When a “Dr.” Designation Doesn’t Mean Digital Expert: Why Parents Should Be Skeptical
- The White Hatter
- Jun 24
- 6 min read
Caveat - We want to acknowledge that there are highly respected Medical Doctors who are true experts and specialize in the relationship between youth, teens, and social media such as Dr Michel Rich MD, MPH (Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Harvard Medical School and Director of the Digital Wellness Lab at Boston Children’s Hospital) and Dr. Megan Moreno, MD, MSEd, MPH (Professor of Paediatrics, University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Head of Social Media and Adolescent Health Research Team)
Recently, a social media post from a U.S.-based Dr. caught fire and went viral online. This doctor enthusiastically promoted a “new research article” claiming to identify a biological marker of early screen addiction in children. The study was titled “Screen-Induced Pathological Vestibular Reflex: A Specific Marker of Early Screen Addiction” (1) and his post attracted hundreds of comments, many from well-meaning parents expressing thanks.
We get it. As parents, we’re constantly trying to make sense of how technology affects our kids. So when something gets framed as “new science,” it feels like a breakthrough. But before jumping to conclusions, it’s important to pause and ask, is it actually science?
When we looked into the article, our concern wasn’t just about what it claimed, it was about the lack of credibility behind it. The paper was written by Dr. Stoyan Vezenkov, who holds a PhD in neuroscience and runs a private for-profit neurofeedback company in Bulgaria. The study was not peer-reviewed and it wasn’t published in any established medical or scientific journal. Instead, it was self-published on a website the author personally owns, “nootism.eu.” We found it had no academic affiliations and no connection to a research institution.
Even more important, the idea at the core of the paper, that screens cause a specific “pathological vestibular reflex”, doesn’t align with the established neuroscience. In fact, peer-reviewed vestibular-vision studies suggest no such direct reflex from screen exposure. (2) So not only is the source of the paper questionable, but the science itself is out of sync with what we already know through good evidence based research.
The doctor who posted this article is a MC (Doctor of Chiropractics) and not a MD (Doctor Of Medicine) who promoted the study on his social media platform as authoritative. Many of his followers appear to be parents of young children, given his chiropractics practice is mostly kids, which makes this even more troubling. While chiropractors have an important place in health care (and many of us have personally benefited from their work), expertise in spinal alignment doesn’t extend to diagnosing screen addiction in kids based on a reflex not backed by mainstream neuroscience. It absolutely blew us away that this health care professional did not do his due diligence on this study, which was actually an opinion article with NO peer-review to support his findings, NONE!
As another example, a family physician with an M.D. recently shared a post on their public social media account (with almost 89,000 followers, mostly parents) that read:
“New Research: Yes, social media may be causing depression in adolescents. This study followed 9- to 10-year-olds for three years, here’s what it found. A new study from UC San Francisco tracked over 11,000 children between the ages of 9 and 10 across a three-year period. The researchers wanted to determine whether increased time spent on social media was linked to rising symptoms of depression. What did they find? On average, social media use increased from 7 to 73 minutes per day over the course of the study, while depressive symptoms reportedly increased by 35%. While it’s possible that more depressed kids simply use social media more, the study looked at this and found the reverse wasn’t true. This suggests that social media use may actually cause depression. This is especially important because few studies examine this age group or follow participants over such a long time.”
To the average parent, a post like this coming from a medical doctor would seem very credible. But having an M.D. doesn’t automatically mean someone is trained to interpret complex psychological research. This is especially true when the research deals with longitudinal correlations and nuanced variables. Now if the family doctor also has a strong academic background or sub specialty in research or epidemiology, that is a different story. According to their online profile, they don’t appear to have such credentials.
The study in question, though not cited in the original post, was later identified when the doctor was asked directly for its citation. (3) It was then reviewed by a research psychologist who does this kind of data interpretation professionally. Their public response to this MD family doctor was pointed:
“I’m curious, did you actually read the study and understand the methodology? Because this is what I do for a living, and your claims don’t hold up under scrutiny. This was an observational longitudinal study. That means we cannot make causal claims like the ones you posted. At best, the data suggests a weak correlation. In fact, if you look at the actual coefficients across the time points, the relationship is so small it borders on being statistically irrelevant.”
The researcher added:
“I actually agree with your broader point that children under 16 may not be ready for unsupervised access to smartphones and social media. But not for the reasons you suggest. It’s not about proven causation with depression. It’s because younger teens are the most vulnerable to being manipulated or harmed online and often struggle to separate fantasy from reality.”
They further stated:
“Yes there are some studies that show a link, but just as many if not more that show no link, or that show benefits. Hence the evidence is not conclusive”
This exchange underscores why credentials alone don’t guarantee an accurate interpretation of research. Mischaracterizing studies, especially ones involving youth mental health, can fuel moral panic and distract from the more complex, evidence-based discussions we need to be having.
In real-world terms, this study found that while the correlation is real, the magnitude of change is minimal, not the kind of shift that would, by itself, typically prompt clinical concern or intervention. It is important to remember that just because something is statistically significant, doesn’t mean it has a meaningful impact on a child’s mental health at the individual level.
The study found no significant differences in depressive symptoms between teens who used more or less social media on average, suggesting that social media, in itself, isn’t inherently harmful. It’s more about changes in use within the same person over time.
This leads us to a broader and increasingly important conversation, when it comes to health, the title “Dr.” carries real weight. But should all doctors, regardless of specialization, be considered experts in the effects of social media on children and teens?
It’s not unusual to hear a person with a Dr. beside their name declare that “social media is rewiring children’s brains.” This kind of statement sounds authoritative, especially coming from someone who has a Dr. designation. But this is what’s known as authority bias, we tend to assume that just because someone holds a respected title, their opinion is informed and accurate, even when it’s outside their wheelhouse of expertise.
This is why we here at The White Hatter encourage parents and caregivers to stay curious, not fearful. Ask tough questions. Look beyond the headlines. Prioritize evidence over emotion, and be mindful of where advice is coming from, even when it's shared by someone with “Dr.” in front of their name. We have first hand experience with this suggestion. If we hadn’t questioned a recommendation from a surgeon, Brandon, when he was a newborn, would not have likely turned into the success he is today. Was this surgeon mad at our decision, yup, but it was the right “informed” decision! (thanks to a nurse)
So the next time a well-meaning professional shares a sensational study about screen addiction or brain damage from cellphones or social media, take a step back and ask:
Was this research peer-reviewed?
Is the paper a research paper or an opinion paper that looks like a research paper.
Does it align with broader, interdisciplinary findings?
Is this expert truly trained in youth digital behaviour?
Does the expert have the research background to interpret research studies they are referencing.
Is this information helping you better guide your child, or is it playing on fear?
Raising kids in today’s onlife world isn’t easy. However, the solution isn’t louder voices. It’s wiser ones.
Related articles:
Digital Food For Thought
The White Hatter
Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech
