Which viral diet trends have been wrongly attributed to medical personalities, and how were those attributions debunked?

1. Celery juice and the “Medical Medium” — a celebrity claim, not a clinical protocol

The most explicit case where a named medical personality has been invoked is Anthony William, the self-styled "Medical Medium," whose celery-juice prescriptions have been promoted as cure-alls; nutrition professionals and evidence-based outlets note that these claims lack clinical backing and that miraculous benefits attributed to single-food remedies are unsupported by science ^{[1] [5] [6]}.

2. Extreme fasting trends framed as “doctor-recommended” diets — risks exposed

Intermittent fasting and more extreme time‑restricted or prolonged fasts have been framed on social media as medically endorsed by various influencers and occasionally by individuals using quasi-clinical language, yet registered-dietitian authorities warn fasting is not appropriate for everyone and can lead to dehydration, dizziness, nutrient deficiencies and other harms when promoted as a blanket medical prescription ^{[2] [7] [8]}.

3. Detox teas, laxatives and viral concoctions — harmful hacks with viral faces

Detox-tea fads, laxative regimens and ad-hoc viral drinks (for example the oats–lime–cinnamon “weight loss” drink surfaced on TikTok) have been spread by influencers who borrow medical framing to boost credibility; nutrition experts and industry guides flag these as dangerous or ineffective, documenting that cleanses are unnecessary because organs like the liver and kidneys perform detoxification and that laxative misuse is harmful ^{[8] [5] [2]}.

4. Diet “movements” misattributed to health authorities — carnivore, anti‑seed‑oil and coconut‑oil myths

Broader ideological diets — the carnivore diet and anti–seed‑oil movements — are often presented online with pseudo-scientific authority or cited as being backed by unnamed doctors; independent assessments counter these narratives by pointing to lacking long-term evidence and, in the case of coconut oil, well-established concerns about high saturated‑fat content raising LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular risk ^{[9] [6]}.

5. How those attributions were debunked — evidence gaps, expert rebuttals and platform studies

Debunking has come through multiple channels: clinical and nutrition organizations publishing evidence-based takeaways that single-food cures and one-size-fits-all extremes lack support ^{[5] [6]}, journalists and year‑end reviews compiling expert pushback on “miracle” claims ^[7], and academic studies showing that people who rely on celebrities and low‑quality social sources are more likely to accept misinformation—while those consulting nutrition scientists and medical doctors demonstrate better discernment ^{[4] [3]}.

6. Why medical attributions stick — psychology, platform mechanics and vested interests

The persistence of these misattributions reflects cognitive biases (confirmation bias and emotional appeals), social‑media mechanics that reward sensational claims, and the fact that influencers and some alternative‑health figures derive community, sales and visibility from absolutist messaging; studies and professional outlets call for raising the visibility of credible nutrition guidance and faster corrective action on platforms to blunt harm ^{[4] [3] [2]}.

7. Practical takeaway — skepticism, sources and professional consultation

Across the reporting, the consistent conclusion is not that every viral diet is categorically false but that medical-sounding endorsements require verification: consumers should prioritize guidance from registered dietitians and clinicians, treat singular-food “cures” and dramatic time‑restricted claims with suspicion, and recognize that many high‑profile attributions have been debunked by experts citing lack of evidence and documented risks ^{[5] [2] [8]}.