Talk:Weston A. Price/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Modern focal infection theory passage

WIth respect to Bruce's addition here...

Bruce, there are two problems with this passage:

1. It's primarily about focal infection theory in modern research, which Price himself has nothing to do with at all.
2. Price only enters into the issue via what amounts to a conspiracy theory (Price as an unsung pioneer whose work was suppressed by unknown nefarious forces). Wikipedia does not present conspiracy theories as a rule, because (if for no other reason) they are by their nature impossible to verify.

This is not relevant to the Price article. You might find some place for it over at Focal Infection Theory. --Ludwigs2 14:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that FIT is the focus of Price's original research as well as the focus of recent attempts to revive his research as well as recent actual scientific research, I don't see how we comprehensively present this without going into at least to provide context. Ocaasi (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I tried to clarify this point with the text below, but it was removed. I think something like it is all we need.Griswaldo (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Price's research, as far as the RS we have found, was specifically focused on endodontics and tooth extraction, not FIT in general. None of the modern research on FIT deals at all with these areas. Conflating the two as that edit does would confuse, not educate the reader. Modern research on FIT does not deal at all with Price's research. Yobol (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

See Gris, I look at it from the point of view that Price (being a dentist first) found issues of infection with endodontic therapy through radiography, and then initiated related research in FIT; and not researching FIT and then looking for a problem with teeth. I'm thinking the article should flow in that direction. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 15:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The more I dig the more confused I become. Take these two reliable sources comments from the 1950s:

1. "His books on Focal Infection are masterpieces. But the work for which he will always be remembered has to do with Human Nutrition." (1951 Modern nutrition: Volumes 4-7 American Academy of Nutrition pg 32) If focal infection theory was dead as the dodo in the 1940s then how could Price's work on it be considered "masterpieces" in the 1950s? The logic here doesn't hold.
2. What I am getting out of the snippets of the 1952 Southern California State Dental Association journal paints a very different picture of focal infection theory then what we seem to be getting: "One cannot deny the existence of such a mechanism as operates in focal infection, ie, infection in one locus leading to manifestations elsewhere in the body. One has but to call to mind the metastases that occur in such infections as tuberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, pneumonia, typhoid fever, and mumps. I cannot support the statement in the "critically appraised" report on dental foci of infection that "later laboratory workers were unable to confirm the bacteriologic findings of Rosenow on which the concept of 'elective localization'"
3. Also on page 27: "Price and Haden supported much of the Rosenow's work by presenting many clinical histories substantiated by a great amount of laboratory investigation. Also one cannot overlook the work of Van Kirk, Swanson, Wolf,..." (snippet brick wall time)
4. The reference for Price is on page 33 is his 1923 Dental Infection: Oral and Systemic book which I found a contemporary review for (Ravenel, M. P. (1926) Dental Infections, Oral and Systemic Am J Public Health (N Y). 1926 March; 16(3): 307.)

Any idea just what is going on here?--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with you presenting sources that don't even mention Price in an article on Price? Stop cluttering up sections that are dealing with one topic by adding more material not related to it. Yobol (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yobol, stop diverting attention from the fact that we have problems with the reliable source material regarding just what focal infection theory even was and how important Price's 1923 work regarding it was.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

We are talking about your contributions here. If you want to talk about something else start another section. Your additions violated WP:OR, and do not belong in this article. Yobol (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yobol, I believe you're expressing an abundance of caution that the article not suggest that Price's FIT research is the same as today's FIT research. Why can't we just say that they both exist, one has nothing to do with the other, and though recent FIT research has gained scientific support, Price's FIT research has actually been discredited. Meanwhile, Price's modern proponents have attempted to link the two together, although they are unrelated. Ocaasi (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

My main issue with that is as far as I can tell, Price's modern proponents don't try to link "modern" FIT with the discredited theory, they just say Price (was) and is right, all-stop (see this for example). They don't go into details about how he fits into modern FIT, etc., they just say he was never discredited (IOW, they only talk about the discredited FIT, and never talk about modern FIT). As such, discussion of "modern" FIT has nothing really to do with Price, it is extraneous material to his biography. Yobol (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Simply put, it's not extraneous because without it, our readers cannot know what you just told me. You should not be afraid that the WAP foundation will pull a fast one; instead, describe all of the sources accurately, as well as the debate surrounding the sources. We shouldn't whitewash the term FIT from the article to avoid insinuating a falsehood. Instead, just address the falsehood. Ocaasi (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yobol, can an article on intelligent design not mention evolution, astrology not mention astronomy, phrenology not mention neurology. All of them do, not to validate, and not in fear of perpetuating a false connection. You cannot keep the terminology out of the article just because the W.A.P. foundation wants to create a link, however spurious between them. That's not our job. Our job is to explain the full situation using the full range of sources in a way that makes readers experts in the same way you have tried to be. nb: This is regardless of Bruce's edits below. The fact that FIT theory is mentioned in reliable sources pretty much requires us to use it, from my vantage point. Ocaasi (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course your examples can be mentioned together, especially since we have sources tying to the two together. I have no problem putting the terminology about focal infection theory in the article, in fact I included it when I first added the information about endodontics here. My objection to the material Bruce is adding is not that it is creating a false link (though it is) - it is because it is outside the scope of the article. The OLD FIT theory is mentioned in the sources we have, and it is dealt with properly. MODERN FIT is never discussed with respect to Price or his research and does not belong here. As an analogy: Hippocrates described ailments about the human rectum: is an in-depth discussion describing modern surgical techniques for treatment of colorectal cancer belong in his article, or is that outside the scope of what should be in an encyclopedia article about Hippocrates? Or should we only include information about those techniques if sources tie those techniques to him? Yobol (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Go one step further, though. Assume that the Hippocrates Now! foundation is conflating disruptions of the anal humor with malignant polyps. Now we have no choice but to disambiguate them for the reader. Not to link them, but to inform them of a modern organization which references Hippocrates inaccurately, and to distinguish it from the modern theory which is valid. In short, we are supposed to describe what is actually happening. Lies and mistruths happen; our job is to present them with attribution and commentary which reveals why they are such or states others who says they are such. That's neither SYNTH/OR nor off-topic; it's just good editing IMO. I see your concern, but I still think we should include the minimal amount of modern FIT theory necessary to contextualize it in reference to Price, to address the claims of the W.A.P. and to explain how what Price was doing differed from current theory and approaches. It's a messy situation, but if we can all understand it on the talk page, I don't know why that can't be reflected in the article. Ocaasi (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Except as far as I can tell, no one is tying Price to modern FIT. They are tying him to OLD FIT, saying OLD FIT and Price's OLD research is perfectly valid. That is why discussion of modern FIT is unnecessary and even confusing. Believe me, of the limited editing I've done it's been on fringe health topics like thiomersal controversy and aspartame controversy; if I have any natural inclination, it is to debunk any incorrect information that is out there. But as far as I can tell, there isn't any misconception to debunk regarding MODERN FIT; no one mentions it with regards to Price. Yobol (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, from my standpoint, someone interested in Price's research already has the information without any additional (extraneous) information about modern FIT. They know that he contributed to research about "old" FIT and supported it, it was mainstreamn at the time, it was subsequently discredited, and people are currently using his discredited research to try to promote their anti-root canal views. In a biography about Price, where no source - I say again, none - has linked Price to modern FIT, why should we put information about modern FIT in? Isn't that the very definition of WP:OR? Yobol (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Except that George Meinig DOES link "modern" FIT to old in the example you gave us:

"MJ What is the "focal infection" theory?

GM This states that germs from a central focal infection - such as teeth, teeth roots, inflamed gum tissues, or maybe tonsils - metastasize to hearts, eyes, lungs, kidneys, or other organs, glands and tissues, establishing new areas of the same infection. Hardly theory any more, this has been proven and demonstrated many times over. It's 100% accepted today. But it was revolutionary thinking during World War I days, and the early 1920's!"

"The hypothesis which assumes the causative connection between the primary focus and the secondary lesion is called the "focal infection theory." (Stillman, Paul Roscoe (1922) A Textbook of clinical periodontia; Page 111)

"All focal infection is not of dental origin, but a sufficiently large percentage is to demand a careful study of the mouth and teeth in all cases of the mouth and teeth in all cases of systemic infection, for in these cases all foci should be removed." (1918) Dental summary: Volume 38; Page 437)

"One cannot deny the existence of such a mechanism as operates in focal infection, ie, infection in one locus leading to manifestations elsewhere in the body. One has but to call to mind the metastases that occur in such infections as tuberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, pneumonia, typhoid fever, and mumps. I cannot support the statement in the "critically appraised" report on dental foci of infection that "later laboratory workers were unable to confirm the bacteriologic findings of Rosenow on which the concept of 'elective localization'" ((1952) Southern California State Dental Association journal)

"It is becoming more validated that the oral cavity can act as the site of origin for spread of pathogenic organisms to organisms to distance body areas,..." (Saraf (2006) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 188)

As far a as concept is concerned there doesn't seem to be any difference between these definitions of Focal Infection Theory over the course of 90 years! The only difference seems to be in the importance with regards to how it applies to the mouth.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

So Meinig mentions 1920s FIT and you think that means he's talking about modern FIT. /slaps head. Yobol (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

"It's 100% accepted today." Also what about the 1952 and 2006 references that say basically the same thing as the 1922 one? (face palms)--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Says Meinig, the anti-root canal fringe author. If you think that the FIT that was being discussed in the late 1800s/early 1900s is the same as the one discussed today, you have no business editing this article. Yobol (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in the above reliable sources that indicates a clear difference.

1. The 1922 source defines it as "the hypothesis which assumes the causative connection between the primary focus and the secondary lesion"
2. The 1955 one says it is "infection in one locus leading to manifestations elsewhere in the body"
3. The 2007 defines it as "the oral cavity can act as the site of origin for spread of pathogenic organisms to organisms to distance body areas"

Not being experts we have to go with what the sources tell us and so far we have not seen anything that clarifies how the 1922, 1955, and 2007 definitions are different or even that they are different. We need a WP:RS that clearly and expressly explains how the focal infections of these different periods are different. So far we have had zilch.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait there's nothing in your cherry picked quotes that contradict what you say? That's shocking. Shocking! This is what supporters of OLD FIT were saying, "The worst cases of anemia, gastritis, colitis, obscure fevers, nervous disturbances of all kinds from mental depression to actual lesions of the cord, chronic rheumatic infections, kidney diseases, are those which owe their origin to, or are gravely complicated by the oral sepsis produced by these gold traps of sepsis." [1] If you think modern dentists/doctors think this is true, you would be incorrect. Yobol (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes the Pallasch, Thomas J. DDS, MS; Michael J. Wahl, DDS (2000) "The Focal Infection Theory: Appraisal and Reappraisal" Journal of the California Dental Association article that makes up a hulk of the focal infection theory article's references. Well let's take a look at how he defines Focal Infection Theory shall we?

"A focus of infection has been variously described but probably best as a circumscribed and confined area that:

• Contains pathogenic microorganisms;
• Can occur anywhere in the body; and
• Usually causes no clinical manifestations. (Easlick KA, Brown WE Jr, et al, An evaluation of the effect of dental foci of infection on health. J Am Dent Assoc 42(6):617-97, 1951.)

A focal infection is a localized or general infection caused by the dissemination of microorganisms or toxic products from a focus of infection."

[...]"Foci of infection have typically been said to arise from the tonsils, oral cavity, or sinuses, but also from the prostate, appendix, bladder, gall bladder, and kidney with pyorrhea alveolaris (periodontitis), alveolar abscesses, and pulpless teeth (treated or untreated) being the principal oral culprits and the viridans group streptococci as the prime microbial pathogens"

The application of the focal infection theory eventually fell from scientific favor for many reasons including the:

• Improvement in dental care;
• Advent of antibiotics;
• Small percent of "cures";
• Inability of science to prove the value of the theory;
• Eventual unfavorable reaction to the "orgy"of dental extractions and tonsillectomies;
• Inability to replicate the experiments of its advocates;
• Occasional exacerbation of the disease by the removal of the focus; and
• Lack of controlled clinical studies.

"This introduction to the focal infection of disease should not be construed to mean that the theory has no basis in fact. There is little doubt that under certain circumstances microorganisms can move from one area of the body to another to establish their customary pathology in another locale.

Pallasch's article reads less like a condemnation of focal infection theory than a calm warning not to repeat the mistakes of the past and look for more evidence. As he says at the end of the article "What we need now is sound science not jubilation that focal infection is the savior of dental practice."--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I do wish Pallasch had explained that "Usually causes no clinical manifestations" especially with those "prostate, appendix, bladder, gall bladder, and kidney" examples presented. As it is it leaves me scratching my head.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The tendency you have to write long quotes without addressing the points presented is not conducive for a collaborative environment. Please address the point I made: i.e. that old FIT attributed the cause of a lot of diseases to dental infections (i.e. arthritis, depression, etc) - and therefore treatment/prevention of those diseases is tooth extraction rather than root canals which were thought to promote these diseases - that no one really takes seriously now. No one doubts that if you have an infection it could spread elsewhere. It's the other stuff that makes the difference. Yobol (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Several things here.

1. The long quote was to show what Pallasch actually says not what you think he says.
2. Pallasch clearly and directly states that focal infection theory held the foci "Can occur anywhere in the body"
3. Pallasch points to the prostate, appendix, bladder, gall bladder, and kidney as also being labeled as foci of infection.
4. Pallasch also blames over enthusiasm with focal infection theory for the over doing of tonsillectomies.

In short, Pallasch clearly and directly establishes that over enthusiasm for focal infection was not limited to dentists but also occurred with surgeons as he puts dental extractions on the same level as tonsillectomies. I also wonder in the back of my mind if the complexity of the surgeries is why the appendix, bladder, gall bladder, and kidney weren't targeted as often.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You're emphasizing how modern and old FIT are similar while ignoring the differences. No one said they are completely dissimilar, just that they are significantly different. Pointing out they have similarities does not prove that they don't have differences. Yobol (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yobol, you keep claiming there are two FIT but Pallasch, Barnett, and now G. Todd Smith ((2004) "The Role of Oral Disease in Systemic Disorders") of the Indian Health service make it quite clear that this is not the case. Nearly every reliable source show they are one and the same theory with the only difference in the modern version is that it is not viewed as the main cause of disease (Barnett)

Furthermore I found this: "Additionally, recent evidence associating dental infections with atherosclerosis and other chronic diseases has also helped resurrect the focal infection theory." (Silverman, Sol; Lewis R. Eversole, Edmond L. Truelove (2002) Essentials of oral medicine PMPH usa; Page 159). So the People's Medical Publishing House says the theory is being revived in 2002 and yet in 2008 says that it dies in the 1930s period end of sentence?!? Come on! This is insane.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're just going to ignore the points: re: old FIT focusing on teeth extractions vs endodontics and how old FIT believed this [2] while modern does not, there's no point in us having any further conversation on the matter, as you're displaying WP:IDHT. Yobol (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yobol, you are are one that ignoring the points.

1. Old FIT did NOT focus just on teeth extractions; both contemporary and modern sources show this.
2. Your source incorrectly claims FIT died in the 1930s and stayed dead while I have five sources that say otherwise including one from the very publisher you are using!
3. You have not provided one reliable source that shows that shows the difference between old and current FIT is nothing more then how the theory is applied.

In the light of all this you are the one who is doing WP:IDHT as you do not address the actual issues.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to know where the premise of TWO FIT theories comes from. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 17:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Section break

Oh it gets better as I found a reference that puts it back a full century!

"In the gastro intestinal tract the esophagus, stomach and intestine are seldom subject to focal infection, but two appendages of the tract arc frequently involved, namely, the gall-bladder and appendix." 1910 The Journal of the Indiana State Medical Association: Volume 3 Page 54.

"Goiter, appendicitis, gall-bladder infection, and skin eruptions, such as herpes zoster and acne, bronchial asthma, and the anemias, are all included among those conditions where foci of infection are often suspect as being the most important etiologic factor" ((1918 The Surgical clinics of Chicago Volume 2, Issue 6; Page 1146)

This clearly shows that focal infection theory was not limited to just the teeth or mouth.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• An editor asked me to comment on this section. I don't have access to the sources nor do I have interest in reading them. But the key thing to remember is that this is an article on Weston Price. Every source should mention Price. The exception might be to say something brief like, "The theory found renewed popularity in the 1990s". I'm surprised to see that Price isn't mentioned in Focal infection theory. WP:MEDRS limits what we can say about medical topics, so that may be appropriate. But we shouldn't use this article as a backdoor to discuss medical claims that we wouldn't make elsewhere. If we're discussing Price's 1925 version of FIT in this article, we should make sure we're discussing it from a historical/biographical vantage point and from a medical/scientific viewpoint.   Will Beback  talk  05:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of focal infection theory

With regards to how it presents the focal infection theory this article has some serious WP:MEDRS problems. The "These theories fell out of favor in the 1930's and are not currently considered viable in the dental or medical communities." comment in the lead is disproven by an utterly ridiculous amount of reliable source material from 1989 to the present.

The "Despite the mainstream rejection of focal infection theory in endodontics," in the ending has similar problems.

The most current reliable sources we have show several things:

1. Focal infection theory was at its heart was the idea "a localized or general infection caused by the dissemination of microorganisms or toxic products from a focus of infection" (Thomas J. Pallasch, DDS, MS, and Michael J. Wahl, DDS (2000) "The Focal Infection Theory: Appraisal and Reappraisal", Journal of the California Dental Association)
2. Focal infection theory while marginalized never became fringe in the dental community
3. Focal infection theory survived (perhaps not under than name) with regards to such things as cancer, food poisoning, gangrene, and other medical conditions. (US Army 1971)
4. More recent studies have shown that some (but not all) of the concepts of Focal infection have some validity with regards to dentistry.
5. Dentists and doctors are cautiously reevaluating the focal infection theory (Wiley)

Sources contemporary to Price and modern define the theory as an infection in a focal point anywhere in the body. Overuse of the theory in tooth and tonsil extraction resulted in it falling out of favor as the treatment of choice but the toxin part of the theory was not disproved. I am currently cleaning up the focal infection theory article so just what it was and what happened with it in the 20s and 30s. Once I get that cleaned up I will have better sources to clean this article up.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This has been addressed ad nauseum. Add more sources here if they mention Price. If they don't they don't belong in this article. Period. Your OR about Price and modern FIT has no business in this article. Yobol (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yobol, let me spell it out for you. The source being used to reference Price is also being used to reference what can be shown as an INCORRECT medical claim.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You claim it to be incorrect, based on your personal synthesized analysis of sources that don't mention Price. Please refer back to WP:OR, once again. Yobol (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I came it to be incorrect by what the references actually say.

"Today, the medical and dental profession agree that there is no relationship between endocontical treated teeth and the degenerative diseases implicated in the theory of focal infection" Ingle (2008)

"Additionally, recent evidence associating dental infections with atherosclerosis and other chronic diseases has also helped resurrect the focal infection theory." (Silverman, Sol; Lewis R. Eversole, Edmond L. Truelove (2002) Essentials of oral medicine PMPH usa; Page 159).

"The central hypothesis of "periodontal medicine" is that infections from periodontitis present as a chronic inflammatory burden at a systemic level. At various times throughout history, the concept that infections of the mouth could influence systemic health has been debated." ((2001) Fowler, Edward B "Periodontal disease and its association with systemic disease" Military Medicine (Jan 2001))

"It is now realized that oral bacteria and their products and their products, particularly ipopoysccharides and proinflamunary cytokine, induced local in response in oral infections, enter the blood stream and may subsequently activate systemic response in certain susceptible individuals" (Bergenholtz, Gunnar; Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit putlich (2009) Textbook of Endodontology Wiley; page 136)

"It is becoming more validated that the oral cavity can act as the site of origin for spread of pathogenic organisms to organisms to distance body areas,..." (Saraf (2006) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 188)

"Several other studies reported that that the systemic disease could result from improper placement of silver filling or after root canal treatment" (Saraf (2006) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 188)

Please explain how pointing out that EACH of these sources show the Ingle source is if not incorrect is at least misleading is SYN, OR, or any of the other things you have been claiming.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You are, once again, ignoring the change FIT has gone through since the 1920s. The modern one is not the same as the one Price supported. Once again, your sources don't mention Price, at all. Stop repeating yourself over and over. Arguing that you aren't committing WP:SYNTH by citing sources that don't mention the topic of the Wikipedia article, at all, is a waste of everyone's time. Yobol (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yobol, if I may... though I have not a whit of expertise in the area of dental or focal infections, I notice that Bruce is indeed synthesizing information, but he is doing so in response to your assertion about the recent history of FIT. Is it fair to ask whether your assumptions are not challenged by the sources Bruce has presented, and if so, whether the issue is not localized with Weston Price but instead a broader debate regarding the scientific history of FIT? If it's the latter, then that debate has to be either resolved first or neutrally summarized for the reader, with Price's role in the story only mentioned as a historical aspect, and with no overly strong statements regarding which idea was part of which version of which theory--unless there is a reliable source to address the issue specifically. Ocaasi (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

By way of alternate suggestion, maybe you should both stop editing this article and go over to Focal infection theory, hash it out for a few days, and then come back once it's settled. Ocaasi (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate what Bruce is trying to do (and that he is doing this in good faith) but I think we're putting the cart before the horse here. We have a reliable source that makes a statement about Price in the context of FIT and endodontics for which he is known. Bruce believes (I think incorrectly) that the source is wrong, based on his own research, but no other RS comes the conclusion he does, he has to synthesize sources to do so. I happen to believe that Bruce's interpretation of the FIT material is incorrect but I am specifically trying not to argue that because no matter what, he is violating some fundamental policies here in trying to overturn a RS by his own interpretation of synthesized material. He refuses to understand a fundamental difference between the current FIT and the one in the 1920s (and I'm not the only one who thinks so either [3]) - but it is exceedingly tedious to point out in detail how some cherry-picked quotes from various sources across 80 years of dental literature does not trump a reliable source's interpretation when I can just point out he is violating policy. The end result is the same - the material doesn't go in this article.Yobol (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yobol, we are not even sure if the source you are using does meet WP:RS requirements. The fact that the very same publisher says that the focal infection theory has been resurrected (Silverman 2002) which is support by other WP:RS puts the 2008 claim on very shaky ground. As I said before you can't claim focal infection the theory has been resurrected in 2002, have a 2009 by Wiley saying the theory is being cautiously being looked at, another Wiley article stating the theory never really died in dentistry, and a 2008 saying the theory has been dead as a dodo since the 1930s. There is simply no way to reconcile those claims.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with it, take it to WP:RSN. It is by all accounts reliable and either you get consensus it's not or stop bringing it up. Yobol (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Being clear and WP:NOR

Most recently I was convinced that Yobol was correct regarding the various attempts to clarify the difference between old endodontic FIT and contemporary periodontal FIT and violations of WP:NOR. I'm not sure I actually see the policy justification of this any longer, at least in terms of a one-line clarification that contemporary revivals of anti-root canal advocacy are not the same as mainstream FIT. Consider an analogy with a BLP situation. If in an article on John Doe, we mention John Doe's living relative Jane Doe. We do so only from sources that also mention John Doe, (per Yobol's reasoning) but these sources present a picture of Jane Doe that is misleading. On the other hand a majority of sources on Jane Doe present a clear picture of Jane, but these sources happen not to mention John Doe anywhere in their text. What do we do in such a situation? Clearly BLP situations involve a greater impetus to correct the problem, but in terms of keeping our readers informed the situation is identical. Others have pointed out in this discussion that we add information from sources all the time that do not directly mention the subject of the entry, because they present information that is relevant to other subjects that come up in the entry. We have to do that, because all topics involve other related topics and no sources are capable of accurate handling all them. I'd like to know what parts of WP:NOR disallow using sources in this manner. I really don't see it personally. Our primary aim here is not to misinform our readers, and if we do not clarify this point we will. I am not advocating for a huge paragraph here, but something is needed, and clearly others agree. I think we need to reconsider this.Griswaldo (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The situation you present is not analgous to the one here. The FIT from the 1920s and the FIT of today are not the same. We are explicitly clear in this article that the FIT that is discredited is the one that is related to endodontics from the 1920s. We do not speak about the modern FIT. Therefore to bring up modern FIT is a violation of WP:OR. If the sources we use speak about modern FIT, of course it would be reasonable to talk about it, and I would encourage it; the sources in this article, however, speak only about the FIT that is related to Price and endodontics vs. extraction, which is NOT the modern FIT. Bringing up MODERN FIT when the discussion in our article is only about OLD FIT is only going to confuse, not inform, the reader, especially since no available RS ties Price to MODERN FIT. Yobol (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yobol we do talk about modern FIT, but we talk about the fringe application of FIT in the modern context. "Modern FIT" is not only "mainstream FIT". I do not see any RS justification for claiming that the fringe FIT is not "modern". Individual editors can always define something more narrowly and claim that therefore something else is unrelated, but I urge you to consider the very subjective nature of doing so in this instance. The modern use of the theory takes on at least two general forms. The fringe form is endodontic and attempts to justify anti-root canal advocacy and the mainstream form is periodontal and is not being used for such advocacy. It is being "cautiously" researched by respected researchers and institutions. By only presenting the fringe form as the revival of FIT we mislead our readers. Now, I agree that we don't need a whole paragraph here but at least a one liner that differentiates the two.Griswaldo (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Also note that sources discussing what you are calling "modern FIT", do so in terms of the "resurrect[ion]" of FIT (see one of Bruce's sources above for instance but also the two contemporary reviews in the JDA by Barnett - "In some sense, this can be construed as a return to the theory of focal infection" and the JCDA by Pallasch "The resurgence of the focal infection theory of disease has been greeted with great enthusiasm in some quarters"). In other words the distinction based upon one being modern and the other being a revival or resurrection of the old does not occur in the language of publications discussing the ostensibly "modern", so why are we making it here?Griswaldo (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

We don't talk about modern FIT, we talk about people trying to resurrect the OLD FIT as if it was still valid. I use the term 'modern' because it is a way to distinguish it from the one that Price believed. If you want to use 'fringe' and 'mainstream' it works just as well. No one talks about Price in the context of 'mainstream' FIT. They only talk about it in terms of 'fringe' FIT. I have altered the wording in this article to clarify. No one is misleading anyone as we are very clear we are talking about the FIT that Price is associated with. Yobol (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that reliable sources that discuss mainstream FIT describe it in terms virtually synonymous with how we describe fringe FIT in relation to older theories (please see above). They describe it as a "revival of", "resurrection of", and "return to" focal infection theory. When you have a group of sources calling their subject "focal infection theory" and saying that it has been revived and another group saying the same thing, but in reality they are not describing the same revival we owe it to our readers to clarify. That's my only point here really.Griswaldo (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This has been my point all along. There is only one FIT but what you saw with Price and his contemporaneous was a focus on one aspect of the theory--foci of infection in the mouth. Another example of this with regards to penicillin in the late 1940s: "The use of sulfa drugs and penicillin in cold therapy is still the subject of a good deal of controversy. Like the so-called cold vaccines, they have a powerful effect on the bacteria causing secondary infections but do not seem to act on the cold viruses themselves." (LIFE - Dec 16, 1946 - Page 112). To our modern eyes the idea that anti bacterial agents could not work on virus is a "no duh, Sherlock" but in 1946 they were still stumbling around a bit. It is not fair to judge the doctors of 1946 by 2010 standards.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Jarvis as source

We need to discuss this one. Jarvis is a Quackwatch contributor and founder of National Council Against Health Care Fraud. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 12:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That article is published in a peer reviewed journal as a review of the topic, which clearly meets WP:RS and WP:MEDRS standards. This isn't even close to borderline. Yobol (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

How did you get access to it? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 12:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Some skeptics will disagree with me, but I think a good compromise in this situation is just to attribute the somewhat controversial source to ...Jarvis, founder of the NCAHF... It allows a middleground that puts the background of the source out there for the reader to interpret for himself or herself without removing or directly challenging the material. Ocaasi (talk) 13:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

@The Founders Intent: I read it in the library, which is of course, completely besides the point of whether it is a RS or not (it is).

@Ocaasi: As to attributing, I don't think it appropriate in this case. Attribution would be appropriate were it published in a borderline source (doesn't appear to be the case here), or if claims made in the source were particularly controversial in the scientific/medical community (which it does not appear to be). That some editors do not like the association of the author or the conclusions of the author is really besides the point and should not drive whether attribution is needed. Yobol (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yobol, you would find it problematic to say, in a review published by the founder of National Council Against Health Care Fraud, William Jarvis criticized...? I find that attribution there is neither belittling nor confusing. It doesn't 'taint' the criticism and it just puts the source's background out there. Some readers will find that connection to be a very positive and confirming point; others will see caution in it. Either way, I think readers benefit from the knowledge and the chance to see a hint of this debate reflected on the page. Ocaasi (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying there really isn't any necessary reason to attribute those view by name. The text already attributes all the statements to "the review" (i.e. it doesn't use Wikipedia's voice); and other reviews are not named either (those from JAMA, etc). I'm always wary to attribute when it isn't necessary, as it can either give the impression of "peacocking" for the person being attributed or to "mark" it as an outlier or wrong because other studies/reviews aren't attributed in the same fashion. There is no real reason why this review should be treated any different than any other review in that section in the need for attribution if what the review says isn't a particularly controversial within the scientific community (which as far as I can tell it is not). Yobol (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This source is published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins who present themselves as an "International publisher of professional health information for physicians, nurses, specialized clinicians & students. Medical & nursing charts, journals, and pda software." and little crosschecking showed that a ridiculous number of their journals are used in publications printed by Wiley so everything on a reasonable research level shows this publisher to fully qualify under WP:RS.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that even during Price's lifetime the idea that primitive man might in some ways be healthier than modern man was viewed with skepticism:

1. "So much for the myth of the healthy savage! The nutrition of the African native has been carefully studied since 1929. Today, with the amount of medical and scientific evidence available, it cannot be doubted but that in many parts of Africa, the native is seldom assured of a constant and regular food supply; and that the consequent malnutrition...." (1938, Year book of agricultural co-operation; International Co-operative Alliance, Plunkett Foundation for Co-operative Studies, Horace Plunkett Foundation, pg 44)

1. "There was a myth about "the healthy savage," akin to Rousseau's fanciful ideas about "the happy savage."" (Barnes, Harry Elmer (1939) Society in transition: problems of a changing age Prentice-Hall pg 221)

1. "Biological surveys of modern primitives have also exploded the myth of the "healthy savage"." (Phelps, Harold Augustus (1938) "Contemporary social problems" Prentice-Hall pg 158)

1. "For the "healthy savage" is a myth. Primitive man is a puny creature as a rule, accustomed to gratify every sensation as it arises, hence ill-equipped to endure fatigue, discomfort, hunger or thirst." (Kinross, Baron Patrick Balfour (1935) Grand tour: diary of an eastward journey)

So it's not like we are going over new ground here. However in defense of Price, archeologists have noticed that hunter-gatherer populations had less tooth problems than agricultural groups (Hays-Gilpin, Kelley; David S. Whitley (1998) Reader in gender archaeology Page 308; Roberts, Charlotte A.; Keith Manchester (2005) The archaeology of disease Cornell University Press pg 67)

"A number of other studies have also looked at specific population groups to determine caries prevalence with a change in subsistence. For example, Perzigian et al. (1984) found that caries prevalence increased through time in the Ohio River Valley in Late Archaic (hunter-gatherers), Middle Woodland (mixed economy) and Fort Ancient (agriculture) populations. Of 159 permanent teeth from the Late Archaic only 4 teeth (2.5 per cent) were carious. The Middle Woodland prevalence was five times that of the Late Archaic, and in the Fort Ancient population 24.8 per cent of the teeth were carious." (Roberts, Charlotte A.; Keith Manchester (2005) The archaeology of disease Cornell University Press pg 67)

This and similar works makes it clear Price was seeing something real but the conclusions about what he was seeing is up for debate.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm checking on this source, and will respond afterward. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you guys are enjoying pushing my response down. ;) Anyway, there isn't 2 cents worth of difference between Jarvis and Barrett; they're on the same team. I don't care about the publisher, they didn't write the article, book, magazine or whatever. Jarvis is a consumer advocate just like Barrett, and his opinions should be treated the same. To claim that his writing are PEER REVIEWED like a university or AMA paper is stretching it.

In every age and time, those who are discontented with the realities of the world around them long for the life as they think it must have been "in the good old days." The penetrating observations of a prominent nutritionist will awaken many readers from such reveries.

Here is an abstract from the article "The Myth of the Healthy Savage". Is there any doubt where such a quote is going? I wish I had access to the rest of it. Just reading the above quote would lead any reasonable person to believe that Jarvis is getting ready to paint Price as a kook. Is this what passes for a peer reviewed articles these days? We have a huge paragraph in there trying to disparage Price's research as biased and amateurish, that's three time larger than Barrett's. Therefore it is my contention that he gets no more WP:DUE than Barrett does. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 00:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with it, take it to WP:RSN. This is clearly both WP:RS and WP:MEDRS compliant, and just because you don't like the author or what he has to say doesn't amount to a hill of beans as to whether it meets criteria set out by policy. I am therefore removing the "dubious" mark. Yobol (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You'll do nothing of the sort, I'm not finished with this yet. I have a right to question this. And you try to stop this discussion, I'll assume you have an agenda. You are giving Jarvis undue weight, compared to Barrett. You don't get to bulldoze your way through this article, you are going to have to work with other editors. Get use to it. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 01:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Of the 4 editors commenting in this thread, only you seem to be under the impression that this doesn't meet WP:RS. As I said, take it to WP:RSN if you feel strongly. Unless other editors concur with your position soon, I will be removing the dubious mark. We don't tag as a badge of shame. Yobol (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment on this source. I have not read it. However articles that appear in scholarly journals are considered to be reliable for most purposes. If we're using it to make medical claims, then it would have to meet the stricter standards at WP:MEDRS, but I don't have enough information to tell if it does. I see in this discussions comparisons to Barrett, but they are quite different. If I'm not mistaken, Barrett's views in this topic are not published in scholarly journals. If there are more questions about sourcing issues, WP:RSN is the forum for soliciting community input.   Will Beback  talk  01:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice, you haven't read it, but you automatically lend support. Barrett and Jarvis are the same. And we know all about the value of peer review when considering what happened over the climate change document leak in the UK. You think quality papers will paint Price as a loon, rather than examine the actual data of his research, that's fine. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 02:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The evaluation of sources is mostly based on externalities rather than the actual contents. The publisher is a key factor. The author is another factor. "William Jarvis, Ph.D, is a retired professor of public health and preventive medicine at the Loma Linda University School of Medicine."[4] Based on those two factors, the Jarvis article would appear to qualify as a reliable source. If he's making a remarkable assertion outside of his specialty then we might have reservations, but that doesn't seem to be the case. If you don't want to accept my input then I recommend taking this to WP:RSN.   Will Beback  talk  02:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to explain of the sake of other editors just what the difference between Barrett and Jarvis is. WP:RS has three criteria for evaluating a source: publisher, author, and context. In terms of biographic information on Price, Barrett failed all three in that the work was self published, largely outside the author's field of expertise, and the context was less about history then being used as example. William Jarvis on the other hand is going though what from any degree of reasonable research is a reliable publication and is an expert two relevant fields (public health and preventive medicine). The only argument that could be raised is context ie if it is was one of these "according to", "based on" or "this expert says" type of references and nothing to suggest that has been presented.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Weston Price cautious about focal infection theory?

At Focal infection theory Bruce added the following -- "Despite Price himself saying in 1925 that more research was needed and care should be used in applying Focal Infection theory ...". This is referenced to, Price, Weston A. (1925) "Dental Infection and related Degenerative Diseases" J Am Med Assoc 1925;84(4):254-261. If this is indeed verifiable, as I assume it is, I think the information ought to go into this entry. Bruce how clearly stated is this in Price's 1925 article? Do you have a PDF by any chance? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

How could a statement as quoted by Price square with the image of a doddering old fool painting by Quackwatchers? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"The relationships between dental infections and degenerative diseases, if such exist, should be demonstrable by other means than the establishment of simply an association of the two in the same person, or the development of such lesions in experimental animals with cultures taken from focal infections. In this paper I summarize some new data developed in my researches on the relation of focal infection to systemic disease, with particular consideration of dental focal infections and the degenerative diseases, and with especial reference to structural changes that take place in the supporting structures about dental focal infections, and to serologic changes in body serums." (First lines of paper used as there was no formal abstract Price, Weston A. (1925) "Dental Infection and related Degenerative Diseases" J Am Med Assoc 1925;84(4):254-261)

Much of the second sentence appeared verbatim in (1925) "Dental Infection and related Degenerative diseases" The Journal of the American Dental Association, Volume 12; pg 497. Looks like the article might have also appeared in The Dental cosmos: Volume 67 pg 426.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

So he understood that correlation does not imply causation and in 1925 suggests that the jury was still out. I think the implication here is that there was a literature correlating the two already -- the "testimonials" mentioned in the endodontics book for instance. Does anyone have access to these old medical journals? It would be good to go to the source on this if possible.Griswaldo (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion of a correlation and a caution against assuming causation is exactly where the science is today; that is, just where Price left it. But that's not how the article portrays Price. He's portrayed as an amateur researcher who didn't understand the scientific method, nor how to interpret his own results. Furthermore, a doddering old fool who wished for the good old days of living the life of a savage. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 19:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Do we agree?

Do we agree on the following?

• 1) Price was a good dentist and a good researcher. He advanced his field. He was respected for his contributions at the time. He was not totally correct in his theories.

• 2) Since his research, FIT has split into two directions, one of which is now a fringe theory that has been discredited. The other is a revived mainstream FIT that differs significantly from the discredited FIT that Price put forth. Although all focal infection theories refer to the same basic concepts and early theoretical history, mainstream FIT is basically a whittled down version of the core of parts of fringe FIT which didn't get rejected since the 1930s combined with a better understanding of how inflammation can affect systemic diseases, etc. Mainstream FIT does not reject old FITs roots, it rejects the invalid conclusions of its poorly designed studies. Price is an important historical figure in the history of FIT, but he has received inconsistent mention by sources discussing its history; some praise him and others ignore him. Recently there has been an attempt to reassert his historical contributions.

• 3) Proponents of Price have tried to claim that fringe FIT is a direct descendant of Price and that it is correct. They ignore the mainstream FIT theory's findings entirely. Some of the motivations are due to anti-root canal advocates who trace their roots back to Price. Some of the advocacy of Price conflates his historical contributions with current ideas which were not supported by Price.

• 4) Skeptics have attacked the proponents of Price's (now) fringe FIT and in doing so have focused on why Price's original research was mistaken, in light of findings that now inform the mainstream FIT. Skeptics argue that Price's research today is only disucssed in context of fringe FIT, and that mentioning him in any way in relation to mainstream FIT would be an artificial synthesis.

Is that all right so far?

I think this sums it up, but for one mistake. Wee ought to stay away from the term "modern FIT". There are two modern versions, on is fringe and the other is mainstream. With this in mind skeptics have not attacked the connection between Price and mainstream FIT, because skeptics appear to be entirely unaware of mainstream FIT. The only modern FIT they see is the fringe version, unfortunately. It is not clear if the endodontics text introduced by Yobol is unaware of mainstream fit, since mainstream FIT does not deal with endodontic areas of the tooth/mouth, but periodontal ones. Either way it does not cover mainstream FIT at all. Perhaps none of this is in contrast to what you wrote, but if that is the case do you mind using "mainstream" and "fringe" or something else to distinguish between the two modern versions of FIT. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll update it above. Better?Ocaasi (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. In that case I think my original point still stands. Critics are not acknowledging the existence of "mainstream FIT" but only of "fringe FIT".Griswaldo (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Will you edit it directly, especially 4). I haven't read the skeptic source so you're better to characterize it. Ocaasi (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I updated 3. Griswaldo, is that still ok with you? Ocaasi (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Basically agreed on points 1 and 2. I disagree with point 3 - in my view the proponents of fringe FIT do not try to "conflate" it with the modern one, they just talk about the fringe FIT as if it was never rejected (basically ignoring mainstream FIT in the process). I also think point 4 is a little off. Skeptics (and mainstream endodontics experts as seen in Ingle's) have attacked proponents of fringe FIT (and in the process Price's work) because the proponents of Price (and fringe FIT) do not accept that Price's work (and most of fringe FIT) was rejected. To my knowledge, there has been no reliable source that has tied Price to mainstream FIT, at all. Yobol (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the proponents of fringe FIT (are there any besides Meinig and his associate btw?) are not engaging any of the recent studies about plaque, periodontal disease, etc. Their critics are also not engaging the mainstream FIT. In other words, within the arguments between these two groups "focal infection theory" does not refer to these mainstream advances. So I agree with Yobol there. However, all focal infection theories refer to the same basic concepts and early theoretical history. Meinig's theories, are also not simply replicas of Price's from what I understand (from glancing at a couple of online essays this is clear). He is claiming that Price was right all along and he is also adding his own theories of how and why focal infections spread through root canals to the mix. In this sense fringe theory /= old theory. Sure it champions the old conclusions of Price but it doesn't simply hold them up and say that's all she wrote. Not at all. Also note that mainstream theory also still holds onto the more general old focal infection theories. They do not reject "old focal infection theory", they reject the invalid conclusions of poorly designed studies that led people to believe that root canals and infected tonsils were the problem.Griswaldo (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, mainstream FIT is basically a whittled down, much smaller, core of parts of fringe FIT (the parts that didn't get rejected since the 1930s) with more modern veneer over it (as better understanding how inflammation can affect systemic diseases, etc). I also agree that Meinig is not just propping up the fringe FIT from the 1920s, but adding on his own. At the core of Meinig's theories, though, is the fringe FIT. The issue for this article, of course, is that Price's research, is really only relevant to the fringe FIT and his theories are only disucssed in context of fringe FIT. This is why I am against mentioning mainstream FIT - no one's talked about him in that context, and it would not make sense to do so as his research isn't really relevant to mainstream FIT. It would take some singificant WP:SYNTH to get us from Price to mainstream FIT. Yobol (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that, as far as I've seen, Price's theories on focal infection are only relevant to the contemporary fringe practitioners. Note that slightly older books on endodontics (over 10 years old especially) usually have sections on focal infection theory but usually don't mention Weston Price. Same goes for both of the peer reviewed articles on focal infection theory that also discuss the contemporary mainstream revival -- they cover the usual history, sans Price. The more recent endodontics volume, discussed here quite a bit, Mentions Price historically but then contextualizes the current fringe through Price. I don't think this is a coincidence. Price seems to have been pretty much written out of the history of FIT until Meinig and co. decided to champion him. However, I think this situation presents us with some problems. It makes Price's significance in earlier centuries more difficult to ascertain and it produces different literatures which confuse our readers about FIT in general, and FIT's relationship to dentistry in general.Griswaldo (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that his current notoriety with respect to FIT (in general) is due to anti-root canal advocates like Meinig promoting him and current interest in Price is at least in significant part driven by this. That is why we have to be (and I think we are clear) about how Price's work fits in to the overall picture - talk about how it fits into the picture - he's a historical figure, describe him as such and how his research is seen then and now. If and when he is related to mainstream FIT, we can add more info, but let's not clutter the picture by trying to explain something that doesn't need explaining in this article. Yobol (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

arb break 1

From what I have been able to put together there is no "old" and "modern" FIT. Remember that Stillman in a 1922 textbook on clinical periodontia said FIT "assumes the causative connection between the primary focus and the secondary lesion". Pallasch in 2000 reiterated this definition: "A focal infection is a localized or general infection caused by the dissemination of microorganisms or toxic products from a focus of infection." and clearly stated that this foci could be anywhere in the body. As documented by the reliable sources on the Focal infection theory page the mechanism worked very well to address tuberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, pneumonia, typhoid fever, mumps, idiopathic scrotal gangrene, and angioneurotic edema.

Instead of an "old" and "modern" FIT from what I have been able to put together what you had was perfectly valid theory for some diseases taken to an extreme by dentists and oral surgeons in the early 20th century; instead of being anywhere in the body the foci had to be in the teeth or the tonsils. After a while this particular aspect of FIT became so common that everyone forgot about the standard version and it is this extreme discredited version of the 1910s through 1930s that people like Meinig that are bringing back--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Bruce is onto something. I think the main reason for issues of the 1920's was that some dentists went ape with pulling teeth, which everntually appalled the dental and medical community, plus that lack of improvement achieved with such a radical amount of teeth pulling (i.e., find one infected tooth, and pull them all). Nevertheless, to me the new research still cautions against assuming a causative relationship (as before), but a correlation appears to exist (as before). FIT with other parts of the body is now also taking prominence as Bruce suggests. BTW, I like the way the article is worded much better. The criticism is reasonable and appears supportable. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 21:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

There is also this very curious hiccup in in the downgrading of oral FIT. The two main studies that raised major questions about it were in 1939 and 1940 but the official statement didn't come out until 1951 and there were hold outs in official circles like the Southern California State Dental Association as late as 1952 and for people like Grossman it lasted at least as late as 1955 and then it seems to have effectively dropped off the planet key cause in terms of mainstream oral disease until 1989 (The 1971 US Army article lists it as a possible cause for an allergy). As I said before the 1956 E.R. Squibb & Sons book gives a hint: "Elimination of such foci does not, however, necessarily mean surgical removal since infection may also be eliminated by destruction with antiseptics or antibiotics". Better antiseptics and antibiotics in the 1950s made the old solution of removal unnecessary. In fact there were even studies of using antiseptics and antibiotics as a preventive measure in tooth decay: "These bacteriological studies were done by the Eastman Dental Dispensary in connection with controlled investigations on the reduction of tooth decay in children receiving long-term antibiotic therapy." Antibiotics annual: proceedings of the Symposium on Antibiotics: Volumes 1958-1959; United States. Food and Drug Administration. Division of Antibiotics; pg 183) Needless to say how well that idea worked.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

/groans. If we can't even accept that the theory as it stood in 1920 is significantly different than the one now, I see no point in furthering this conversation with more OR. Yobol (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Instead of throwing out acronyms, why don't you give specifics? Anyone can throw out WP acronyms....in fact we had an issue around here with that not too long ago. Remember how well that worked out? If you have issues, describe them; otherwise we can't get this right. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 01:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

/rolls eyes. Yobol (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you expand on that? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 15:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yobol, I incorporated some of your and Griswaldo's comments into the description. I blurred the lines a little w/r/t/ mixing your criticism in with the skeptics. I don't call you a skeptic, but I think your point is most relevant there.

Two questions for you. Both you and Griswaldo assert that old FIT was whittled down to mainstream FIT. Fringe FIT holds on to the old, discredited conclusions. Ok, so if mainstream FIT has its roots in old FIT, but draws different conclusions due to better research a) why isn't it appropriate to see Price as an antecedent of the mainstream theory?; and b) would it be inappropriate to mention Price in relation to FIT even to say that 'although Price's research was in the same general area as mainstream FIT, his conclusions have not been supported by mainstream FIT and are so far removed from the mainstream understanding that Price is not even mentioned in mainstream sources.' Even that? Ocaasi (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Again I think what we have is confusing of the theory itself with how it was used. Several sources have been produced (Barnett and Pallasch among them) that clearly state that the 1989-present day oral FIT is a "return" and a "resurgence" of the FIT seen in the early 20th century. We have several source both contemporary and modern (including a 1922 textbook and a 2000 Journal of the California Dental Association) that define FIT in such a way that it was not limited to just oral medicine.

"A focus of infection may be defined as a circumscribed area of tissue infected with pathogenic microorganims. Foci of infection may be primary and secondary. (...) Primary foci of infection may be located anywhere in the body." (Billings, Frank ScD. (Harvard) MD (1916) Focal infection, Lane Medical Lectures (Delivered Sept 20-24, 1915 Stanford University Medical School); D Appleton and company, pg 3)

There it is, straight from a lecture at Stanford University Medical School in 1915 by what amounted to a PHD who also was an MD. A 1919 article in the Minnesota medicine: Volume 2 Minnesota Medical Association Page 20 says much the same thing as does (1915) The Laryngoscope: Volume 25 - American Otological Society; Page 786; (1916) Pacific medical journal: Volume 59, Page 177; (1913) Interstate medical journal: Volume 20, Page 849; (1914) Section on Laryngology, Otology, and Rhinology American Medical Association, Page 23; and many others. Reliable source after reliable source of the time shows FIT was not limited to just the teeth or mouth.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree Bruce, I think it is quite plain. There is only ONE FIT, there isn't old and new, early and modern, or now and then. There is one theory, and only one. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 11:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the issue, then, that FIT hasn't changed materially, but it has been rationalized--meaning, it has been proven through valid methods where as originally it was put forth with unreliable research which then had to be re-investigated--and the fact that new research has "returned" to it, is a truth without an implication; for, it is not Price's FIT that they have returned to, it is just FIT properly researched. Is that it? Ocaasi (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It was never Price's FIT to start with, and no one ever said it was. And again with trying to judge Price's research methods here, when it is of no concern in this thread. What you call valid research may be junk in 100 years; does that mean today's research didn't use today's best method? Are we still arguing the CONTEXT of the research work? Research methods improve over time without a doubt; that doesn't mean the research conducted at any single moment is unreliable, invalid or whatever. Why we keep going over this escapes me. Price was a respected researcher; and he initiated the research institute of the ADA. Enough said. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

@Ocaasi: From what we can gather from sources that talk about Price's research w.r.t FIT (in general), it was only in the setting of his research in endodontics, specifically research into extractions of teeth. This area of study is only present in fringe FIT; mainstream FIT basically does not talk about root canals and pulpless teeth as the main source for infection, nor does it advocate for extraction of teeth over endodontic therapy (root canal) anymore. There are other areas where they differ (fringe FIT had a much, much wider list of diseases that was purportedly associated with the teeth than is suspected currently), but that is the most pertinent one for this article. All areas which Price's research touch FIT is only in areas that have been rejected by the dental/medical community, and I emphasize once again, his work has never been mentioned with mainstream FIT. As to whether it has changed, it has clearly changed, and saying that the current FIT is not materially different from the 1920s version is clearly factually wrong. Yobol (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The basic theory of FIT has never changed, but that is because the basic theory is very broad (see Bruce's above definitions). Price, and other researchers of his time, proposed more specific theories about the causal role of pulpless teeth in the etiology of various diseases. When these theories were challenged by further research the basic premises of FIT were not. I think everyone agrees with that. The disagreements are over how to discuss or not discuss the role of the basic theory in this entry and in current incarnations of FIT in general.Griswaldo (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, again I think we have confusion of the theory itself with how it was used in one field. As shown in the sources of the teens focal infection theory was the idea of a infection having a foci of infection--a part of the body would be where the main part of the infection was and this foci would produce more infection or toxins. The oral medical profession took this theory and basically ran with it for 20 years and then things settled down to where only certain diseases were said to actual followed the theory. Pallasch's article warns "It would then appear wise to refrain from embracing the focal theory of infection in any guise until the proper research is conducted and corroborated by independent investigators." He states that the evidence we have right now for oral FIT is no better now than it was from 1900 through the 1940 and expresses a deep concern that this modern revival could spark a replay (though in a different form) of what happened in the early part of the 20th century.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

@Griswaldo: The answer seems obvious to me: this is an article on Price, let's talk about Price's work in the context of how it was used as it is written the reliable sources. This is what is being done. We really should not be adding information that has really no more than tangential about Price in an article that is about Price. No one has brought any information that Price is related to FIT in any other way other than as it is described in the RS that we have now. Trying to conflate clearly different theories as is being attempted in this thread by other editors does nothing but muddy the waters in this article that should be crystal clear. Again, no RS has discussed Price or his work in the context of the modern/mainstream incarnation of FIT, so we should not be discussing the modern/mainstream incarnation of FIT. Yobol (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

@Yobol: Except as keeps being pointed out that source is also being used to make a statement about modern FT that based on the other sources is misleading if not incorrect. Also if you look at most of the stuff these root canal books are saying they seems to be referring to Price's 1923 studies which Price's himself stated in 1925 were not enough.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is the source we are talking about (Ingle's Endodontics) being used to make a statement about mainstream/modern FIT? Yobol (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Go back to Talk:Weston_Price#Clarification_of_focal_infection_theory and reread the first two paragraphs. Cugadasan "Oral Sepsis and Focal Infection" Singapore Medical Journal states: "It is known that a large bacterial flora is present in the oral cavity and various dental procedure like extraction, scaling and endodonic treatment cause bacteramia." This article goes on to explain that in your average healthy person this is not an issue but in people with damage heart valves there can be serious problems.

[Focal Infection, Bacteremias, Anachoresis and the Hollow Tube Theory 2010] via Oregon Health and Science University is an interesting reference for Focal infection because in addition to Ingle's Endodontics 6th edition. 2008 pp 221-223 and Rosenow EC. The relation of dental infection to systemic disease. Dental Cosmos 1917;59:485 you have Grossman LI. Focal infection: are oral foci of infection related to systemic disease? DCNA 1960;4:749 and 11 pieces of material from 1994 to 2009.

So what we have is general FIT which is alive and doing very well thank you very much and the extreme oral FIT of c1900 to c1940. The problem is that an article in this period can be talking about one, the other, or worse both. Take Murray, B. A. (1918) "Mouth Infection as a Source of Systemic Disease" Can Med Assoc J. November; 8(11): 988–992 for example where we have focal infection in relation to septic teeth not endodonical treated teeth. This "septic tooth" FIT can be seen today in the form of Ludwig's angina, septicaemia, brain abscess, and meningitis. Also remember that antibiotics weren't commercial available until 1939 and not widely available until 1946 so a dentist's only really option with teeth as far gone as Mrs AJS' were was extraction.

"Focal infection is essentially an obscure cause of disease, and the focus may be found in any part of the body. Usually its origin is in the head, in the form of an alveolar abscess, tonsillar abscess, poor teeth and various chronic sinus conditions." (sic) (1915) Dental digest: Volume 21 Dental Protective Association of the United States Page 268

Please note the wording here: poor teeth NOT endodonical treated teeth. Again and again I keep showing that FIT of 1900-1940 was not just limited to endodonical treated teeth and here we have a version of the "classic" FIT that any dentist worth the name would recognize today. While Price may have concentrated his work on endodonical treated teeth that clear wasn't the only arrow in the FIT quiver even in terms of the oral version.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of what you just posted, as far as I can tell, is just an excuse to post a bunch of quotes and references because it has no real bearing on the very simple question I asked you. Please refrain from trying to overwhelm the discussion with multiple quotes and references that have really nothing to do with the discussion at hand - it is very disruptive.

Once again - Old/fringe FIT was based on the premise that systemic conditions are related to dental infections AND that you treat them not with endodontic therapy (i.e. root canals) but with tooth extraction. This is where Price comes in - his work on tooth extraction was used to justify tooth extractions as a treatment course. Modern/mainstream FIT has severely curtailed the number of diagnoses they believe may be related to mouth infections AND they reject Price's theories that tooth extractions are better than endodontics. Since we only talk about FIT as it relates to endodontics, we are only talking about old/fringe FIT. No one talking about modern/mainstream FIT talks about endodontics, we don't talk about mainstream FIT, so we shouldn't bring it up in an article on Price especially when no WP:RS brings up Price with relation to modern/mainstream FIT. Yobol (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Mind telling us how the "Mouth Infection as a Source of Systemic Disease article" article above does NOT fit this supposed "Old/fringe FIT" you keep talking about.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Being published in 1918, it is by necessity part of a larger literature on FIT at that time (that obviously being the old/fringe FIT). Your point? Yobol (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

arb break 2

Yobol I think there is still a degree of confusion about 1) what Price actually theorized and 2) what role his theories had in extraction hysteria. When you write "his work on tooth extraction was used to justify tooth extractions as a treatment course" I wonder how significantly it did so since Price doesn't figure into the usual historical narrative about this. It is only now that fringe practitioners have "rediscovered" his theories that anyone is bothering to mention his role. The endodontics book also makes no specific claims to his influence back then either, always reverting to generalizations when it comes to this matter in particular. These facts regarding #2 make me also seriously question #1. It seems clear that he really wasn't that important of a figure in extraction hysteria from his lack of mention in the sources, especially pre-Meinig sources, but also others. Is it possible that Price was actually much more cautious in his approach than we are lead to believe? Bruce has quoted the first paragraph of a source that hints at this put it is impossible to say for sure. If that is true, it would certainly explain why histories of focal infection and extraction hysteria didn't use to mention Price but now do. Because now, over 50 years after his death, he is becoming a significant name in anti-root canal advocacy. Am I the only one who finds it curious that nothing more affirmative about his role is said in the sources. He was, after all, director of the research arm of the ADA. Wouldn't there be a record of his advocacy back then beyond generalities about his research? In other words I think we actually have rather poor sources here all around, in terms of creating an accurate historical narrative.Griswaldo (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

All speculation. We go with what our best reliable sources say, not what we synthesize from other sources to make it fit in our heads better. If and when we find better sources, include those too with due weight. Otherwise, we make do with what we have. Yobol (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Griswaldo seems to have a point. If we look at 1922 Dental items of interest: Volume 44 Page 537 we see that Price was not afraid to do a complete 180 based on later research; in the space of 1 year he went from saying that pulpless teeth were foreign bodies that should be removed to that they were NOT foreign and that was some four years ago from the time of the article.

Taking a closer look at the 1925 to 1940 works I found these:

"Dr. Weston Price goes most thoroughly into the question of the possibility of sterilizing a root canal. A large number of experiments show the complete futility of all efforts in this direction" (Crowe, Henry Warren; Herbert George Franking (1927) "Bacteriology & surgery of chronic arthritis and rheumatism" pg 19)

"Price: It is to be remembered that a small portion of gangrenous pulp beneath a root-canal filling is equivalent to an entire gangrenous pulp in a cause of pericementitis." ((1928) Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, Volume 21, Issues 7-12: 1486)

Looking at 1940 to 1948 works things become even more mysterious:

A 1946 book on Root canal therapy by Grossman seems to only directly mentions Price once and that is in regards to his 1901 X-Ray work. If Price's work on the whole extraction craze had been substantial you would think some mention of his work would be made especially in book by a man who we know as late as 1955 was still a strong proponent of oral FIT.

Bremner's 1946 "The story of dentistry from the dawn of civilization to the present" directly mentions Price twice: his 1901 X-ray work and the 1939 Nutrition and Physical Degeneration.

We know from the reliable sources we have that in 1894 Price started looking at the relationship of diet to tooth decay and that was talked about several years after his death. But his root canal research seems to go into a memory hole during the end of his life.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yobol:

1) You are right on the letter of the policy, but it seems that there might be a meaningful question regarding the content of Price's actual research. WP:V is abundantly clear that verifiability trumps truth, but I have a deeper concern that we present the best information. Having sources meet policy is necessary but not sufficient; if our sources are inadequate then we have a duty to fix the article somehow.

2) Also, what if you're wrong? We have one modern source which tags Price as old/fringe FIT, but we also have sources which describe FIT in neutral terms that show it was not limited to the 1900-1940s dental craze and sources which reflect Price not being overly involved in that craze. We have anti-root canal proponents who want to tie Price to old/Fringe FIT, but it's not clear that Price actually fits there. Just because fringe advocates want to make Price their hobby horse, doesn't mean we can't defend him--not to support the fringe, but to accurately represent Price.

3)Finally, your editing perspective seems particularly concerned with avoiding issue-pushing by fringe FIT advocates. In attempting to squash them, it seems you are not equally concerned with whether the fringe advocates are correct in linking Price to their cause. The source which specifically address Price happens to be affiliated with an organization also particularly concerned with squashing those who seek to use Price to advance a theory... Is it possible that no sources tie Price to mainstream FIT, because no one needed to--because he was so obviously a part of it until the fringe proponents decided to pick up on him as a tool?

4) I don't doubt that if this went to an RfC that you would currently be validated, but I don't see how we can be satisfied without addressing the seeming contradictions presented by Bruce's sources. Those sources matter, and they suggest something. We should find out what it is before considering this adequately resolved by policy. Ocaasi (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue with Price's idea being distorted comes with another marginal (I don't know if we can really call it fringe by Wikipedia standards) group that cites him repeatedly: anti-fluoride brigade.

"Summary; Experiments on eighty children over a period of two years showed that six topical application of one to to thousand sodium fluoride solution, reduced dental caries by somewhat more than on third as compared with results in the corresponding untreated quadrant in the same mouth" (Price, Weston (1939) Nutrition and Physical Degeneration Chapter 24) and even earlier (1932) Price wrote a peer reviewed paper called "Evidence of a need for fluorine in optimum amounts for plant and animal growth, and bone and tooth development, with thresholds for injury"

This is likely the best evidence that we have to be careful regarding what those who argue for and against Price's ideas as to what Price is actually saying. The peer reviewed paper and his own book show him to present evidence for fluoride not against it. THe following appears in both the paper and his book:

"Field studies gave important data on waters and soils from many districts, including one in Northern Africa where the teeth of humans, and also those of camels, sheep, cows, goats, donkeys, and horses, are seriously affected. The waters from this district contain from 23 to 31 parts of F per ten million, determined by the Jacob and Reynolds method. The rocks from this district contained 5.38 percent of F, or 53,800 parts per million. This is the highest figure in our series, and higher than any found in the literature."

Something has gone seriously wrong when the work of a man that supported the idea that fluorine helped prevent tooth decay (first part) is used to claim fluorine is a poison (second part).--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

@Yobol. Just to be clear I'm not suggesting actual changes based on my observations. I'm expressing the reasons why I think our sources might in fact be rather poor at present. I agree with Ocaasi that something is suggested by Bruce's sources, and by factors that we have been discussing concerning the other sources and we ought to keep on looking into that. That's all I'm suggesting.Griswaldo (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

@Ocaasi:

• We actually have 3 sources explicitly mentioning Price in the context of old/fringe FIT: Baumgartner, Grossman (1940) (already cited in our article) and a 2003 review by Pallasch (which did not have any new information not already covered by Baumgartner so I chose not to reference it). The last two only briefly mentions Price, but corroborates that he is known for his experiments for tooth extraction. To my knowledge, no other WP:MEDRS compliant source mentions Price in the context of FIT (old or modern) and no source mentions Price in the context of modern FIT. I agree that if there is a problem with our current sourcing, we need to fix that by finding new sources that clarifies the situation by explicitly showing how the other sources are wrong. What we should not be doing is playing junior dental historian and trying to cobble together what "really" happened in 1920 based on our limited access to sources and expertise on the matter. This is the very definition of WP:SYNTH.
• I might be wrong, but I also might be right. How can we tell? By going to the best sources we have. We have 2 (3, actually) reliable source that explicitly puts Price's work both in historical context and in modern context. No other source has done that, and Wikipedia policy explicitly does not allow us as editors to come to conclusions outside of what our sources say.
• For the record, if has not been made abundantly clear by now, I have actually reviewed most of the quotes Bruce has brought up and am thoroughly unconvinced. From my standpoint, he has taken multiple quotes out of context of the articles he frequently quotes and tried to cobble together a narrative that superficially supports his position but upon further examination clearly does not. I am not, however, going to spend (waste) my time debunking each and every claim he makes, because it is pointless - it is all WP:OR.
• It is clear that no one has mentioned Price with regards to mainstream FIT because his work is so obviously not connected to it. His work was on endodontics and how great tooth extractions were. No one discussing mainstream FIT even mentions his work because that part of the fringe FIT theory was rejected 70 years ago, and no one outside the fringe advocates like Meinig currently thinks it has any validity. This, by the way, would be easily demonstrated to be false by someone showing how current/mainstream FIT advocates promoting dental extraction over endodontics again, which, despite the large number of sources posted on this talk page, no one has done.
• @Griswaldo: I appreciate that, but I'm getting just a tad frustrated talking on this talk page with the amount of WP:OR being brought up. The answer for anyone who thinks sourcing is inadequate or bad is to find better sourcing, not endlessly debate the subject on the talk page.
• I will repeat myself again: we are not dental historians. We are not supposed to present conclusions that go against the explicit conclusions drawn by the WP:RS we have, nor are we supposed to draw conclusions that our sources have not drawn. I encourage people to look for more sources that explicitly talk about Price and FIT/endodontics so that we can further confirm/improve our current sourcing. I have done Ovid, pubmed, and Google Scholar searches and am the one who found the sources we are currently using to describe Price and FIT, and kudos to anyone who finds something I didn't. What I do not want to do, is spend any more of my time trying to explain why we shouldn't be going through rounds of mental masturbation over material that doesn't talk about Price in that context when (almost) everyone seems to understand that would be (and has been) breaking our policies to encourage inclusion of such material.
• Proposal: I suggest that this is going no where until we get more sources that talk about Price in this context. I propose we table this discussion until we find more sources that explicitly talks about Price in the context of FIT that can further clarify the point. Yobol (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we need more sources but just on Price's work on FIT but on FIT in general in the 1900-1940 period, Right now we don't really have good information on:

• Relationship between general medical FIT and oral medicine FIT
• Relationship between the theory of focal infection and focal infection theory
• Relationship between septic FIT and endodontical FIT
• Price's contemporary level of importance in FIT vs the level he is being given by various fringe groups today.
• Accuracy of Price's views and ideas as expressed through a modern lens vs a contemporary one.

The fact that we don't have good information on all this is why we are having problems. My expertise is in museum anthropology (a form of historical anthropology); I was trained to look at documents and artifact in both a modern and (if possible) contemporary context and explain those contexts to both fellow anthropologists (hence the long quotes and massive citations out the wazoo here) and the layman public (what the article itself is). It is becoming clear that the answer to part of our problem lies in Price's contemporaries--how they defined focal infection theory, how they viewed its relationship to the theory of focal infection as seen in diseases like TB and the like, and so on. Given the age of the material it is not going to easy but to be fair to the reader we must be able to show how Price's work does not really relate to the revival of oral FIT that began in 1989. --BruceGrubb (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, I'll somewhat contradict my previous post and say, this is beneath your pay grade. Yobol has a point that the kind of analysis you are suggesting may be outside the scope of this specific article. I don't think that's entirely true, however, at focal infection theory, and I'd encourage you to beef that up with all of the sources you have. Yobol might say, if I can venture a guess, that once you complete your anthropological analysis and get it published in an RS, then we can use it (of course, you'll have a COI but that's a problem worth having). How much work can you do on the FIT article first? Meanwhile, I think we can approach Price's contemporary role a bit more carefully here but without the direct analysis that you've admirably laid the groundwork for.Ocaasi (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"Yobol might say, if I can venture a guess, that once you complete your anthropological analysis and get it published in an RS, then we can use it (of course, you'll have a COI but that's a problem worth having)." You read my mind. I agree that these sources may be useful at focal infection theory and that article needs work, though we always have to be mindful of WP:MEDRS and not use primary old literature to contradict the views of current reviews (which should form the bulk of the cited references there). Yobol (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

MEDRS has this funny habit of being stretched beyond my comfort level. I think that where current medical consensus is concerned, MEDRS rules the day. But where historical/anthropological issues are being described, or where social/media issues are at stake, MEDRS is not applicable. So, Bruce can beef up the historical section of FIT, not draw synthetic conclusions between the old sources and the new sources, and only characterize modern debates if there are modern sources which address them. That still leaves room for plenty of work, I think. Ocaasi (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that MEDRS is not really applicable to past medical claims not used any more or for social/political/economic issues. My main concern is synthesis being added to focal infection theory that contradict what our reviews say, and to emphasize (what I think sometimes gets lost in making an article) is that we should focus on reviews and not primary sources to avoid the temptation of synthesis (which MEDRS places a premium on). Yobol (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The thing is we are not experts. When an article in the 1900 to 1940 period talks about focal infection is that the same as an article from that same time period that talks about focal infection theory? Or are they related but also different and if so how? Furthermore when we have one article saying that FIT never really died, several that say it is having a revival, and another that says it has been dead as a dodo in main stream dentistry since about 1940 how do we accurately present that to the reader? This is where the article has the most problems--to laymen in medicine like use the WP:RS seem confusing and at times contradictory.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That's why we rely on mainly reviews to look at it, because none of us are dental historians. We have to pay special attention to any qualifying words and the context in which any conclusions are made, and if there are any real disagreements, clearly state based on due weight that there is disagreement in the medical literature, which happens often. Yobol (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Jarvis revisited -- attribution is required

The Jarvis source should not be used without attribution. It is published under the category, "Philosophical Rumination", in a

• "The articles in Nutrition Today do not represent any consensus of beliefs in the unsettled field of nutrition. We do not expect that readers of this publication will sympathize with the sentiments they find expressed here. We hold, however, that while keeping clear of mere vagaries, Nutrition Today can do more to inform the members of the health sciences and enlightened laymen in the United States, Canada and elsewhere, by offering hospitality to divergent ideas, than it might otherwise do by identifying the publication with one school of thought. In light of these sentiments, it is clear that the editors do not accept responsibility for the views expressed in any article which appears in these pages. What the editors do accept, however, is responsibility for giving our readers an opportunity to evaluate such views." (emphasis added)

While this doesn't necessarily matter, it is also unclear if Jarvis' article was peer reviewed. I see nothing about peer review in the actual journal that his essay was found in. Anyway it is clearly from a reflection piece in a journal that officially disaffiliates itself from the views of individual authors. I'm a bit disappointed that those who had access to the article previously did not make this clear when they argued against attribution.Griswaldo (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note - I have the article, since visiting the library today, and can email the pdf to anyone interested. Jarvis' critiques are all speculative, btw, though this is more and less indicated in the entry at the moment. I am not sure that such weight should be given, however, to the speculations of an author in a thought piece. What do others think?Griswaldo (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

From the current Nutrition Today website : "Nutrition Today helps nutrition professionals clear a pathway through today's maze of fad diets and cure-all claims by easy to read, authoritative reviews. Its peer reviewed articles are by leading nutrition and health professionals on the effects of different food and eating practices on health and quality of life." There was no indication to me this isn't peer-reviewed or there was any problem with it. Where did you get the above information? Certain it does not appear in the article. (And I dispute the fact that it is "speculative", but let's deal with one thing at a time). Yobol (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

From the actual journal in 1981 that contains the article and on its first page under the heading "Editorial Policy". BTW, this was published close to 30 years ago. I do not think that today's editorial policy, from which you quote, can be applied de facto to back then. That is not to say that there was no peer review process in 1981, but if there was was there is no indication from old editions of the journal. That said, whether or not it was using peer review in 1981 the editorial policy from 1981 is explicit and clear about what it does cover. Attribution is required. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll go back and review the journal in its entirety when I have a chance; certainly the editorial process may have changed in the interim. Given this information and until we can get it clarified, I don't have a problem with attriubtion in the article to Jarvis specifically; the text was attributing it to "the review" anyways (rather than using Wikipedia's voice). Yobol (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "speculative", it most certainly is. He refutes Price based on speculative assertions. He never reviews any medical literature from the actual groups Price worked with. Instead he mentions studies on other so called "primitives" to suggest that those peoples Price worked with would have been in a similar situation. That is fundamentally speculative. He may or may not be correct in the end, but he bases nothing on data that refutes Price, only on data that suggests that Price was probably wrong. Of course speculation isn't a problem in a reflection piece, or as Nutrition Today puts it, a "philosophical rumination".Griswaldo (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused; this review is no more (or less) "speculative" than, say, the book reviews that praised his work (which is cited by our article) or the foreword by Hooton that we summarize. Jarvis analyzed his work noting various things (lack of quantitative analysis, lack of acknowledgment of diseases commonly found in primitive cultures, etc) that he criticized Price for. He, in fact, is specific about the things Jarvis thinks Price did wrong. I'm confused as to what is "speculative" about this review that isn't equally speculative about the pablum Hooton wrote. Yobol (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying there is a difference, and the speculative nature of the article is for the most part acknowledged in our summary of it. The problem is that with speculative arguments like this attribution is even more essential. He's just ruminating on something, not offering a critique based on refuting evidence. What he does is 1) critique Price's methodologies and 2) suggest that other factors, if present, would explain many of the things Price did observe. I would suggest that he's getting a bit too much airtime here. I would say the same about Hooton were his speculations to be as long as Jarvis'. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Jarvis is critiquing the methodological problems in Price's research. I'm at a lost for words as to how that is not a valid critique or is in any way "speculative" in nature. He cites other studies of other people with "primitive" diets that illustrate his points. I'm still confused as to how any of this is "speculative". Perhaps I just don't understand your use of that word - what is "speculative" and how is pointing out methodological problems as a critique of research "speculative"? Yobol (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yobol there is no uniform "primitive" nutritional life. Ironically, that is probably the most obvious critique of Price's original research. It is quite amusing to see critics of this research fall into the same trap. Because Eskimos did x, y and z after being introduced to a Western diet, exhibiting A, B, and C diseases so probably did the groups studied by Price. That is speculation Yobol, and I fail to understand how it is being missed. Price studied a large number of groups, who by the looks of it must have been in very different dietary situations (even on general levels like resource scarcity). An actual refutation of his findings would have to come from actual studies of one or more of the same groups -- like the findings of the Kyoto University researchers on the Hunza also discussed by Jarvis (though not in relation to Price). If this was an actual review of research, and not a reflection piece, Jarvis would more likely have been held to such standards. But this isn't a research review, it is a reflection piece.Griswaldo (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Just for comment, the common denominator in the 'primitive' diets may have been what they lacked, namely processing, refined flour, and refined sugar. Ocaasi (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ocaasi, that is what Price argued yes, and I'm sure that it is true given that they did not have access to the food technologies needed to produce such products. But, this common denominator does not mean they had a uniform nutritional life. The point is that their nutritional lives varied not only from "modern diets" but also from each other. Jarvis, like Barrett who was clearly simply parroting Jarvis, replaces the trope of the healthy savage with the trope of the overindulgent savage. Neither is nuanced enough.Griswaldo (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no. Jarvis is very clear about specific things Price did wrong in his research. He isn't making "speculations" about them, he is pointing them out. One can critique the methodology of research without having to do the same research yourself. You will note that the summary of Jarvis' work that is in our article right now does not in any way try to "refute" Price's work as you describe it, but critiques Price's methdologies. Why would you expect there to be direct evidence "refuting" the data collected by Price when the summary I wrote didn't say there was? Yobol (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here. You seem to think that I 1) am trying to invalidate Jarvis' critique or 2) am claiming that the current presentation of Jarvis doesn't address the speculation at all. You wrote that, "the review also noted that Price's observations about the lack of caries in primitive societies could be explained by malnourishment due to the primitive diets." You also wrote, "... which led to his overlooking the possibility that the problems with the modern, 'Western' diet lay not with the food itself but with the lack of discipline and over-consumption of foods with alcohol, sugar, and salt among its followers." That's great, and it speaks to the speculative nature of the critique. There are other possibilities out there that Price seems to have been unaware of. Jarvis' own writing is like this as well. So I'm a bit confused about your questions. The reason I'm pointing all of this out is, again, not to invalidate Jarvis, but to be clear about what his publication is. It is a reflection piece. Do you agree with this? If not how else would you characterize it, keeping mind that Nutrition Today labels it a "philosophical rumination"?Griswaldo (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I would consider it a review of the literature on the concept of the "healthy savage". From my standpoint, it looks like a narrative review to me, given what I've seen in the medical literature. Yobol (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

What does "philosophical rumination" mean? If this is a lit review by medical standards I'm a bit aghast. I'm not in a medical field, but this wouldn't pass for a lit review in any peer-reviewed publications in the social sciences. What do you base your assertion on? Maybe you can share a comparable lit review from a medical journal so I can compare? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No idea what "philosophical rumination" means for that article; are any of the other articles in later issues similarly labelled - i.e. is it their name for narrative reviews? It looks and smells like a narrative review (as opposed to a systematic review). Here's a typical lit review [5] from JAMA - you said you wanted an example. Mind you, Jarvis' review isn't some kind of stellar class review mind you - it's about what you would expect from a low tier nutrition journal. Not the worst narrative review I've read. Yobol (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This notion of a narrative review seems way too flexible for my taste. A review has tremendous authority via MEDRS, and it suggests a comprehensive overview of research or literature from a neutral perspective, whether quantitative or otherwise. If it's just one author's opinion or perspective, than I think it's more than an editorial but less than a review. It's really just an essay by an expert. I don't think we can give it more weight than that. Ocaasi (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Ocaasi. As I mentioned already this falls under the heading "philosophical rumination", and if something like this were published in a social science publication it would be a reflection piece not a "literature review" because it is not a thorough lit review of any kind, more like a series of reflections based on a very scant literature.Griswaldo (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

After further review, and looking at other articles in that section, I have to agree my assessment was likely wrong. This does appear more of an editorial (especially in tone), and I have changed the section with trimming of it for improved weight. It may need more trimming. As an aside, still no idea what "philosophical rumination" means; the lead for other articles had similarly random wording (one article just had "Wheat" at the top of an article on the nutrtitional properties of wheat. Yobol (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yobol can you provide the citation for that review instead. I can't get in through your link, I have to access JAMA through my university library in a more roundabout fashion. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

JAMA. 2010;304(17):1936-1943. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1623. Sorry, thought it was free text to the public, which is why I chose JAMA. Yobol (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I should state Price tangentially mentions alcohol in regards to defective sperm in chapter 18 of his. He notes consumption of large amounts sugar in relation to tooth decay in chapters 3, 4 (These foods probably made a great appeal both because of their variety and their high sugar content to the pallets of these primitive people.), and 6 (They were living almost entirely on modern foods, imported white flours, jams, canned vegetables and liberal quantities of sugar.) Salt with regards to swine reproduction is mentioned on chapter 18. In short, Price by his own words did NOT overlook alcohol, large amounts of sugar, and salt as possible issues though except for sugar they didn't seem to have been high on his priority list. But to say he ignored them is not true. It is hard to take such reviews seriously when the author state Price ignored these things and you find passages that showed he at least looked at them.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear, the review didn't say he "ignored" the salt and alcohol, the review said he didn't quantify the diets and therefore did not realize the possibility it wasn't the Western diet per se but the overindulgence in the Western diet that could have led to disease. We need to be very clear and precise in our words so as to not argue against straw men. Yobol (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

We need to be precise? How precise was Jarvis? If he didn't actually conduct a scholarly review of Price's research directly, then his review is not authoritative in criticizing his methods. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 22:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Overexuberant review

I'm curious on what grounds we cannot comment on Jarvis' POV or intentions, but somehow can do so for the pro-price nutritional review. Yobol, you've raised V/NOR to high bar here; do you have a source for 'overexuberant'? I agree we should be able to make choices as editors, but if we are bound by policy, it should be equally.

I also think both sources, the overexuberant and the Jarvis can both be included with proper contextualization. One was a review 'of the time' applying that era's standards, and the other is a modern commentary on those methods in (informed) retrospect. I see no reason not to present both as such. Again, MEDRS for modern medicine, and 'mere' RS for everything else. Ocaasi (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Similar commentary was removed by Ludwigs2 on 11/1, see his edit comments. I happen to agree that claims about "masterpieces" and "Charles Darwin of nutrition" probably need more support. This is especially true since we're using a source on nutrition to discuss Price's FIT/dentist work when calling it "masterpieces", as his FIT/endodontics work was laregly outside the realm of nutrition. Yobol (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 missed the way both statements were worded:

A posthumous review of Price's nutritional research in 1951 by the American Academy of Nutrition praised his work so highly that they said he "might well be called "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition"" (the exact phrase "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition" produces 5,190 results through google and many of them claim that he was called "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition". The Laryngoscope: Volume 60 American Otological Society (1950) similarly states "Dr. Price might well be called "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition.""

The whole reason that reference was there was shows the sources that say he was called "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition" (including the very back of the the paperback version of the 6th edition of Nutrition and Physical Degeneration) are not being totally accurate and where the reference is coming from. Neither of these source actually makes that claim but rather a more modest claim that he MIGHT be considered that. Given how common this misrepresentation of what the Laryngoscope and American Academy of Nutrition articles actually say it is best if we correct the problem best we can. Furthermore Laryngoscope is published these days by Wiley and is also "Official Journal of The American Laryngological Association"

the second try at this simply said "while that same year the American Academy of Nutrition proclaimed Price's work on focal infection "masterpieces" though they said he would be better remembered for his nutritional work."

Please note what this actually says not what you think it says. Does the article referenced actually say this? YES. Is the proper relevance made? YES (an organization of Nutrition in 1951 is commenting on the quality of a work in dentistry made in 1923). Per WP:V and WP:NPOV there is no Earthly reason to keep this out especially when an article from a closely related profession to Price's own makes the same observation.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yobol, I think Ludwigs' reasoning that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence doesn't quite apply here. We're not WP:ASSERTing that Price was the Charles Darwin of Nutrition, or even that he was generally called that. All we have done is given reference with attribution to two reliably sourced, relevant and notable instances of this happening. Extraordinary claims are not being made by us here; we're merely reporting the sources which made them. Does that add up? Ocaasi (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG doesn't apply when someone is claiming a cleveland dentist, because of one book that contemporary reviews were fairly tepid about, is now the next Charles Darwin? Even when that source is a specialty journal which doesn't apply to the area of study which is being commented on? Yobol (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs reverted the comments, hopefully he'll chime in here. These claims are indeed grand, but it's not us who are making them, but other sources. I don't know how reporting on Price's reception in a section which is both descriptive and historical is promotional or unencyclopedic. At the least, it seems we are compelled to paraphrase these types of comments (positive and negative). Ocaasi (talk) 06:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The things is the this "Charles Darwin of Nutrition" claim is already being made all over the place (over 5,000 hits in Google) so showing readers where and what the claim actually was is important.

WP:PEACOCK (which is what I think Ludwigs2 and Yobol are thinking of) states "Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance."

The peacock version would read something like "However later Price was called "Charles Darwin of Nutrition" "(references) and that is NOT what is there.

Now look at what really is there: "However in 1950, the American Otological Society in its journal The Laryngoscope proclaimed "Dr. Price might well be called "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition" an opinion reiterated nearly verbatim in 1951 in the American Nutrition Society publication Modern Nutrition.(references).

Note per the just the facts example under WP:PEACOCK this states

1. When and where these statements were made
2. states exactly what was said
3. Clearly states that these were opinion of these publications.

The gauntlet I throw down to Ludwigs2 and Yobol is to show how by following the just the facts example under WP:PEACOCK of what is allowed this is still a violation of that standard and if that is not what they are arguing then clarify just what policy or guideline they are using.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Not much time to comment now (will later) but I have couple of questions to ask Bruce: which page is the commentary on Price from The Laryngoscope on, and how would you characterize the difference between how The Laryngoscope and Modern Nutrition describe Price? Thanks. Yobol (talk) 12:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to entirely separate the history/theory from the reception/criticism from modern legacy/fringe issues into different sections. Right now, they're getting mixed up and it's not making the complicated situation any easier.

Bruce, I think your cites are good, but words like 'proclaimed' are a little peacocky. Sticking to just 'said/wrote' helps avoid the seemingly bombastic tone.

I was looking around and these policies seem to helpfully address what we're all discussing: Wikipedia:CLAIM, Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid, Wikipedia:Weasel#Unsupported_attributions, Wikipedia:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and generally Wikipedia:Attribute -- Ocaasi (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The Laryngoscope: Volume 60: "Dr. Price might well be called "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition." Turning from test tubes and microscopes to the hitherto unstudied evidence among human beings, Dr. Price sought the factors responsible for fine teeth among people who who had them — the isolated primitives. The world became his laboratory."

As for the difference between The Laryngoscope and Modern Nutrition that is due information on The Laryngoscope and its parent organization being reasonably easy to find allowing easy WP:RS while Modern Nutrition on the other hand is not. However Modern Nutrition is in the proper field (Nutrition) while The Laryngoscope is related to a profession close to Price's.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I asked for the page number. I assume you read the article before citing it as a source. Yobol (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's understand the problem here (because it's really a very common wikipedia problem). Sources are (obviously) vital, but sources always have their own particular skew on things. An encyclopedia article is expected to give accurate information about a topic, not merely to give accurate quotes from sources. Accurate information means that the topic is portrayed in a clear and understandable way that does not mislead the reader into erroneous beliefs about the material; sources should be used merely to demonstrate the accuracy of the information presented.

What's happened here in this passage (and in general) is that the over-exuberant language of the source tends to mislead the reader into thinking that WP should be considered an intellectual giant on the level of Darwin. It doesn't really matter that the wording can be sourced properly; it doesn't really matter what the source in its original context was trying to convey. What matters is that in this context (in this wikipedia article) the direct quote actually and explicitly misinforms the reader about Price. This isn't to say that Price was a dummy - he was obviously one very smart cookie - but w don't want to give the impression that he was more significant than he actually was. In this light it would be far better to (for instance) paraphrase the quote with much milder wording, but if we paraphrased it with milder wording it would be redundant with the other statements in the article. Can you tell me any use or information this phrase provides to a reader, beyond magnifying Price's significance and importance in the reader's mind? If you can't, then the quote simply doesn't belong in the article. --Ludwigs2 19:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, I understand what you are saying but we already have this "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition" claim all over the place including as a reference to the 6th edition of Price's Nutrition and Physical Degeneration on Amazon: "Dr. Price was a Cleveland dentist, who has been called the Charles Darwin of Nutrition." People already have a distorted view of Price's importance and have turned this statement into a 5,300 plus hit parade on google. The reason for the quotes is to CORRECT a mammoth error THAT IS ALREADY OUT THERE. The horse you want whose barn door you want to close is in the next state and its colts have had colts. The best we can do is state what REALLY was said, where it came form, and that they were options in two publications some 50 years old. In short it is to correct misinformation that is already out there something that encyclopedias also do.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That may be what you think you are doing, but that is not what you're actually doing. read the passage you keep including again. We do not need to replicate the exaggerations of others just to make the point that they shouldn't have exaggerated. We simply omit such exaggerations where we find tehm and stick to more balanced language ourselves. --Ludwigs2 21:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed wholeheartedly with Ludwigs2. There is nothing that has been presented to suggest his influence comes within a mile of the influence of a Charles Darwin. Mindlessly parroting the line without any qualifications as Bruce is doing here only furthers the error, not correct it. As one of the sources appears not to be reliable (see below) and the other is published in a specialty journal which has nothing to do with dentistry or nutrition, this is especially true. Yobol (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Again you are reading what you think is there not what really is there. The sentence states that it is an opinion. So I would like to know where this idea that the idea that Price was "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition" is being presented as a fact is coming from.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, you have yet to tell us why we should present the clearly erroneous opinion as such. Especially when one of the sources you're using fails WP:RS, and the other is from a specialty journal that has nothing to do with the claim. ENT journals aren't the place to get nutrition advice, and such an exceptional claim needs exceptional sourcing. An old ENT journal is not it.Yobol (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Supposed preconceived notion

"The review mostly criticized Price's appearance of having a preconceived positive notion ..." - I'd like to know who alledged the preconceived notions. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 23:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The author of the review, who is named in that section. Yobol (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Then write it that way, or I'll do it for you. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 00:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It already is. If you don't think there's a preconceived notion, you obviously haven't read the book, btw. Yobol (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Modern Nutrition may not be reliable

As it is being assumed to be a reliable source, I tried to get some more information on it. It appears to be published by the "American Academy of Applied Nutrition" and, per Google, the "American Nutrition Society", an organization which doesn't appear to have a good reputation. In a textbook by Helen Andrew Guthrie called "Introductory Nutrition" (2nd ed - 1971 - page 535) - "Food quacks frequently pose as members of legitimate-sounding professional organizations. It is virtually impossible for a lay person to recognize the names of the official representatives of the profession, let alone to discriminate them from others with equally impressive names. To expect the general public to recognize that the American Institute of Nutrition, the organization of recognized nutrition scientists, is different from the American Academy of Applied Nutrition or the American Nutrition Society, both of which are nonscientific organizations, is to assume a level of interest and available information that does note exist. In at least one case the telephone number listed on the letterhead of one of these pseudoscientific societies is the number of a health-food store. Many of these organizations publish their own monthly journal with "scientific" articles by their own members, most of which support the use of the type of product sold in their outlets or advertised as available by mail in their catalogue." I wonder if they published and sold any books we know?

If they're "nonscientific" then they qualify as "questionable sources" per WP:RS and should be removed as sources. Yobol (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

We have to be careful here. I found many groups with those (or very similar) names. The Scientific and technical societies of the United States and Canada (1961) by National Research Council (U.S.) and National Research Council of Canada lists an American Academy of Applied Nutrition formed in 1936 that published Journal of applied Nutrition and Modern Nutrition.

Then you have things like this bio of Ricardo Uauy. It says that he got "Kellog's International Nutrition Award from the American Nutrition Society (ASN)." Now there is a Kellogg Prize in International Nutrition Research but it is from the American Society for Nutrition so is this a mistype or something else?

Please note that Weston Price himself was a member of the American Academy of Applied Nutrition and donated his entire collection to them just before he died ((1948) Dental items of interest pages 19; 426; (1948) Journal of the Canadian Dental Association, Volume 14; pg 230) so that they republished that year is no surprise.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Guthrie points out later in that same paragraph, "Even reputable scientific groups have been temporarily deceived into accepting them as scientific" suggesting merely mentioned by other groups that have credibility doesn't imply they have it themselves. It is clear that Guthrie (an expert in that field) named those two societies specifically as nonscientific - and those clearly published Modern Nutrition; even the National Research Council link notes that there were almost 5 times as many "nonprofessional" members in that society (can't think of any legitimate professional society with that lax a membership requirement) - and that's counting veterinarians and agriculturalists as a nutrition "professional"... Too many red flags. Yobol (talk) 13:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a major flaw in your argument--the Modern Nutrition quote is a nearly verbatim copy of the earlier The Laryngoscope piece.

The Laryngoscope (1950): "Dr. Price might well be called "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition." Turning from test tubes and microscopes to the hitherto unstudied evidence among human beings, Dr. Price sought the factors responsible for fine teeth among people who had them — the isolated primitives. The world became his laboratory."

Modern Nutrition (1951): "Dr. Western A. Price might well be called "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition." Turning from test tubes and microscopes to the hitherto unstudied evidence among human beings, Dr. Price sought the factors responsible for fine teeth among people who had them — the isolated primitives. The world became his laboratory."

Since Laryngoscope is published these days by Wiley, is the "Official Journal of The American Laryngological Association" and made the quote first show us how Guthrie applies to them. The fact of the matter is the comment was made in a peer reviewed journal of a recognized scientific body devastates your whole argument.

While we are at is some more from The Laryngoscope volume 60: "Looking backward, we come to realize more and more the value of the life work of Weston A. Price, DDS. Three pioneers in Nutrition have been Dr. Price in the United States, Sir Robert McCarrison in India and the... (don't you hate snippets?"

In looking for more I found this little gem: "The history-making experiments of McCarrison in India and the worldwide odyssey of Dr. Weston Price must be included, if this is to be a truly international research campaign." (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce (1959) International health United States House of Representatives, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.

So in 1959 Dr. Weston Price's work was considered so good that it was put before Committee of the US House of Representatives as being on par with the work of McCarrison.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This section is a discussion about whether Modern Nutrition is a WP:RS for what we've been citing. If you want to talk about my deletion in general, please move it to the appropriate section above. Thanks. Yobol (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You're dodging the issue, Yobol. The quote originally came from the The Laryngoscope with Modern Nutrition effectively parroting it a year later so your arguments regarding quality, peer reviewing, and all that ultimately go back to The Laryngoscope publication.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not dodging it. Move it to another section and I'll respond. I'm not going to clutter up different sections with your off topic comments. Yobol (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"The Charles Darwin of Nutrition" issue put to the NPOV noticeboard

Since we have an issue on my trying to correct where the misconception of Price was called "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition" (rather then it being the opinion of one peer reviewed journal outside the field picked up by another that he gave his nutrition collection to) the whole thing is now on Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Weston_Price_and_.22The_Charles_Darwin_of_Nutrition.22.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceGrubb (talk • contribs) 05:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Focal infection theory and Weston Price

Right now we have two parts that are IMHO a little misleading.

"Price was outspoken on the relationship between endodontic therapy and broader systemic disease, ideas derived from focal infection theory, and held that dental health - and consequently physical health - were heavily influenced by nutritional factors. These theories fell out of favor in the 1930s and are not currently considered viable in the dental or medical communities"

and

"Despite the mainstream rejection of focal infection theory in endodontics"

These statements are not quite correct as demonstrated by:

Bergenholtz, Gunnar; Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit putlich (2009) Textbook of Endodontology Wiley; page 136

Fowler, Edward B (2001) "Periodontal disease and its association with systemic disease" Military Medicine (Jan 2001)

Garg, Nisha; Amit Garg (2007) Textbook of endodontics Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 2 ("The dark age (1876 to 1926): In spite of introduction of X-rays and general anesthesia, extractions was the choice of treatment than endodontics in most of the cases of damaged teeth because theory of the focal infection was main concern")

Pallasch, Thomas J. DDS, MS; Michael J. Wahl, DDS (2000) "The Focal Infection Theory: Appraisal and Reappraisal" Journal of the California Dental Association

Saraf (2006) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 188

Silverman, Sol; Lewis R. Eversole, Edmond L. Truelove (2002) Essentials of oral medicine PMPH usa; Page 159

Garg tells us an important thing--endodontics and focal infection were competing theories. So saying "focal infection theory in endodontics" is nearly the equivalent of saying "Newtonian Physics in General Relativity" or "Newtonian Physics in Quantum Physics"--a non sequitur.

Also Price himself expressed concern about correlation being used to imply causation in 1925 (J Am Med Assoc) and in 1939 he warned against seeing fluoride as the new panacea for dental caries as dental extractions had been (Nutrition and Physical Degeneration). Given that we know from 1922 Dental items of interest article that Price had reversed his position on pulpless teeth being foreign bodies in the space of only one year and that had been some four year previously. I suspect that the current supporters are pumping his 1923 work and either ignoring what came later or cherry picking from it (per the fluoride example above). I think to get a better view of Price's actual views we need to delve into his actual works.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Clarified the second sentence with adding "in relation to"; first sentence is generally fine as "endodontic therapy" is basically another name for the procedure "root canal"; added "and pulpless teeth" for completeness. As to "delving" into Price's work, we have to be very careful that we do not cherry pick quotes out of his work to give the wrong impression of his beliefs, as we already have WP:RS that have reviewed his work and noted what they actually say.Yobol (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"Many of us remember the sensational paper read five years ago in this hall by the popular speaker, Dr. Weston A. Price. He stated that pulpless teeth are foreign bodies and consequently are sequestri which should be removed. (...) But a year later Dr. Price retracted his statement." (Dental items of interest, Volume 44 pg 534) The article then goes into a long explanation on how pulpless teeth are not foreign bodies. Now The Dental cosmos (1916) Volume 58; Page 1329 article give us this little titbit: "Dr W. E. Cummer of Toronto will offer a solution of the problem of supplying artificial substitutes in the semi-edentulous mouths of the martyrs to the indiscriminate extraction of pulpless teeth. This shows that there was some serious debate even in 1916 regarding the extraction craze. Here are some other snippets from Price's time:

"But Weston Price, working under a grant from the National Dental Association, demonstrated that the materials used by dentists failed utterly to seal the canal." (1924) Hettinger's Dental News Volume 7 pg 8

"All credit and honor should be given to Dr. Weston A. Price, for having given us a susceptibility chart which enables us to consider what is safety for the patient regarding pulpless teeth. May I ask in all sincerity and candor how many root canal operators make use of this chart? May I also ask in all fairness, and no desire for fault finding, how many colleges teach their students to first learn the health history of the patient before deciding to fill a pulpless tooth?" (1929) Dental items of interest, Volume 51 pg 443

"Even Weston A. Price, radical as he is, is quoted as follows: "Just here I wish to introduce a warning; Exodontists and physicians who do not have the heart-rending worries of making dentures comfortable and serviceable, under conditions which are so nearly impossible as to be very discouraging, often feel justified in removing many doubtful teeth." (1935) Journal of the Canadian Dental Association pg 451

"The well-known work of Weston Price has thrown some light on these questions, although there are pathologists who do not agree with his conclusions. Weston Price (1923) has investigated some 1400 cases of infections in a very exhaustive fashion. Statistics have been collected in each case of the family history and heredity, the nature of the present infection, both by culture tests and animal experiments, and by a complete medical examination, including radiographs of their teeth." Parfitt, John Brodribb; Walter Elmes Herbert (1948) Operative dental surgery Williams & Wilkins

"Weston Price and others, proved that diseased teeth are very definite contributors to human diseases. Must all this effort and work toward scientific enlightenment be disregarded because of the "Improved Status of the Pulpless Tooth"? Why not recognize the futility of so-called root surgery, and lend the efforts of the profession toward prevention? No thoughtful practitioner can convince himself that a pulpless tooth is just as sound as a vital one." (1939) Dental items of interest: Volume 61

"When Weston Price came to correlate these three groups with immunity from, or susceptibility to, rheumatism, he found that there was a very definite relationship : with those individuals in the first group there existed a definite immunity from rheumantic diseases; with those in the second group a define susceptibility; and in the third group an original immunity passing over to a susceptibility." Broderick, Frederick William (1936) The principles of dental medicine page 428

This is an interesting cross section of views on Price from his time and even a little after it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

After reading all this, there's no doubt about the validity of all the criticism leveled at Price, is there? Hmmmm? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 21:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Not everyone's Sarcasm Fu is good, Grasshopper. Seriously, even if you look at the book everybody seems to be referring to (Dental infections, oral and systemic 1923) things are not as clear cut as the modern reports and claims seem to make it:

"PROBLEM: Have pulpless teeth injurious contents other than microorganisms?

EXPERIMENTAL AND DISCUSSION. A search of the literature has failed to reveal any new light on this question. We find no evidence that teeth contain other injurious substances than bacteria; nor do we find evidence that such a research has been made. A large number of studies has been made of the organisms which develop in infected teeth, both as regards their identity and their biologic and pathologic qualities. The general procedure has been to take the organisms from the suspected teeth by any one of several procedures, culture them in suitable media, and test their reactions on various sugars and on animals as well as determine their morphologic characteristics."

Now this combined with Dr W. E. Cummer's comment raises on interesting question need to find some reliable sources to answer. If extractions of pulpless teeth were so out of control in 1916 that there were "martyrs" to its abuse then at best it seems that Price's work was being used to justify what had already been going on for more than seven years before he published his work. So just how important was Price in the bigger picture? We know that his work was referenced in "official" channels as late as 1952 in Southern California State Dental Association and in general as late as 1955 but was it do his studies themselves or due to his level of importance at the time he did them?--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

I've tagged the article with NPOV after the introduction [6] (into the lede of all places) of material not about Price at all, but about focal infection theory and how it might be "viable in the dental or medical communities" despite sources to the contrary. --Ronz (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

...and I have removed the new material. The same objections that I provided earlier are still relevant now. For the millionth time, this is an article on Weston Price, not FIT. Yobol (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Extended content

Yobol, I recommend watching the tone on the edit summaries. That last one you gave on your revert, IMO is walking the fine line of a personal attack. Keep it objective please. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 02:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC) That was not a personal attack, nor close to one. Please review WP:NPA so you don't make the same mistake in the future. Yobol (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Collapsing per WP:TALK, WP:DR, WP:NPA. --Ronz (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Uncollapsing as none of those policies apply. --BruceGrubb (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC) WP:TALK (WP:TPG#YES) says, "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." WP:DR (WP:FOC) says, "The most important first step is to focus on content, and not on editors. Wikipedia is built upon the principle of collaboration and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is important to any community." WP:NPA says, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." WP:NPA (WP:AVOIDYOU) says, "As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people. " and "Editors should be civil and adhere to good wiki etiquette when describing disagreements. The appropriate response to an inflammatory statement is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy." WP:NPA says, "If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you should leave a polite message on the other user's talk page. Do not respond on a talk page of an article; this tends to escalate matters. " All apply here. --Ronz (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Also, WP:CIVIL says, "In general, be understanding and non-retaliatory in dealing with incivility. If others are uncivil, be understanding (people do say things when they get upset) rather than judgmental, and do not respond in kind. " --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Also the majority of reliable sources show that focal infection is being reinvestigated and no proof of PMPH-USA being a reliable source was ever provided.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Bruce, the comment about it being a discarded theory is needed: most readers will not know what FIT is, and will not be aware that it was a once mainstream or that it is no longer used. If in fact FIT is making a comeback, the version of FIT that arises will be a substantially different theory than the one used in the 1930's (which was discarded for valid analytical reasons) and we should not confuse readers by implying that the modern version is a temporal continuation of what Price understood by the theory. At any rate, this discussion should play out over at the FIT article, not here. --Ludwigs2 05:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

We went over this before.

1. Focal infection while marginalized in dentistry never really died (Editorial. JAMA 1952; 150: 490.) (Bergenholtz, Gunnar; Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit (2009). Textbook of Endodontology. Wiley. pp. 135–136)
2. "The central hypothesis of "periodontal medicine" is that infections from periodontitis present as a chronic inflammatory burden at a systemic level. At various times throughout history, the concept that infections of the mouth could influence systemic health has been debated." ((2001) Fowler, Edward B "Periodontal disease and its association with systemic disease" Military Medicine (Jan 2001))
3. Manila's 1989 studies were the first modern studies into focal infection theory ((2001) Fowler)
4. Studies from 1989 to the present day has reawaken a cautious interest in focal infection theory (Wiley, Jaypee Brothers Medical)
5. Pallasch in the 2000 Journal of the California Dental Association expressed concern that "The resurgence of the focal infection theory of disease has been greeted with great enthusiasm in some quarters (36-38) particularly as there is now possible limited evidence that periodontal microbial pathogens may be a risk factor for cardiovascular disease."

Note that Pallasch says "the focal infection theory" NOT "a focal infection theory" and later he warns "It would then appear wise to refrain from embracing the focal theory of infection in any guise until the proper research is conducted and corroborated by independent investigators." Also note that Price in the Journal of the American Medial Association way back in 1925 stated "The relationships between dental infections and degenerative diseases, if such exist, should be demonstrable by other means than the establishment of simply an association of the two in the same person, or the development of such lesions in experimental animals with cultures taken from focal infections." (Price, Weston A. (1925) "Dental Infection and related Degenerative Diseases" J Am Med Assoc 1925;84(4):254-261) and this was two years after the book (Dental Infection: Oral and Systemic) the root canal are dangerous brigade likes to cite.

Finally compare these definitions (1918 and 1952) of focal infection to a modern (2009) one and explain just what different there is between the three. Please note these are all DENTAL sources:

"All focal infection is not of dental origin, but a sufficiently large percentage is to demand a careful study of the mouth and teeth in all cases of the mouth and teeth in all cases of systemic infection, for in these cases all foci should be removed." (1918) Dental summary: Volume 38; Page 437)

"One cannot deny the existence of such a mechanism as operates in focal infection, ie, infection in one locus leading to manifestations elsewhere in the body. One has but to call to mind the metastases that occur in such infections as tuberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, pneumonia, typhoid fever, and mumps. I cannot support the statement in the "critically appraised" report on dental foci of infection that "later laboratory workers were unable to confirm the bacteriologic findings of Rosenow on which the concept of 'elective localization'" ((1952) Southern California State Dental Association Journal)

"Focal infection-it refers to metastasis from the focus of infection, of organisms or their products that are capable of injuring tissue" (Ghom (2009) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 459)

Most of the sources we have say that the focal infection theory kicking around today is little to no different form the one that existed in Price's time.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's different. Do we still pull people's teeth instead of giving root canals? Do we still think pulling those teeth will cure all sorts of conditions like arthritis? No? Because that is what his research and the research into FIT called for in the 1930s. If that isn't happening now, then it is different. Selective (read: out of context) quoting a thousand textbooks do not change that fact. Yobol (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Bruce, the fact that Newton and Einstein both produced theories of gravity, and that the two theories are interrelated and largely overlapping, does not in any way imply that they are the same theory, and they are never treated that way. As has been discussed before, Price developed a theory but his theory failed under evidence. the fact that someone else is proposing that the basic idea of that theory might be redeemable in a different formulation is the creation of a new theory, not the continuation of Price's failed theory

You really need to get over this - you are typing reams and reams of text in order to argue a point that (a) is minor to begin with, and (b) does not belong on this page in any case. The article needs to clarify that the theory that Price worked on is not currently accepted as valid, which is a simple, plain fact about the current state of the field. Whether or not a new FIT theory is arising, and whether or not the new theory is related to the old the theory is a debate that belongs solely on the FIT article. decide it there, and then we'll revise this article if needed. You are just wasting everyone's time arguing about it here. --Ludwigs2 17:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, you are confusing application of a theory with the theory itself. The theories of gravity Newton and Einstein developed are fundamentally different while the FIT itself has remained fundamentally unchanged. Remember that 1918 paper stated "All focal infection is not of dental origin". "One cannot deny the existence of such a mechanism as operates in focal infection, ie, infection in one locus leading to manifestations elsewhere in the body. One has but to call to mind the metastases that occur in such infections as tuberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, pneumonia, typhoid fever, and mumps." ((1952) Southern California State Dental Association journal; pg 27) "Today the concept of focal infection has been integrated into the practice of medicine. One speaks no longer of the theory of focal infection ; one recognizes focal infection as a definite pathologic condition requiring scientific diagnosis and treatment." (1947 Journal of the American Medical Association Volume 133:2 page 111). This statement was repeated word for word in Review of gastroenterology Volume 18 pg 71 of the National Gastroenterological Association in 1951.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You are explicitly wrong. Einstein developed his theory out of Newton's theory to account for specific empirical observations where Newton's theory failed (In fact, Newton's thery can be seen as an approximation of Einstein's when the speed of objects and curvature of space is negligible). Likewise, any modern FIT advocates are going to have to develop a new theory that accounts for the places where Price's theory fails.

More importantly, you are avoiding the fact that this discussion does not belong on this article. Some version of FIT may be under discussion, but it is not yet a mainstream theory, and if it were, it would clearly explain its relationship to Price in sources without all the speculation and hoopla that you are engaging in. Really, I'm tired of this: if you next post does not begin (and end) with a clear explanation of why we should be discussing this here and not over on the FIT page, I'm going to ask an administrator to caution you for tendentious editing. I am not going to run around this gerbil wheel with you endlessly. --Ludwigs2 14:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, this was all thrashed out in Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_2#arb_break_1. Even User:Griswaldo who holds that there are two applications of FIT (1989 to present and fringe) had to acknowledge "The basic theory of FIT has never changed, but that is because the basic theory is very broad (see Bruce's above definitions). Price, and other researchers of his time, proposed more specific theories about the causal role of pulpless teeth in the etiology of various diseases. When these theories were challenged by further research the basic premises of FIT were not. I think everyone agrees with that." (sic).

Even before this Griswaldo had acknowledged "Also note that mainstream theory also still holds onto the more general old focal infection theories. They do not reject "old focal infection theory", they reject the invalid conclusions of poorly designed studies that led people to believe that root canals and infected tonsils were the problem" (sic)

Over on Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Weston_Price_and_Focal_infection_theory Griswaldo stated "My only concern here is that Price's application of focal infection theory (e.g. the one shared by the dental mainstream for a number of years leading to unnecessary extractions, etc.) is not confused with the focal infection theory, which is a much more general theory."

Again the majority of reliable sources don't show any fundamental change in the mechanism (which is what happened with the change from Newton to Einstein in Physics) of FIT only in the degree on how that mechanism worked ie not so much a new theory as a refinement of an existing theory. This is supported by the reliable sources that use terms like "return", "resurgence", and even "revival" with regards to FIT in dentistry not in medicine in general.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Bruce, none of the above explains why we are having this discussion here. No one (as far as I can tell) is arguing the any new version of FIT will be precisely what Price understood, or that it will give more than passing homage to Price if and when it becomes established. This is not a case where Price is being waved around as a FIT poster child in order to revive the theory, so - again, and again, and again -WHY ARE WE WORRYING ABOUT IT ON THIS PAGE. If you cannot or do not answer that question, then you are most assuredly guilty of tendentious editing, and I will shift gears immediately to deal with you in that capacity.

I'm trying to give you a little leeway here, but you're not answering what strike me as obvious question. As far as I can tell, this conversation does not belong on this article, and if you won't explain to me why you keep trying to make this argument here, you are leaving me no choice except to call for administrator assistance. You cannot just keep talking about it when no one else thinks it's meaningful - that's disruptive. Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily disagree with your point, I just don't think it has one bloody thing to do with Price or his legacy - it's all about FIT theory, and ought to be discussed on the FIT theory page. Again, an explanation is needed why any of this is relevant to Price. This is the last time I'm going to ask; if you continue without that, then I'm going to ask a sysop to impose a page or topic ban, because what you're doing is just not collaborative editing. --Ludwigs2 08:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

A WP:NPOVN has been started here. --Ronz (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, Ronz. It would have been helpful if the person who started it there would've let others involved in the discussion know about it. Yobol (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)