08/11/2025
When Followers Do the Selling: Spotting Social Media Comments That Push Pseudoscience
For early-career SLPs (and anyone else who needs it), a guide to spotting the groupthink and empty comments that keep weak, unproven practices alive.
Pseudoscience in our field doesn’t just spread because of what is being sold and marketed well. It spreads because of the loyal followers who turn themselves into an unpaid sales force. They’re the hype squad, the echo chamber, the reason bad ideas travel farther than good ones.
Here’s how it usually plays out.
Someone asks an honest, reasonable question about a trendy but questionable practice: GLP, S2C, OFM, TOT overdiagnosis, SI, Vizualizing and Verbalizing, Listening Programs, Primitive Reflex Integration, etc., or whatever the current pseudoscience flavor of the month/year happens to be.
They’re looking for real discussion, credible sources, and a better understanding of what’s being offered.
Instead, the first wave of comments rolls in:
“Follow this Instagram account, he/she/they are amazing!”
“Take this course, it completely changed my practice!”
“Join this cohort, you’ll never do therapy the same way again.”
“Sign up for this paid study group, you’ll learn so much!”
“DM me, I’ll tell you all about it.”
“You have to go to this _____ workshop, it’s a game changer.”
“Join this Facebook group; they have all the references.”
So what’s missing? For starters, a critical examination of the claims, credible peer-reviewed research instead of weak or low-quality studies, and acknowledgment of limitations and serious gaps in the evidence, gaps that may lead to wasted therapy time, unnecessary expense for families, false hope, delayed access to proven interventions, or even unnecessary medical procedures such as surgery.
When these methods are applied to clients on your caseload, the cost isn’t just financial; it can mean missed developmental windows and poorer long-term outcomes.
It’s all marketing, no substance, and it’s coming from the cheer squad, not the original seller.
Push for evidence (or state that there's no evidence), and the tone shifts instantly:
Accusations of hostility: “You’re being aggressive,” “You’re attacking people,” “This feels like bullying,” or “You’re tearing down others instead of building them up.” The goal is to make the questioner feel like the bad guy for asking a reasonable question.
Deflections: “Buyers can figure it out themselves,” “We’re all adults here,” “Do your own research,” or “If it doesn’t work for you, just move on.” These comments shift the burden entirely to the buyer while dodging the question about whether the method even works.
Permission-slips for bad practice: “Sellers can sell what they want, it’s the buyer’s responsibility,” “Everyone’s entitled to share what’s worked for them,” “There’s room for all approaches,” or “If it helps just one client, it’s worth it.” These statements normalize weak or harmful practices by framing them as harmless personal choices.
False balance: “There’s evidence on both sides,” “We have to respect all perspectives,” or “Science doesn’t have all the answers yet.” This creates the illusion of legitimate debate where none exists.
Misdirection: Instead of addressing the question, the conversation pivots to an unrelated issue (“Why are you so worried about this when there are bigger problems in the field?”).
Appeals to authority without substance: “This was recommended by one of the leading experts in ...” “Clinics who use this approach have huge waitlists,” or “This presenter has been an SLP for over 30 years, they know what's up!” The name-dropping makes it sound credible, but there’s still no actual evidence behind the claim. These comments rely on reputation instead of data.
These aren’t reasonable and logical arguments. They’re group-think reflexes, designed to protect the in-group, not the evidence. They work because they shut down scrutiny, make the critic look unreasonable, and keep the marketing pipeline open.
Pay attention to these patterns. The danger isn’t just in the flashy ads or the “transformative” course titles. It’s in the crowd that rushes in to defend them without ever addressing the question.
When you see instant recommendations with no depth, no citations, and no acknowledgment of limitations, you’re not watching a professional conversation. You’re watching unpaid marketing.
And here’s the bottom line: the more we confuse popularity with actual evidence, the faster we hand over our field to whoever has the loudest fan club.
