Talk:Adelle Davis
 | Biography B‑class  | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Adelle Davis received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 | Psychology Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
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." [1]
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."
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. I see the "moved" sections above might arguably support this, but I think the latter "commendations" section is more relevant.
It is relevant that someone criticized her work in Time magazine in 1972, or that she was largely vindicated and hailed as a pioneer later on.
It makes a difference, I think as many of here ideas were viewed as heresy at the time, and it would not be surprising that contemporary scientific theories on health and nutrition did not mesh with her teachings.
The sentence cited above, the way it is written, implies that her work has since been discredited. But the "commendations" section seems to disprove this.
I do not have the factual answer, but it appears the sentence above is not supported by the facts, or at least there is no relevant cite to them. And the Time magazine quote above does not state, with any specificity, what exactly is incorrect about here theories. Broad statements about fact checking with no specifics are not really conclusive.
So, if you don't mind, I'll delete it. If someone wants to add a balanced and cited section showing specifically which theories of her are wrong, in view of today's science, I think it would be a good addition.