Which independent fact-checking organizations have reviewed Neurocept's video and what were their conclusions?

1. What the supplied sources actually reviewed: consumer complaints and investigative blog posts

The documents in the search results are consumer reviews and independent blog articles, not formal fact‑checks: Trustpilot host user complaints alleging the company used AI images of public figures to imply endorsements (the Trustpilot review cites AI‑generated images of Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Ben Carson and Bruce Willis) ^[2]. Ibisik’s investigative post states there are no clinical trials, accuses Neurocept of cloned websites and fake endorsements, and explicitly calls out “deepfake” or non‑existent endorsements from named journalists and celebrities ^[1]. These pieces present journalistic‑style exposés but are different in form and process from accredited fact‑checking organizations ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Conclusions these sources reached: deceptive marketing and lack of evidence

The sources conclude Neurocept’s marketing is deceptive and unsupported by clinical proof. Ibisik states there are no clinical trials proving Neurocept reverses Alzheimer’s and calls the product a “predatory” scam that uses false celebrity endorsements ^[1]. Trustpilot reviews accuse the company of deceptive tactics, including AI‑generated endorsements and discrepancies between advertised and shipped ingredients ^[2]. These conclusions focus on marketing practices and absence of transparent scientific evidence rather than a formal, methodology‑documented fact‑check process ^{[1] [2]}.

3. What’s not in the supplied reporting: named independent fact‑checkers and formal verdicts

The supplied results do not show any checks or verdicts from independent fact‑checking organizations such as Snopes, AP Fact Check, PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, or the Poynter Institute’s International Fact‑Checking Network. The sources instead are consumer reviews, newswire-style product reviews, and independent blog investigations; therefore, available sources do not mention formal reviews or ratings issued by established fact‑checking outfits ^{[3] [4] [5] [1]}.

4. Conflicting viewpoints and limitations of the sources

Some commercial review pieces (e.g., Newswire / AccessNewswire / Your Health Magazine entries) present Neurocept as a mainstream brain‑support supplement and emphasise potential benefits or “fact‑checked” product descriptions, framing it as an adjunct to lifestyle measures ^{[4] [3] [5]}. Those pages contrast with Ibisik and Trustpilot reports that label the product deceptive and warn of fake endorsements ^{[1] [2]}. The supplied sources mix promotional content and skeptical consumer reporting; none explains a neutral, reproducible fact‑checking method, which limits confidence in definitive conclusions ^{[4] [1] [2]}.

5. What to watch next and how to verify independently

To determine whether widely recognized fact‑checkers have reviewed the Neurocept video, check primary fact‑check sites (Snopes, AP, PolitiFact, FactCheck.org) and the International Fact‑Checking Network’s database for any entries postdating these sources — the supplied material does not contain those checks ^{[1] [2]}. For claims about deepfakes and endorsements, consult digital‑forensics analyses or statements from the named public figures; the supplied sources assert fake endorsements but do not include forensic verification from independent multimedia experts ^{[1] [2]}.

6. Bottom line for readers

Based on the provided material, independent mainstream fact‑checking organizations are not shown to have reviewed Neurocept’s video; the public record in these sources is a mix of consumer complaints and investigative blog posts asserting deceptive marketing and fake endorsements, while some commercial review pages present more favorable product descriptions ^{[1] [2] [4]}. Readers should treat the allegations seriously but seek corroboration from established fact‑checkers or forensic analysts because the supplied sources vary in journalistic rigor and methodology ^{[1] [2] [4]}.