iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 11/08/2026

Dermomtology on Instagram posted a nice carousel summing it up a few weeks back! 😊

000

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 09/08/2026

Sure! Email is probably easiest - Michelle at labmuffin dot com

000

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 08/08/2026

Thanks so much to Dr @jordanbharrod for helping me with this 😊 This is adapted from my YT video on AI slop scicomm, which she also helped me with! Her work is an excellent resource for understanding AI hype. Will post a proper article version of this soon!

1241

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 08/08/2026

Here’s why AI chatbots (Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini etc) are unreliable for science content, and terrible as “just a starting point” for science communicators. Unfortunately, this probably isn’t something AI chatbots get much better at… although sloppers will get better at hiding it!

413453

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 04/08/2026

Yeah you don't want to keep messing around with the kimchi, you need to give it time to ferment

040

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 03/08/2026

Yeah there was definitely a lot of human slop in the literature before the AI slop (a lot of general reviews are written by med students for resume purposes), but AI has accelerated it a lot...

010

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 01/08/2026

That would explain a lot about this video actually - I've come across a lot of recent slop review papers in medical journals that disclose generative AI use, and have these myths in them...

1100

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 23/07/2026

I think a big reason that it doesn't feel accurate is because this study counted ads as "highly viewed posts"... bsky.app/profile/labm...

000

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 09/07/2026

More commentary from me: docs.google.com/document/d/1... Article where I debunk 2 of the 3 TikTok people in the CBC News screenshot - one is a dermatologist who sells a sun protective supplement that he often equates to sunscreen (also comes as a YouTube video): labmuffin.com/sunscreen-sa...

docs.google.com

Commentary on Marcon et al. PLOS Sunscreen Misinformation

Commentary without access to SI Dr Michelle Wong, Lab Muffin Beauty Science Summarised on Scimex: https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/sharing-misinformation-about-sunscreen-gets-you-more-engagement-on-tik...

180

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 09/07/2026

I recently spoke at the Science Misinfo Symposium - later, some social media researchers told me they weren't aware of some conventions mentioned in my talk. IMO low-hanging fruit for getting better data about social media would be to get input from content creators - many would be happy to help!

171

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 09/07/2026

IME, sunscreen misinfo is often underestimated because most people believe some of it, including many experts (dermatologists, chemists…). Sunscreen science is interdisciplinary - it's difficult to spot. I rarely see an article about sunscreen misinfo that doesn't contain some.

181

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 09/07/2026

Perceived institutional endorsement is IME very important for the spread and impact of sunscreen misinfo - authority bias is powerful! I've seen many people cite intros of peer-reviewed papers as "gold-standard science". "Minerals reflect" is the origin of many sticky myths repeated by derms.

Misinformation family tree, labelled "misinformation multiplies". Starts with "Chemical sunscreens absorb UV and convert it to heat, physical sunscreens reflect UV", which turns into "Chemical sunscreens need to absorb into skin to activate and work", which turns into "Chemical sunscreens protect less skin because they get absorbed while physical sunscreens sit on top" and "Physical sunscreens protect immediately but chemical sunscreens have a wait time". First myth also births "Chemical sunscreens absorb UV via a chemical reaction so they aren't photostable" which turns into "You only need to reapply chemical sunscreens, not physical". The first myth also turns into "Physical sunscreens reflect all wavelengths so they're broad spectrum but chemical sunscreens aren't" which births "Chemical sunscreens don't give as high UV protection as zinc oxide" and "Physical sunscreens are effective against blue light". First myth also turns into "Chemical sunscreens produce heat that triggers melasma and rosacea".

181

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 09/07/2026

SUNSCREEN MISINFO IN PAPER INTRO * Benzene contamination was not a real health concern, even for recalled products * Mineral sunscreens don't work differently to chemical sunscreens * Diligent sunscreen use can reduce vitamin D As the paper states, a myth seen repeatedly feels true.

Screenshot from paper with misinformation highlighted: "certain products were recalled for having detectable levels of benzene" "this concern pertained only to a few specific products"

Screenshot from paper with misinformation highlighted: "a mineral or "natural" sunscreen that blocks UV rays versus a "chemical" sunscreen that absorbs and deactivates rays" and "in no circumstance is not using sunscreen a safer option than using a "chemical" product during sun exposure." For the latter, there is a note: "Questionable risk/benefit ratio in some cases e.g. very low UV index, indoors, photoallergic reactions, dark skin tone…"

Screenshot from paper with misinformation highlighted: the paper says "limiting absorption of Vitamin D" is an example of sunscreen misinformation

Screenshot from paper with highlighted statement: "Repeated exposures to this sort of misinformation not only enhances the potential for online viral spreads but increases perceptions of accuracy among all audiences"

1100

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 09/07/2026

So while IMO sunscreen misinformation probably does get more engagement, I don't think this data is good evidence for it. I think it's just finding that clearly disclosed paid advertising gets less engagement than the organic content people came to the platform to see. Not exactly surprising!

170

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 09/07/2026

Again, my own data shows how much less engaging boosted content is - by up to 160 times. You can also see the difference in engagement in the top 10 viewed videos in the study's dataset.

Table of some @labmuffinbeautyscience TikTok video stats, 2023-2025 - this is available in a Google Doc linked at the end of the thread. Sponsored and boosted videos have high views but required more views to get a like, and a comment. Unboosted sponsored videos from a similar time have low views and few comments. Unsponsored videos generally have more comments. The unsponsored videos promoting products are from 2023, since they were the closest videos in date that were highly viewed videos promoting a product - I don't promote products enough it seems!

150

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 09/07/2026

I also did a quick pass over the rest to mark the ones I thought were likely boosted. Boosted views were likely 38.5-49.5% of the total views used in the analysis - a decent confounder?

150

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 09/07/2026

CLAIM 2 "Health misinformation about sunscreen attracts disproportionately high audience engagement" I categorised the top 44 videos in the dataset (representing 40% of views in the analysis). Of these, only 7-15 were likely unboosted. You can see the huge difference in engagement!

170

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 09/07/2026

TikTok doesn't seem to think so either - they count boosted views as less when you sort by "popular"... (Note that this means TikTok has the data! They could share it with researchers!)

170

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 09/07/2026

Sure, boosted videos technically got lots of views… but are they really part of the platform's "dominant narrative"? Would the "dominant narrative" on YouTube be supportive of BetterHelp, or NordVPN, or KFC, or whatever ads you get in your region? I personally don't think so.

170

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 09/07/2026

My normal sponsored post view count at the time was ~23.5K. This means roughly 99.7% of the views on my boosted videos were "inorganic" - paid to be shown to more people, and clearly labelled that way!

170

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 09/07/2026

e.g. Here's some of my own data Average watch time: Boosted sponsored post = 1.4 & 3.6 sec Unboosted sponsored post = 8.2 & 11.3 sec Unboosted organic content = 14.9 to 30.2 sec Views per like/comment indicate views needed to "earn" an interaction - a measure of engagement.

170

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 09/07/2026

"Boosted" ad views are not the same as regular views. * People swipe away clearly labelled ads quickly without registering them. * Boosted ads aren't matched to users via the platform's algorithm, so they're inherently less likely to engage the user.

180

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 09/07/2026

i.e. 8 or 9 out of the top 10 posts were boosted. This is because only the top video from each creator was included in the analysis. It's almost impossible for a creator's top video to be a clearly disclosed ad without boosting. Sponsored posts almost always get low engagement and low reach.

180

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 09/07/2026

Brands often boost videos they paid creators to make (ads), plus their own posts. I didn't realise this was an issue until I saw the SI… Of the top 10 videos in their dataset: 6 = clearly disclosed ads 2 = posts from brands 1 = likely undisclosed ad Only 1 was likely organic (regular) content.

180

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 09/07/2026

ISSUE 2 This is more subtle - I'd guess only TikTok creators who do sponsorships are really aware of it: The view count used in the study included boosted views. "Boosting" is when a brand pays $$$ for a video to get more views from a target audience (location, age, gender, interests etc).

180

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 09/07/2026

I think the inaccurate estimate comes from issues with the methodology: ISSUE 1 Videos were found using sunscreen-related hashtags. Hashtags have declined in use since ~2022, especially on TikTok - the algo is very good, so hashtags probably don't reflect what people are seeing.

tiktok-audit.com

#️⃣ Hashtags Horizons: What we see and what not | auditing TikTok

An analysis of the prevalence of hashtags on TikTok

190

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 09/07/2026

I don't think 1.5% passes a sniff test for what's seen on TikTok. Quick example: CBC News showed this TikTok screenshot when they covered this study… 3 out of the 4 top videos that came up when searching "sunscreen" suggest chemical sunscreens are toxic - pretty far from 1.5%.

Screenshot from CBC News Edmonton showing a screenshot of a TikTok search for sunscreen - 3 out of 4 videos send the message "avoid chemical sunscreens", the 4th video is still misinfo, but at least nothing about big health risks

190

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 09/07/2026

CLAIM 1 "Overall, the dominant narrative on TikTok promotes sunscreen use" "Our findings indicate that [sunscreen misinformation] constitutes a small portion of the most viewed videos" They estimate only 1.5% of highly viewed sunscreen TikToks state it causes harm.

170

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 09/07/2026

I've probably been the top sunscreen mythbuster online for the last decade, so I have thoughts! It's super cool that sunscreen misinfo is being formally studied! Big props to the authors for recognising this problem. But there's misinfo in the paper, and IMO the main claims aren't well-supported…

1257

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 09/06/2026

I do a lot of short form videos as well as long form! I think my long form work is a lot better, but short form is faster for debunking viral misinfo instagram.com/labmuffinbeautyscience

instagram.com

Instagram

Create an account or log in to Instagram - Share what you're into with the people who get you.

020

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 03/06/2026

Thank you! It's infuriating how far that myth has spread.

130

Reposted by Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science

Kathryn Brightbill ✒️ @kebrightbill.bsky.social · 30/05/2026

I love that @labmuffin.com once again goes into how the coral bleaching thing is not accurate. That particular bit of misinformation makes me angry, especially since Florida just went through a major bleaching event a few years ago that left a species extinct in the wild, purely due to temperature.

youtu.be

The Worst Sunscreen Misinformation: 2026 Edition

YouTube video by Lab Muffin Beauty Science

14210

Reposted by Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science

marcelavy @m.sunscreen.cc · 24/05/2026

The Worst Sunscreen Misinformation: 2026 Edition www.youtube.com/watch?v=wATB... By @labmuffin.com

youtube.com

The Worst Sunscreen Misinformation: 2026 Edition

YouTube video by Lab Muffin Beauty Science

1154

Reposted by Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science

Stéphane Bisinger @sbisinger.bsky.social · 09/04/2026

A very nice discussion about how AI subtly fails us and makes us lose our critical thinking skills. I quite enjoyed it! By @labmuffin.com youtu.be/xcq5XYkFJfY?...

youtu.be

AI slop has hit the science creators

YouTube video by Lab Muffin Beauty Science

1212

Reposted by Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science

Virginia Schutte @vgwschutte.bsky.social · 13/04/2026

Free science of scicomm summit (and click through to learn about Eco Well): www.theecowell.com/science-in-s... About BeautySciComm (co-founded by @labmuffin.com, Jen, and Omar Adam Husain): beautyscicomm.com

theecowell.com

Science of Science Communication E-Summit — The Eco Well

132

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 17/01/2026

The best sunscreen is the one you can use a lot of, regularly - and don't forget to use sunscreen in conjunction with protective clothing, hats, shade and sunglasses when the UV index is set to hit 3 or over 😎 You can see my discussion with Dr Myro in the comments on his IG post.

2250

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 17/01/2026

It's also important to consider the downsides of the alternatives - mineral sunscreens have a lot of drawbacks, very few people end up being able to use them regularly (if you genuinely prefer mineral sunscreens that's fine, just watch out for separation and adequate application!)

2210

Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science @labmuffin.com · 17/01/2026

A lot of chemical #sunscreen fear is from animal/in vitro studies taken out of context, without comparing exposure in those studies to the actual amounts we're exposed to from sunscreens. Safety limits have massive buffers (100-fold margin of safety, from eg. no observed adverse effect level).

2688

Reposted by Dr Michelle Wong - Lab Muffin Beauty Science

Jonathan Howard @joho.bsky.social · 05/11/2025

Our current medical establishment all said the opposite was true. Full article: www.newscientist.com/article/2502...

522171