What official statements have Ben Carson’s representatives made about memory-product endorsements?

1. The core official denial: “never created, endorsed or even heard of this product”

Brad Bishop, identified as a spokesperson for Ben Carson’s nonprofit American Cornerstone Institute, made an explicit denial that Carson had any role in creating, endorsing or even being aware of the memory product in question, language that leaves little room for ambiguity about the official position ^[1]. That denial directly rebuts versions of a fabricated article that attributed a quotation about “olfactory stimulation” and memory loss to Carson; Bishop’s wording was precise and categorical, signaling an intent to shut down any stories tying Carson to the product ^[1].

2. The product labeled a “scam” and the story called “completely fake”

Beyond merely denying endorsement, Bishop used strong terms to discredit the product and the story itself, calling the product a “scam and completely fake,” a phrasing that elevates the response from neutral denial to active repudiation and seeks to warn the public about fraudulent claims ^[1]. That forceful language functions both as reputational defense and as consumer protection messaging, positioning Carson’s team as combating misinformation rather than merely distancing him from an endorsement ^[1].

3. Context from fact-checking: the supposed USA TODAY article never existed

Independent fact-checkers identified the viral article that tied Carson to the memory product as fabricated and noted that a site had used USA TODAY’s branding without authorization; USA TODAY itself published no such story and disclaimed affiliation with the fake site ^[1]. The existence of multiple iterations of the fake article — including versions that instead misattributed the same quote to other public figures such as Jennifer Ashton — reinforced the pattern of recycled misinformation rather than a genuine news report ^[1].

4. The spokesperson and institutional attribution: American Cornerstone Institute named

Bishop’s statement was issued in his capacity as a spokesperson for Carson’s nonprofit, the American Cornerstone Institute, which the reporting explicitly names when relaying the denial ^[1]. By speaking from that institutional platform rather than as a private spokesman, the response frames the repudiation as coming from Carson’s organizational apparatus, suggesting the denial is part of an organized effort to correct the public record ^[1].

5. What the available reporting does not show — limits of the public record

The sourced reporting documents only the denial quoted above and the fact-check finding that the USA TODAY story was fabricated; it does not provide additional statements from Carson himself, any legal threats, further follow-ups from Bishop or the Institute, or comment from the purveyors of the fake article ^[1]. Because the available source is a single fact-check item, there is no evidence in the provided reporting of any subsequent clarifications, apologies from the fake site, or independent documentation tying Carson to other memory-product endorsements ^[1].

6. Alternative interpretations and implicit agendas in circulation of the claim

The pattern in the reported misinformation — swapping celebrity names or doctor names into the same fake article template and using legitimate outlet branding — indicates an intent to exploit public trust for commercial gain or traffic, an implicit agenda the denial addresses by labeling the product a “scam” ^[1]. While the spokesperson’s strong language serves to protect Carson’s reputation, it also aligns with consumer-protection framing that helps delegitimize fraudulent health claims; the reporting does not, however, provide evidence of whether the denial prompted removal of the fake pages or legal action ^[1].