Has Dr. Sanjay Gupta appeared in paid promotional content for Neurocept?

1. Who is saying Gupta was involved — and why that matters

A consumer‑facing article investigating Neurocept’s marketing asserts the product’s ads depict well‑known figures, including Dr. Sanjay Gupta, as spokespeople — but the piece frames those appearances as part of a scam using deepfaked videos and fabricated endorsements rather than genuine paid endorsements ^[2]. That distinction matters because a real paid appearance would carry different legal and ethical implications than an unauthorized, manipulated use of a public figure’s image ^[2].

2. Dr. Gupta’s own public response: “That’s not me”

CNN records and reporting capture Dr. Gupta explicitly denouncing the use of AI to create fake product ads and addressing questions about whether he hawks or sells brain‑boosting products online; in his public statements he distances himself from such promotions and warns audiences about how to spot fakes ^{[1] [3]}. Those denials in CNN reporting are the strongest primary public statements on the record in the available sources ^{[1] [3]}.

3. Investigations and reporting label Neurocept ads as deepfake scams

A detailed writeup examining Neurocept’s marketing concludes the ads are a “deepfake scam,” noting polished emotional videos that purport to show Gupta and other recognizable figures but, on inspection, lack legitimate endorsements or evidence of clinical breakthroughs claimed by the product ^[2]. That reporting treats the appearances as fabricated elements of a sales funnel rather than lawful celebrity promotions ^[2].

4. Evidence absent from available reporting: no proof of paid endorsement

Available sources do not include documents, contracts, press releases, or statements from Neurocept indicating Dr. Gupta accepted payment to appear in their ads. Likewise, they do not present verified on‑camera footage of Gupta endorsing Neurocept that is acknowledged by him or by CNN ^{[2] [1] [3]}. Because the available reporting centers on denials and calls the ads fake, there is no basis in these sources to conclude a paid endorsement took place ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Competing viewpoints and accountability mechanisms

The consumer‑investigative piece treats the company’s marketing as deceptive and criminally exploitive of trust, while Dr. Gupta’s comments in CNN reporting emphasize technological misuse and media literacy — both perspectives converge on the point that the videos are not legitimate endorsements ^{[2] [1]}. The sources do not present Neurocept’s side (for example, an explicit company denial or defense), so accountability reporting relies on identification of deepfake indicators and Gupta’s repudiation ^{[2] [1]}.

6. What to watch next — practical implications for consumers and for reporting

Follow‑up evidence that would change this picture includes legally verifiable proof of payment, an admission from the company, or authenticated footage of Gupta consenting to promotion — none of which appear in current reporting ^{[2] [1] [3]}. In the meantime, the combination of an investigative article calling the ads a scam and Dr. Gupta’s public denials together form the best available basis to treat the Neurocept‑Gupta linkage as fabricated rather than a bona fide paid endorsement ^{[2] [1]}.

Limitations: these conclusions are strictly drawn from the supplied reporting; available sources do not mention any contractual records, Neurocept’s official rebuttal, or third‑party verification that would definitively settle company intent or potential legal action ^{[2] [1] [3]}.