organizations tied to him trumpet Phase II or human trials and diagnostic work from Brain Chemistry Labs [1] [2] [6] [7]. Those pieces present Cox as an ethnobotanist who pivoted toward neurodegenerative disease work, reporting that prior non‑human primate and small human studies suggested L‑serine might slow disease progression, and that follow‑on trials were undertaken or planned [2] [6] [1].
2. What the supplied sources do not show: no clinicaltrials.gov entries provided
None of the supplied source excerpts include a ClinicalTrials.gov study record number, a direct link to a clinicaltrials.gov registration, or an exact trial title and sponsor listing that would let a reader verify a registration on the NIH registry (the registry itself is cited as the authoritative database) [4] [5]. While Fortune and related profiles reference ClinicalTrials.gov in the abstract sense when discussing Alzheimer’s research volume, those references do not establish a particular Cox‑linked Neurocept registration [5].
3. Promotional and local reporting vs. registry documentation
Much of the material about Cox’s trials appears on Brain Chemistry Labs pages, local news features, organizational press items and positive profiles that aim to highlight breakthroughs and awards, which can carry a promotional tone and emphasize planned or ongoing trials without producing registry numbers or independent trial listings [3] [8] [7]. The presence of claims that “clinical trials” exist or that the team “set up clinical trials” (as reported in Good News Network and elsewhere) does not substitute for a public registry entry that names investigators, sponsors, sites and protocol details on ClinicalTrials.gov [1] [6].
4. How reliable confirmation normally works — and what is missing here
Verification of investigator involvement in a named clinical trial normally comes from the ClinicalTrials.gov record showing the principal investigator, sponsor, or collaborator fields and a unique NCT number; none of the cited materials provide that transcriptional link to a ClinicalTrials.gov entry for a Neurocept study listing Paul Cox [4]. The sources instead offer secondary accounts — interviews, organizational announcements, and news features — which are useful context but do not replace primary registry documentation that would definitively connect Cox to a Neurocept‑sponsored registered trial [3] [2] [6].
5. Bottom line, caveats, and how to proceed
Based solely on the supplied reporting, there is no publicly available ClinicalTrials.gov registration in these materials that links Dr. Paul Cox to studies sponsored by an entity named Neurocept; sources assert trials and regulatory engagement but do not present registry identifiers or direct ClinicalTrials.gov citations to substantiate that specific linkage [1] [2] [4]. It remains possible such registrations exist outside the supplied excerpts or under different sponsor/PI names; locating them would require a direct search of ClinicalTrials.gov for NCT records listing Paul Alan Cox, Brain Chemistry Labs, Neurocept, or trial titles for L‑serine or related interventions — something the current reporting does not provide [4]. Readers should treat promotional claims in organizational press releases and favorable profiles as contextually informative but not equivalent to registry confirmation unless the NCT number and record are shown [3] [7].