Talk:Adelle Davis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I found this article:

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

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

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

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


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

Uncited and unsupported sentence
This following sentence:

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

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

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


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

___

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

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

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

NPOV
I have changed the quality assessment from B to C since the article fails criteria 2 of the quality scale: "The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies". I have added a NPOV template since the article is one-sided. I have to look through the history to see how it ended up this way. Wasbeer 19:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Added some material which should even out the POV. It appears a lot of the negative criticism was removed in 2009 as unreferenced.  I have WP:BOLDly removed the NPOV banner, would appreciate any suggestions for further improvement. Yobol (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Yobol! I changed the quality assessment back to B because the article has been rewritten in a NPOV way, GA may be more appropriate. I will try to find suggestions for further improvements but I am going on holiday soon so this may take a while. Wasbeer 15:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible innuendoes
Text about some old undecided lawsuits which were settled out of court is included in the article. I removed the text since mentioning them creates innuendoes, not actual medical conclusions, and effectively disparages some of her writings. It was later restored.

Since anyone can sue a doctor or other health professional on any grounds, including such old undecided lawsuits is not encyclopedic. Would it be acceptable to note every undecided lawsuit against a doctor in their biography? If we allowed that, it could seriously effect professions of countless doctors even if cases are frivolous or without proof of wrongdoing. It would seem that only if a case was decided from legal evidence by a court, and was then published as a news item, should it be considered as possibly encyclopedic.

For living people, an innuendo can be a basis for a defamation suit and can be a tort by someone using it. I feel that the text added to this article, which by allusion disparages Davis, obviously does not belong. To keep it in would set a precedence allowing any lawsuit, regardless of how it ended, to be included in a person's biography. Some other opinions would be helpful. --Light show (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * First, Davis isn't a living person so I'm not sure why that was brought up. Second, I think context here is important. It was not just one lawsuit, and it appears to show a pattern of cases where her advice was followed and a bad outcome was seen in someone. This follows what we already know, which is that her peers found her advice at best inconsistent and at worst dangerous. The lawsuits were reported in the medical literature as evidence of her bad advice, so I think it is relevant and important here. Yobol (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * An innuendo can refer to more than people, and can undermine the value of an author's writings. As for noting that by simply reporting about the lawsuits alone, the medical literature considered them as "evidence of her bad advice," disparages the medical literature itself, by relying on someone's complaint as so-called "evidence" of wrongdoing. It may be relevant and important to some journals who don't actually care about medical or legal procedures, since those journals are sold, but that doesn't make such information encyclopedic. --Light show (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's just me, but I try to let the reliable sources (i.e. medical literature) tell me what is relevant and encyclopedic. Yobol (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to open an RfC. --Light show (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure there are many people who have this page watchlisted, an RfC may be best to get outside opinion, as well as some posting to noticeboards. Yobol (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, but do you at least agree that stating facts from an undecided complaint can create an innuendo? It seems that since none of the allegations in the complaints were ever proven, then Davis' writings and opinions could be indirectly harmed by something akin to a trial by media. After all, creating innuendoes may be the bread and butter of tabloids, but innuendoes shouldn't form the "medical literature," read and accepted as fact by doctors. --Light show (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I try not to deal with abstracts, and would like the deal with the concrete issue here. There is good sourcing for the lawsuits, the material is given in a neutral manner, and it makes sense to give this information in context of the article. I see no reason to remove that material here. Yobol (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adelle Davis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130703101305/http://www.cspinet.org/foodspeak/press/leahy.htm to http://www.cspinet.org/foodspeak/press/leahy.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Wholesome food availability
This sentence needs work:
 * She recognizes that wholesome foods are difficult to obtain in supermarkets, which is one of the reasons she recommends vitamin supplements.

The sentence suggests that wholesome foods are difficult to obtain in super markets since the 1970s when it was published. Even though she is correct about the overabundance of unhealthy processed foods that Americans eat--food which had come to dominate super markets then and now--I believe healthy fruits and vegetables have always been available. I don't have access easy access to the book to see exactly what was said. Regardless of what is said, I believe the claim inference that "wholesome foods are difficult to obtain in super markets [now]" should either be changed to an accurate health statement or what she said.

Also, she is not alive, so she is not continuing to recommend anything. All recommendations must be past tense, even if accurate observations of problems then continue today. --David Tornheim (talk)

Quack category should be added
Adelle Davis was a quack who gave dangerous medical advice, I suggest adding the category "Quacks" to her article but will suggest it here first before I make this edit. Here is what Science writer Kurt Butler has written:

"Adelle Davis is widely regarded as a disgrace to her profession, and her references are a façade and deception. She repeatedly takes material from studies out of context and misinterprets it. Some of the authors of the studies have protested that they do not support her claims, and warned that the advice in her books is hazardous to the readers’ health. The scientists whose work Davis distorted and used to deceive and exploit the public have not been able to put a dent in the multi-million-dollar publishing hoax that has continued for a half century, going strong long after her death. Davis’ books are so dense with factual errors and wild speculations presented as scientific facts that readers can safely assume most of what she says is false and much of it is dangerous. From her high-fat, high-cholesterol, high-calorie meal plans to her mega-dosing on vitamins and minerals, it’s all contrary to the consensus recommendations of modern professionals. The few sensible things she says, such as advocating breast feeding, minimizing sugar consumption, and eating whole grains rather than highly refined foods, are outweighed by the harmful nonsense she preaches." - Kurt Butler (Lying for Fun and Profit, p. 69). Skeptic from Britain (talk) 03:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

SKEPTIC FROM BRITAIN unfortunately hamstrung his own argument that Davis was a quack, by his Kurt Butler quote. Butler says, among other things, "From her high-fat, high-cholesterol, high-calorie meal plans to her mega-dosing on vitamins and minerals, it's all contrary to the recommendations of modern professionals." Modern? Really? Low-fat, low-protein, high-carbohydrate meals approved by the likes of Ansel Keys were found harmful years ago. We have the obesity epidemic to prove it. Gary Taubes, in WHY WE GET FAT, and Nina Teicholz, in THE BIG FAT SURPRISE, found that the most beneficial food, for health, was nutrient-dense meat accompanied by dairy and vegetables. Sugar, not animal fat, is the problem. High cholesterol in itself may or may not be dangerous. It depends on individual cases. If someone has high HDL (60 or thereabouts), it's protective. If they also have high LDL, it's dangerous if the LDL particles are small and dense. If these particles are large and fluffy, the person is probably safe. Kurt Butler tried to simplify complex systems-which is the very opposite of "modern." Younggoldchip (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Is it proper to question the integrity of the authors cited here?
For instance, please see https://chiro.org/Graphics_Box_LINKS/FULL/Quackwatch_Founder_Loses_Defamation_Case.shtml.

Here is a small segment: "At trial, under a heated cross-examination by Negrete, Barrett conceded that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam.  This was a major revelation since Barrett had provided supposed "expert testimony" as a psychiatrist and had testified in numerous court cases.  Barrett also had said that he was a "legal expert" even though he had no formal legal training."

Are we to publish anything and everything because someone wrote it? 2605:A000:BFC0:21:94E6:7356:1FEF:7D78 (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)