Talk:Adelle Davis

I'd like to have my peers review this article to determine how it might be improved. --RogerK 03:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Moved block of text

This large block of text has been pruned and put here for reference. The main section title is obviously wrong since most of the paragraph is anything but negative or controversial. The rest of the paragraph is also unsourced. The Ryan Pitzer section should be summarized and sourced in a sentence, not included in medical journal detail. Compared to the other more biographical sections, the discussion topic is way overweight and is placed here for dietary confinement. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

An article in Time magazine (December 18, 1972) characterized Davis, whose books had sold about 7 million copies by that time, as "the high priestess of a new nutrition religion, [who] preaches a gospel that many scientists and academicians find heretical", and stated that "millions regard her as an oracle where eating is concerned". The article went on to say that, as "one of the earliest supporters of the natural-food movement, she follows a diet of fruit, home-grown vegetables, raw milk, eggs and cheese, makes her own cereal from oatmeal, almonds and wheat germ. She also fortifies her diet by taking no fewer than six vitamins and supplements after each meal — to make up for any nutrients missing from her foods or destroyed in their preparation". The article also stated that "Dr. Edward H. Rynearson, professor emeritus of the Mayo Graduate School of Medicine of the University of Minnesota... has conducted a careful study of her books, [and] claims to have found hundreds of errors of fact and interpretation. Says he: 'Any physician or dietitian will find the book larded with inaccuracies, misquotation and unsubstantiated statements.'"

Ryan Pitzer

In 1978 the Journal of the American Medical Association published a letter written by Charles V. Wetli, M.D. and Joseph H. Davis, M.D. of the University of Miami School of Medicine. It relates the following account about an infant named Ryan Pitzer:

"A 2-month-old 4.8 kg boy had 'colic.' The mother, following directions in a popular health book [Journal footnote: Davis A: Let's Have Healthy Children, ed 3. New York, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Inc, 1972, p. 242], mixed 3,000 mg of potassium chloride with her breast milk and administered it to the baby in two divided doses. The symptoms were relieved but recurred the next morning. In the same manner, 1,500 mg of potassium chloride was fed to the child. A few hours later the baby became listless and cyanotic, stopped breathing, and was rushed to a hospital. The initial serum potassium level was 10.1 mEq/liter and remained elevated until he died 28 hours later despite intensive treatment."

On page 242 of Let's Have Healthy Children, Davis had made the following statement:

"In a study of 653 babies, every infant with colic had low blood potassium. 'Improvement was dramatic,' and the colic disappeared immediately, when physicians gave 500 to 1,000 milligrams of potassium chloride intravenously or 1,000 to 2,000 milligrams by mouth. These doctors found that most babies needed 3,000 milligrams of potassium chloride (2/3 teaspoon) before colic was corrected. They suggested that potassium be given to prevent colic, especially during diarrhea, when much of this nutrient is lost in the feces."

left|thumb|120px| According to Stephen Barrett, M.D., "Davis's recommendation of potassium for colic was based on misinterpretation of a... study of 653 hospitalized infants which found that the incidence of abdominal bloating and intestinal paralysis were higher among 67 who had low levels of potassium. The article noted that although potassium might improve these symptoms, giving it to a dehydrated infant could cause cardiac arrest [Barrett footnote: Potassium metabolism in gastroenteritis. Nutrition Reviews 14: 295-296, 1956]. (This is what killed Ryan Pitzer.) The article had nothing whatsoever to do with colic and did not state that 'most babies needed 3,000 milligrams of potassium chloride' to recover. The dosage was 1,000 to 2,000 milligrams administered over a 24-hour period, not all at once."

The parents of Ryan Pitzer filed a lawsuit, and settled out of court for a reported $160,000, which was paid by Adelle Davis's estate, the book's publisher, and the manufacturer of the potassium product. The book itself was removed from circulation, and subsequently revised by Marshall Mandell, M.D. and republished in 1981. In his introduction to the revised edition, Mandell strongly advised parents: "I wish to stress that you, the reader, must not make important decisions concerning your child's nutrition or medical needs without first consulting with your nutrition-oriented pediatrician, family practitioner, or internist."

I found this article:

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/davis.html

Which appears to have some more concrete information about Davis and problems with some of her dietary recommendations, particularly for children, including another child who was injured and another who died, as well as an additional lawsuit. Her recommendations for massive amounts of Vitamin A, in particular, seems to be problematic.

Also, when researching this article online, I found exact copies of the Wikipedia entry in at least two places. Are they copying Wikipedia or vice-versa?

Joe Patent (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Lots of websites just copy Wikipedia articles wholesale, it's pretty annoying actually. Not sure if quackwatch itself satisfies the reliable sources policy, but we could use their journal citations. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Uncited and unsupported sentence

This following sentence:

"Some members of the scientific and medical communities have criticized and discredited her published works both during and after her lifetime."

Appears early on in this biography. However, no evidence is shown to support this claim. There appear to be some real controversies about some of her supplement recommendations, but they do not appear cited or in the body of the article.

Joe Patent (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You were right to delete it, since there is no reference to support it. I don't think there's anything wrong with writing a critics section and including notable criticism though. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

___

There appears to be no criticism section whatsoever on this page. While much of her basic theories were good, her supplement advice has since been discredited - by her own publisher (the "Let's Have Healthy Children") book was recalled and edited.

As an Attorney, I have to comment that the "Paragraph that Killed Ryan Pitzer" is a bit overstated. If you read the source materials, Davis is discussing what a Doctor has done in the past to treat colic in infants. It is NOT an series of instruction steps on "How to cure Colic". Moreover, in one of the lawsuits settled by the estate, the parents waited nearly four days before taking their child to a hospital. I think the paltry settlement amounts (barely enough to cover attorney's fees) reflect the weakness of these cases.

But nevertheless, the criticism of this type of writing - on the use of supplements to cure illnesses - seems to overstep the boundaries of dietary advice and become more of medical advice. This is a failing.

Also, her contention that diet could prevent most diseases, including cancer, has also been discredited, notably by her own death from cancer. Yes, diet can prevent some diseases in some cases (e.g., heart disease, in some instances) but not in others. Good diet is important for good health. But if you have a genetic predisposition to an illness, or are exposed to aesbestos, you can eat all the carrots you want, it won't make a difference.

I have been reading a lot of these "diet guru" books, and many of them cross the boundary from dietary advice into medical practice. Some are outright frauds and charlatans, selling yo-yo diet plans that are dangerous to the public. Others are merely well-intentioned, but take their own theories too far.

Davis' diet advice by itself, was ahead of her time. Her two main mistakes, I think, were placing too much emphasis on diet as the sole cause of health or illness, and her theories on supplements for improving health. Again, this crosses over from dietary advice into medical practice.

Perhaps a truncated criticism paragraph could be added? Her reputation should not be trashed (as the Quackwatch article seems to want to so) but it should not be whitewashed, either.

What do you think?

The article as it is right now appears to have been written by and edited by the Adelle Davis Foundation. This is, of course, the weakness of Wikipedia.

Joe Patent (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

I have changed the quality assessment from B to C since the article fails criteria 2 of the quality scale: "The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies". I have added a NPOV template since the article is one-sided. I have to look through the history to see how it ended up this way. Wasbeer 19:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Added some material which should even out the POV. It appears a lot of the negative criticism was removed in 2009 as unreferenced. I have WP:BOLDly removed the NPOV banner, would appreciate any suggestions for further improvement. Yobol (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Yobol! I changed the quality assessment back to B because the article has been rewritten in a NPOV way, GA may be more appropriate. I will try to find suggestions for further improvements but I am going on holiday soon so this may take a while. Wasbeer 15:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)