Talk:Peter Attia

Lengthy podcast section
Given that Wikipedia is to be based off of third-party sources (see WP:RS), I don't see how we can justify having a giant section based off of primary sources, since this is an encyclopedia. Ping to User:Diego Cerdán and User:Diannaa. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. &#123;&#123;U&#125;&#125;) while signing a reply, thx 15:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I only visited the page to do some copyright tasks. However, the list of episodes seems undue as well, as it is longer than the wee article. Mentioning the podcast and offering a link would be a better way to go. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia promotes the use of third-party sources for fact checking. This is clearly not the case. It makes utterly no sense to avoid linking directly to the content if it is available on the Internet. Actually is "the only way to go" and doing otherwise would be untrustful. The podcast is the biggest public effort of Peter Attia to create open scientific discussion and no doubt deserves being fully related on his Wikipedia page. Ping to User:Biosthmors — Diego Cerdán (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

McKinsey
Has Attia ever responded, either in print, lecture, podcast, or interview, to criticism of McKinsey? The only reason I ask, is that a large part of his writing focuses on criticism of the medical establishment, which I find to be fairly accurate, but I haven’t seen him address the role of companies like McKinsey in this criticism, even though he worked for them, which is either ironic or an omission. Also, there seems to be this cult-like approach to McKinsey, both from Attia and from people I’ve personally spoken to face to face that I just don’t get. Viriditas (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)