Concern was warranted it seemsLots of concern about him on social media.
Dunno why - he was one of those diet grifters who gave dangerous advice. Fuck him.
by his family, certainly.Concern was warranted it seems
I guess I feel differently cos my only knowledge of him is from seeing his diet books and from my friend’s bad experience from following his advice about diabetes.Of course people are going to feel concern over someone they like on TV or radio. I'm autistic and can't stand a lot of joining in with what can sometimes appear inappropriately overinvolved, or irrational, or performative group behaviour, but I still felt really sad this morning. It was an unexpected death of someone who seemed full of life.
Also, obviously when someone famous dies it evokes our own sense of loss, in the past, or losses to come as middle-aged adults.
It's really not a moral issue.
From your earlier post your friends problems were caused by his GP not MM.I guess I feel differently cos my only knowledge of him is from seeing his diet books and from my friend’s bad experience from following his advice about diabetes.
Her not his. She was following MM’s advice after reading the MM book.From your earlier post your friends problems were caused by his GP not MM.
There are lots of drugs out there that work for most people but can be harmful to others. If your GP prescribed a drug that will cause problems with your medical problems or interact with your other meds that is the fault of the GP not the pharmaceutical company that makes it.
For me (also autistic) he falls into the bracket of public figures I once had some trust in, but then got seriously fucked off with once I understood a bit more about what they were doing and the effects they had. Afaik he never worked in nutrition; qualified as a psychiatrist then, pretty soon after, left medicine for journalism and media production. Tim Spector vibes.
For that reason I suppose I feel very detached from the event of his death... there are recent celeb deaths that I've had very different reactions to, and really don't buy into the 'you can't mourn a celebrity', but with Mosley have to say I'm just ambivalent.
Might also seem tasteless to criticise him at this point, but we're already seeing people praising him for his public health work etc. That isn't deserved imo; he helped fuck up my approach to my own health, and my family members' attitudes to that, and I'm sure that is a fairly widely shared experience, if not often an acknowledged or understood one.
I'll admit he's not someone I follow, and felt quite surprised at how sad I felt.
More to do with that growing awareness with age and recent experience of the apparent randomness of death and illness and tragedy than anything else probably.
You said earlier that the book was recommended to her by her GP, so it's her gp's fault for not taking into account her medical history.Her not his. She was following MM’s advice after reading the MM book.
Dunno why you’re bringing drugs into it. The advice was about diet.
Still the gp's fault and lots of people have reported positive outcomes from it.Yes, but the advice was still shite advice.
And he wrote weight loss diet books, so I have no time for him.
You said earlier that the book was recommended to her by her GP, so it's her gp's fault for not taking into account her medical history.
The bit about drugs was another example of where something would be the fault of the GP rather than the manufacturer.
This thread is about MM though, not the GP.Still the gp's fault and lots of people have reported positive outcomes from it.
Isn't that more a general question about the whole "popular science" and "smart thinking" genre. It's a double edged sword. They serve a purpose in popularising ideas, but much gets lost with it. I enjoy his "Just one thing" programmes... Listened to a couple this morning, but obviously in 15 minutes they can only go so far. Guess the thing is to treat these things sceptically, rather than resisting the urge to believe you've found your next guru, or some simple truth.For me (also autistic) he falls into the bracket of public figures I once had some trust in, but then got seriously fucked off with once I understood a bit more about what they were doing and the effects they had. Afaik he never worked in nutrition; qualified as a psychiatrist then, pretty soon after, left medicine for journalism and media production. Tim Spector vibes.
For that reason I suppose I feel very detached from the event of his death... there are recent celeb deaths that I've had very different reactions to, and really don't buy into the 'you can't mourn a celebrity', but with Mosley have to say I'm just ambivalent.
Might also seem tasteless to criticise him at this point, but we're already seeing people praising him for his public health work etc. That isn't deserved imo; he helped fuck up my approach to my own health, and my family members' attitudes to that, and I'm sure that is a fairly widely shared experience, if not often an acknowledged or understood one.
I think searching for a guru in the first place is a mistakeIsn't that more a general question about the whole "popular science" and "smart thinking" genre. It's a double edged sword. They serve a purpose in popularising ideas, but much gets lost with it. I enjoy his "Just one thing" programmes... Listened to a couple this morning, but obviously in 15 minutes they can only go so far. Guess the thing is to treat these things sceptically, rather than resisting the urge to believe you've found your next guru, or some simple truth.
Drugs do tend to be marketed for certain conditions but they include lists of drug interactions etc. It's the gp's responsibility to make sure that the drug they are prescribing won't interact with other drugs the patient is on or won't affect other conditions the patient may have and it's their (gp's) fault if that happens.If the pharmaceutical company specifically states in its documentation that it's suitable for a certain condition, and that's backed up by general guidance from the NHS, then it's not the GP's fault is it?
Drugs do tend to be marketed for certain conditions but they include lists of drug interactions etc. It's the gp's responsibility to make sure that the drug they are prescribing won't interact with other drugs the patient is on or won't affect other conditions the patient may have and it's their (gp's) fault if that happens.
I don't think you are!You can actually see it as a section in some bookshops. People like Malcolm Gladwell. They seductively package up a few ideas and sell it as either some new revelation or great truth. At one level they're feel-good reads because they present certainty on an uncertain world.
[I know I'm probably being unduly harsh on some books within the genre...]
True if side effects aren't known about but if they are and the GP still prescribed then it's clearly the gp's fault FFS.See e.g thalidomide; GPs can only act on guidance. If that guidance is wrong, the GP is not at fault.
I’m not sure why this is the hill you’ve chose to die on.True if side effects aren't known about but if they are and the GP still prescribed then it's clearly the gp's fault FFS.
Who's fault is it if someone decides to take more than the prescribed amount and ends up with problems?