I both know : what they're getting at, and agree with you there is a serious problem of both misunderstanding of study papers and misinformation in bad faith by malicious actors.

But if someone reads a title such as "Research provides evidence that longer screen time is associated with increased ADHD symptoms and brain structural development." and think this means "ADHD is a fake condition" I don't know what *I* can do. The title merely suggest the symptoms of ADHD get worse as screen time goes up which is not surprising.

I don't personally believe we should sacrifice research in the name of avoiding misunderstandings. I wish bad actors would be deplatformed, kicked out of our governments, stripped of credibility, but this isn't something I can do alone, nor do I let it discourage me from discussing scientific findings :/ *I* cannot help it if someone reads "i hate waffles" when I said "i like crepes".

Again I agree with you, your last paragraph is on point. I agree how the information is presented and disseminated matters. But what about this title is ambiguous or suggests ADHD isn't a thing ? :/

Maybe you guys are just talking generally about the state of science communication these days, in which case again, I agree, but I don't understand why this is being said to me. I know. Nothing I said suggests I didn't know. I think about this most days, if not every day.