Which medical organizations issued statements on Dr. Ben Carson's 'blue honey' comments?

1. What the reporting actually documents: fabricated endorsements and altered media

Multiple fact‑check stories collected here document a pattern of social posts and ads claiming Ben Carson endorsed miracle treatments — from gummies to nasal sprays to dietary “cures” for dementia — but those articles conclude the headlines and clips are fabricated or manipulated and that Carson did not make the endorsements (AFP, Reuters, Lead Stories) ^{[1] [5] [2] [3]}. University media‑forensics work and independent fact‑checkers flagged altered audio and deepfake indicators in videos used to sell unproven products, underscoring that the controversy centers on fake promotional material rather than verified medical commentary by Carson ^[4].

2. Fact‑checkers and their findings — who spoke and what they said

AFP and Reuters investigated specific social posts and reported that screenshots and articles attributing natural cures or blood‑pressure advice to Carson were fabricated, with CNN‑branded screenshots and other fake headlines circulating widely; those agencies explicitly labeled the posts false ^{[1] [2]}. AFP’s December 2024 reporting on Alzheimer’s‑product ads likewise found altered clips and no evidence Carson was associated with the product, and noted experts said there is no evidence the product is effective ^[5]. These are the primary public corrections documented in the provided sources rather than statements from medical professional societies ^{[1] [5] [2]}.

3. Carson’s camp consistently denies involvement

Representatives for Carson and organizations tied to him issued categorical denials that he endorsed or was aware of the products promoted in these adverts; the American Cornerstone Institute and other spokespeople told Reuters and AFP that the posts were fabrications and that Carson “has not endorsed or ever heard of this” ^{[2] [3] [5]}. Those denials are the clearest, repeatedly cited response in the record supplied, and they come from Carson’s representatives rather than from independent medical licensing boards or specialty societies ^{[2] [3]}.

4. The absence of medical‑organization statements in the record and what that implies

The materials provided do not include any statements from national medical organizations — for example the American Medical Association, American Academy of Neurology, or state medical boards — either criticizing or supporting Carson over “blue honey” or related claims; fact‑check coverage instead focused on the falsity of the promotional content and the role of manipulated audio/video ^{[1] [4] [5] [2]}. Because the supplied sources concentrate on misinformation policing and spokesman denials, it is not possible from these reports to assert that leading medical societies issued statements one way or another about “blue honey”; that gap may reflect that these claims were treated primarily as consumer‑fraud issues by journalists and fact‑checkers rather than as clinical controversies warranting society‑level responses ^{[1] [5] [2]}.

5. Why that matters — trust, misinformation and where to look next

The documented pattern — manipulated clips and fabricated headlines pushed in ads and social posts, followed by fact‑check corrections and denials by Carson’s representatives — illustrates how celebrity images are used to market unproven remedies, and why medical organizations sometimes do not respond individually to every viral claim ^{[1] [4] [5]}. For confirmation about any statements from specific medical societies about “blue honey,” the available reporting does not suffice; direct searches of society press rooms or public statements would be necessary because the fact‑checks and media‑forensics cited here do not record such organizational responses ^{[1] [4] [5] [2]}.