Why are medical professionals becoming the focus of attention?

The identity of "doctor" inherently carries a sense of authority. In traditional media, doctors are often calm and restrained providers of knowledge, but in the era of social platforms, medical professionals are gradually transforming into opinion leaders. A blogger in a white coat appears on camera, using clear and concise language to discuss hypertension management, diabetes diets, or demonstrate the operation of certain testing devices, often making viewers feel "reasonable and credible."

Many viewers see "internet celebrity doctors" as an "extended consultation room" outside of traditional hospital outpatient services, especially during the pandemic, when faced with the reality of difficulty in seeing a doctor and slow registration, online medical content quickly became popular. "They can be understood and have a medical background" is the key to attracting fans for this type of content. For the doctors themselves, the number of followers and influence can not only expand professional boundaries but may also translate into commercial value.

Because of this, a group of doctors actively participate in short video creation, live streaming sales, and collaborate with brands to recommend instruments and medications. From blood glucose meters to pulse electric stimulators, and even some photon skin rejuvenation devices priced at tens of thousands of yuan, doctors are beginning to become "recommenders" of these products, rather than just prescribers.

How is recommending medical devices different from recommending ordinary consumer goods?

When recommending a juicer or a floor cleaner, viewers may only care about whether the function is good and the price is affordable. However, recommending a medical device is entirely different—it involves health management, may produce intervention results, and even pose a risk of misdiagnosis.

Medical devices can be roughly divided into three categories: the first category includes low-risk products, such as medical gauze and fever patches; the second category includes moderate-risk devices, such as blood pressure monitors and thermometers; the third category includes high-risk products, such as pacemakers and blood dialysis machines. Many products promoted by "doctor influencers" fall between the second and third categories, having a certain degree of medical intervention while also branding themselves under "home health management."

For example, a "pulse magnetic therapy device" priced at several thousand yuan is claimed in a doctor's live stream to relieve chronic lumbar disease and improve knee joint degeneration. An "orthopedic doctor" explains in detail how magnetic field frequency affects bone tissue repair, using professional terminology and standard operations, making it convincing. But the questions are:

Has this product been approved by the National Medical Products Administration?

Is the claimed "effectiveness" supported by evidence-based medicine?

Do users understand its contraindications and potential risks?

Once recommendations exceed scientific evidence or imply that the device can replace formal treatment, it can easily mislead consumers. Ordinary viewers may not have the ability to distinguish between the "medical" and "marketing" lines in the recommended content, especially when the host holds the identity of a "doctor," making the trust transfer mechanism easily activated.

How does marketing logic infiltrate medical language?

In "doctor influencer" content, a common rhetoric is to closely bind medical principles with product functions. For example: "Your back pain is due to muscle hypoxia, and this device uses high-frequency pulse stimulation to give your muscles 'oxygen' back," "Diabetics must self-monitor, and this blood glucose meter's accompanying app is better than the hospital's," "This home nebulizer will cure your child's cough in three days."

The brilliance of this rhetoric lies in its use of the "hardcore" nature of medical terminology while bypassing the rigorous requirements of clinical evidence chains. It simplifies the explanation of principles into "causal relationships," turns statistical results into "inevitable conclusions," and creates consumer anxiety based on this.

To some extent, the "medicalization" in marketing rhetoric is replacing traditional popular science paths. In the past, doctors emphasized healthy habits and lifestyle management, but now they may be replaced by a phrase like "buying this is more efficient." Some accounts even deliberately create "information gaps," such as citing "latest research findings" without providing references or using "it's already popular abroad" to elevate product authority.

Such practices are not isolated. A 2024 survey shows that among active doctor accounts on social platforms, over 62% of medical device recommendation content did not mark commercial cooperation identifiers, and about 35% had issues with expanding indications or efficacy descriptions. This means that what viewers see as "doctor recommendations" may already be indistinguishable from advertisements.

Who evaluates the "compliance" of recommended content?

Currently, medical device advertisements in China must be approved by provincial drug regulatory departments, and the content must not involve exaggerated functions, cure rates, user comparisons, etc. However, the recommended videos and live content published by individual doctors often walk a gray area of "non-medical advertising."

For example, a doctor recommends a "low-intensity focused ultrasound beauty device" through Weibo, guiding users in the comments section to privately message for a discount link. Because the account is not a brand party and does not sell directly, it avoids the advertising review process. Even if reported, the regulatory path still requires step-by-step evidence collection, making enforcement extremely difficult.

Some platforms have also begun to intervene. For example, Douyin and Xiaohongshu have established "medical health content review mechanisms," but the review focus is mostly on high-risk areas such as prescription drugs and surgical consultations, lacking detailed grading standards for instrument-related sales.

In addition, the legal boundaries between doctors' personal behavior and their practicing institutions are blurred. If a doctor spreads misleading content on their personal account, does it affect their hospital qualifications? Should the hospital be held accountable? If the content causes patients to misuse products, can compensation lawsuits be filed? A series of questions currently lack clear regulatory coverage.

This gives doctors relative freedom between "professional expression" and "personal commercialization," but once abused, it can easily lead to serious consequences.

How can the public establish the ability to recognize "medical sales"?

In the face of massive content and fragmented expressions, it is particularly important for the public to establish recognition abilities. The following principles can be referenced:

Look at qualifications rather than white coats: Some "doctor influencers" actually have no clinical qualifications, only backgrounds as nutritionists or technicians, or even are "actors in disguise." You can verify their real identity through the National Physician Practice Information Platform.

Look for excessive promises in language: Any phrases like "definitely," "will definitely cure," "results in three days," are often marketing terms, and legitimate doctors rarely use absolute language.

Look for whether the product is properly registered: The official website of the Chinese National Medical Products Administration can be used to check medical device registration information. Any product that is not registered or only filed does not have clinical intervention authority.

Look for avoidance of medical common sense: If there is content that denies mainstream treatments or claims "recovery without medication," it often exaggerates risks.

At the same time, readers are also advised to avoid blindly consuming health products due to momentary psychological anxiety. Instead of pursuing "quick effect" devices, it is better to return to basic examinations and standardized medical processes first.

Who should define the boundary between popular science and marketing?

Ideally, the essence of medical popular science is to enhance public health literacy, rather than promote consumer conversion. However, when doctors become content producers and platforms become amplifiers, commercial logic inevitably infiltrates.

To maintain this boundary, both platforms need to establish content identification systems, and professional associations need to formulate ethical codes. For example:

Platforms can set "doctor sales" labels and content review channels;

Medical associations can issue self-regulatory codes encouraging doctors to disclose product cooperation backgrounds;

Regulatory departments can set pilot areas where "medical content must not involve sales";

Public education should integrate health communication courses to promote "media literacy" skills.

Ultimately, doctors are disseminators of health knowledge and should not become agents of the traffic economy; medical communication should be based on facts and evidence, not traffic and conversion rates.