Has Neurocept issued a statement about the Ben Carson ad?

1. Why the question matters: false endorsements drive consumer harm

The Ben Carson ad in circulation has been flagged by multiple fact‑checkers as a false endorsement promoting unproven treatments and supplements, a pattern that frequently targets older adults and vulnerable consumers. Fact‑checking organizations documented that Carson’s nonprofit publicly denied he endorsed the products in question, calling the posts “fake” and “a scam,” and Reba McEntire’s team likewise denied involvement ^{[1] [3]}. Those denials are important because they establish victim status for the named public figures; they do not, however, imply any comment from product companies such as Neurocept. The absence of a company statement matters because corporate responses can clarify liability, pull deceptive ads, or distance a brand, and here that clarifying voice is missing from the public record ^{[1] [3]}.

2. What the fact‑check record actually says: denials from people, silence from Neurocept

Multiple fact‑checks catalog the deception: scam ads used Ben Carson’s image or an alleged endorsement to sell erectile‑dysfunction or Alzheimer’s‑related products, and journalists traced those claims to third‑party advertisers rather than the named celebrities ^{[2] [1]}. These reports quote spokespeople for Carson and for other celebrities who explicitly denied any endorsement ^{[1] [3]}. Fact‑checkers published these dispelling findings on dates ranging from January to December 2024, and July 2024 for related scam ad coverage ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Nowhere in these accounts is there a Neurocept-issued statement addressing the Ben Carson ad; the record shows spokespeople for the celebrities but not for this company ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

3. Attempts to verify Neurocept commentary: no trace in primary reporting

Searches through the available fact‑check coverage and news reporting yield no primary source in which Neurocept comments on the Ben Carson ad. The AFP and other outlets reporting on fake endorsements either quoted celebrity nonprofits or their publicists and focused on advertising platforms and third‑party sellers rather than manufacturer rebuttals ^{[2] [3]}. Independent analyses that examined the possibility of fraud found no documented endorsement by Ben Carson for Neurocept and found no company press release or social‑media post from Neurocept addressing the controversy ^{[4] [1]}. That silence is itself an evidentiary point: absence of a response in public records suggests Neurocept did not publicly engage with these particular fact‑checks or denials ^{[4] [1]}.

4. Alternative explanations and what they imply for accountability

There are plausible reasons why Neurocept might not have issued a statement: the company may not have been named in the original ad, the ad could be run by unrelated third‑party affiliates or scammers using the product name, or legal counsel may have advised silence to avoid amplifying fraudulent content. Fact‑checkers documented a broader scam ecosystem that frequently exploits celebrity images and misleading copy, rather than coordinated manufacturer advertising ^{[2] [3]}. That pattern implies that regulatory action, ad‑platform takedowns, or legal pursuit against ad operators—not necessarily a Neurocept public statement—are the primary avenues for redress in many of these cases ^{[2] [1]}.

5. Bottom line for readers seeking confirmation: current evidence and next steps

As of the latest published fact‑checks and reporting through December 2024, there is no verifiable Neurocept statement about the Ben Carson ad; the documented responses come from Carson’s nonprofit and other celebrity representatives denying endorsements ^{[1] [3]}. If you need confirmation beyond these sources, the next steps are to check Neurocept’s official newsroom or SEC filings for any subsequent press releases, review ad‑platform takedown notices, or query the company directly for comment. Until a documented Neurocept statement appears in a reliable outlet, the best-supported conclusion is that no such company statement exists in the public record ^{[1] [2] [3]}.