quote:

---

The members are extremely intelligent,
and very curious about Dr. Price's work. However, I simply can't
field all the questions they ask--there are things I don't know yet,
and I would need some help to convince them. A few have already been
convinced to some degree, but there's still a feeling among them that
Dr. Price's methodology was flawed.

---

quote:

---

The members are . . . very curious about Dr. Price's work.

---

quote:

---

A few have already been convinced to some degree

---

quote:

---

None of them have anywhere near the nutritional years of study that I . . . or many others have put in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by steven:
"Wow - you just flat-out lied in your description, didn't you?"

Yeah.

---

That really says it all.
 

---

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
"That really says it all."

About me personally, not about anyone else who studies Dr. Price.
 

---

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
A relationship that starts based on misinformation and misunderstanding doesn't have a very promising beginning.

( Edited to be nice. )

See, it encourages less than polite discussion.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Don't mistake beverly's pity for agreement.
 

---

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
"Don't mistake beverly's pity for agreement."

Really? So you know her every thought?


"A relationship that starts based on misinformation and misunderstanding doesn't have a very promising beginning."

I'm still hoping, again, that the problems heretofore have been an issue mainly of too many questioners, not enough answerers.

I invite anyone to search the archives for my posts on the "native nutrition" group.

I also invite you to search the archives for Chris Masterjohn's posts.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
In the spirit of keeping an open mind, I recommend we move on to discussing the many merits of this guy's diet.
 

---

Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
 
The solution to this and all the other idiots and their pet topics, is to just ignore it and don't post.

Which is exactly what I shall return to doing.
 

---

Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Xaposert:
In the spirit of keeping an open mind, I recommend we move on to discussing the many merits of this guy's diet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Xaposert:
In the spirit of keeping an open mind, I recommend we move on to discussing the many merits of this guy's diet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by steven:
OK, if you don't like that idea, how about this idea:

we put together an informal study group of 2-6 people who go to the Native Nutrition board, and maybe a couple of others, to ask questions for a few months.

---

Dude, no one is going to do this because no one but you cares. Everyone who was interested in the topic when you first brought it up did their own research and formed their own opinions. The vast majority of those opinions are that the studies are flawed and the evidance isn't there. You apparently keep bringing it up because it amuses you in some weird way, which is fine. Your priviledge, obviously. But don't expect it to be constructive.
 

---

Posted by the doctor (Member # 6789) on :
 
steven,

I suggest you post a clarification on that board. I tried, but it would only send an e-mail to you instead of adding a reply under your post.

Basically, everyone is welcome here, if they enjoy the discussion, great, but if they come here hoping for a receptive audience for a discussion of Price/Pottenger, they'll probably be rather disappointed and get a somewhat wrong impression of what Hatrack is all about.

You really did them no favors by lying about the kind of reception they should expect.

Also, you seem to be ignorant of the knowledge level of several of the people here with whom you are conversing on a daily basis. It would be more accurate to say that there are several people here with advanced degrees in related fields who you have been unable to convince of the merits of Price/Pottenger and see if you can find any folks from that other site who feel like they have actual scientifically derived data that they could bring to a discussion.

Also, you might at least have linked them to the thread that Kwea bumped so they could get their feet wet by reading that first.


Seriously, I think you aren't being very considerate of people you are asking to help you.
 

---

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
"It would be more accurate to say that there are several people here with advanced degrees in related fields who you have been unable to convince of the merits of Price/Pottenger and see if you can find any folks from that other site who feel like they have actual scientifically derived data that they could bring to a discussion."

In fact the opposite is more true. We have a few MDs here, that's about it. OTOH, that board has Mary Enig, a nationally-known expert in the field of trans-fats.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
So well known she has to self-publish her book.

A quick search makes it clear that she is largely ignored by nutritionists, biologists, and chemists. Can't seem to find out where her PhD is from, nor does she seem to be currently affiliated with any organization except the one that bears her name -- and the Weston Price Foundation.

Huh. Imagine my surprise.
 

---

Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
 
it's amusing how terms like "nationally-known" can be tossed about so flippantly... admittedly I could easily be considered "nationally-known" seeing as I have friends and family all across the nation. so it's not lying so much as it is just making a statement that means next-to-nothing
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
I, OTOH, am INTERNATIONALLY known! Just ask my many cousins (and two siblings) in Israel!
 

---

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
Are you acclaimed though? All those reality shows have acclaimed guest judges. Clearly, that means a lot.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
I think most of my relatives would be willing to claim me.

One or two might not . . . *looks innocent*
 

---

Posted by Chris Masterjohn (Member # 10511) on :
 
Well, you certanly do seem like an intelligent bunch here. From what I read on my other forum, my friend Michael (or Steven, as you know him) has done a marvelous job here with all of you. Nice to meet you all. It's good to know that someone on the web has enough critical thinking skills to understand his wisdom. You're a credit to the memory of Dr. Price. Keep up the good work!

[ June 01, 2007, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: Chris Masterjohn ]
 

---

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
Steven's something else alright.
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
Chris, I suggest you start on this thread.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
steven, when you make up secondary characters to make it look like other people agree with you, it is more convincing if you don't have them lavish on the praise with a spatula.
 

---

Posted by the doctor (Member # 6789) on :
 
steven,

There are several scientists on this board. There are also people who study science as an avocation, many of whom know quite a lot about the scientific method, of which you have demonstrated repeatedly not just a lack of knowledge but an unwillingness to learn.

Chris -- welcome. I do hope you'll spend some time reading prior threads on this topic before you start one or engage in this particular "debate"

I welcome you as a new member, though and hope you enjoy it here. We really are a friendly bunch, even if some of us are a little bit tired of the pseudo-scientific musings on diet that steven seems so unable to stop himself from uttering.

If you have some solid science to inject into the discussion, at some future time, perhaps it'd be welcomed. Of course, you are free to post whatever you wish within the TOS and tolerance of the site moderators, but again, I urge you not to simply wade in on this topic until you get a sense of history.

(assuming you aren't just steven posting under an alt, of course)
 

---

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
'Taint me. It is Chris, AFAIK. Email him from his profile on yahoo, if you are wondering. I hope he'll come back and post some more. He's the only one I expected to show up.

Take a look at this thread in which I argue with a member of the Native Nutrition board about the value of raw food. It gets insulting. He becomes frustrated. You'll love it. He posts as "droolmaster0". Scroll down to click on the different posts.

Click here
 

---

Posted by the doctor (Member # 6789) on :
 
Sorry, I'm not that interested.

I'm more interested in keeping this board from going through more anguish and further journeys through the land of make-believe science than I am learning how other people discuss this topic.

Frankly, if it weren't for how illuminating this topic is in terms of gullibility and bad science, it would hold no interest at all for me.

I know there are a couple of people here who are genuinely interested in learning about it, though, and I'll be totally silent if a thread evolves out of this that discusses the actual merits of different dietary choices from a truly scientific point of view.

If it turns into more of the usual, I'll be back to, once again, attempt to explain why Drs Price and Pottenger (without any actual controlled studies since then) provide nothing more than interesting margin notes in the scientific literature on this subject.

And, yes, I have to agree that self-published scientific work is suspect in the extreme. When I have performed work that was published solely by clients, I have gone to great pains to obtain independent review. That doesn't mean testimonials, by the way -- it means selecting people who are qualified to critique the work and who do so from as objective a viewpoint as possible.

And that is only acceptable when peer-reviewed publication in a legitimate scientific journal is not possible, for whatever reason. In my case, for instance, a client funded the work and wanted to publish it exclusively through their own venue.

Self-published science is sometimes good -- especially for popular summaries of work. But it should never be the only method of publication for what are supposed to be "ground breaking" results.

If the author is such an extreme iconoclast as to make themselves unpublishable in the mainstream literature, it might indicate their interesting and insightful break with their colleagues. Or, more often, it indicates that they are doing sub-par work that (usually) has been discredited by others.

It's difficult for a lay person to judge which might be the case, but I daresay it should at least send up a few red flags.
 

---

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
"Frankly, if it weren't for how illuminating this topic is in terms of gullibility and bad science, it would hold no interest at all for me."

Oh my God, you're an alt.

Either that, or you've fallen hook, line, and sinker for the Hatrackian tendency to overestimate the scientific awareness of this board.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by steven:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rivka:

quote:

---

A few have already been convinced to some degree

---

Name one.

---

Beverly?

---

quote:

---

Point of clarification. While Beverly does think that there may be something to the raw foods thing, it it not because of anything Steven has said or done. She researched it on her own and came to her own conclusions before encountering Steven.

In fact, she thinks that it's a pity that Steven has posted about this subject the way he has, because his behavior has given Price's ideas, which she thinks have merit, a really bad name.

So, while she is somewhat a fan of some of Price's ideas, she is not a fan of Steven's actions concerning them here.

---

Yup.

I interviened because I worried that steven's portrayal of things was ruining my chances of being taken well when *I* brought up Price's work. I was on a different forum and mentioned something about Price, and people started mocking me! So, at that point I realized I needed to say something. Also, people being rude and condescending to steven didn't seem to be helping steven understand his errors.

Here is the problem: I find what Price has to say interesting. I think other's might too. BUT, when steven says that his works are indisputable, people's hackles get raised. His works *are* disputable. It takes faith to believe what he is saying, because he can't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Not that different from religious beliefs, really. You can't convince someone else of them, they have to come to their own conclusion because there isn't enough info for absolute proof.

And besides, at some point, evangelizing just isn't worth it. People are free to believe what they want. If they've heard the message and don't believe it, get over it. There are people who are receptive to whatever your message might be, they are the ones to spend the time talking to.
 

---

Posted by the doctor (Member # 6789) on :
 
I guess what you and mph are saying is that you looked, and there weren't any studies out there in the literature to establish the true benefits of this dietary advice, but you felt as if Price's diet was at least non-harmful, and potentially helpful.

Is that it?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Honestly, mph doesn't care about Dr. Price.

I had a friend who had changed the way she was eating based on Dr. Price's studies. Her health improved, and she became more slim and lean. She gave me the book to read. I was intrigued. Some of the ideas I took with a grain of salt, some things moved me and effected the way I think of things. As a result, I saught raw milk for myself and my family.

As a longer result of that and many, many other factors including a concern for ecology and the healing of the planet, I now live on a farm and produce my own milk to sell to others. Who are my customers? People who have been touched by Dr. Price's studies.

A lot of Dr. Price's findings are quite in harmony with elementary nutrition. Obviously, the parts that are backed up by further study are more likely to get my attention.
 

---

Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
 
Hey, the doctor, did you regenerate recently or something? You sound like you've been around awhile, but I've only seen you posting in the past few weeks. Do I know you as someone else? Or is there time travel involved?

Here's my issue with the whole nutritional thing: the evidence is not up to current scientific standards. That doesn't mean the theory is automatically wrong, but it does mean that I'm not going to accept it until new studies are done. And published in a peer-reviewed journal. I'm not doing this to be stubborn or to be skeptical just to be skeptical. I'm doing it to protect myself. Making a radical change in my diet (or my lifestyle in general) could have serious negative consequences. I'd like to know the risks and benefits before doing so.

Anecdotes aren't enough, because they don't always represent the typical case. For example, there are some people who don't have a reaction to poison oak. They might tell me that, given their experience, it's all right for me to touch the plant. However, I would be stupid to do so, because most people will in fact get a rash. In fact, anecdotes can even be skewed in a particular direction. Let's say that some subset of the people who aren't allergic think that poison oak oil is an aphrodisiac (As far as I know, nobody thinks this! Just an example!). So they go out and enthusiastically promote it. Even though most people who touch poison oak have a mild bad experience, you might only hear the positive anecdotes because those are the only people who care enough to say anything about the subject at all. So you hear only positive reports, even though a majority actually had a negative experience.

I'm not saying this is the case here. But it might be, and the best way to figure it all out is to perform a scientific study. That way we can look at the numbers and get a better idea of what the average person can expect, rather than only hearing about the extreme cases.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
How amusing considering I am just getting over a head-to-toe poison oak rash! We've been working hard to clear our land, and we've got a lot of it. And there is a belief out there that if you drink the milk of a goat who eats poison oak, you will become immune. I have heard similar things about eating the honey of bees who visited the poison oak flowers.

Do I believe this? No. It doesn't make sense to me, because of the little that I know about allergic reactions. This isn't an issue of antibodies. BUT, I find it fascinating that humans seem to be the only "animal" adversely affected by poison oak. (I dunno about apes, actually.) Is it our naked skin? Surely not just that, because herbivores of all types eat it with no ill reaction.

But at the same time, I don't disbelieve it either. My goats have eaten a bit of poison oak here and there, especially recently--too soon for it to have "saved" me from my last episode. Wouldn't it be nice if I found myself immune? Oh my, it would! But I'm not about to go touching it to find out. If I find myself less affected by poison oak over time, I will smile to myself and share the anecdote with others in case it might help them too. But I certainly wouldn't claim that I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that goat milk cured me.
 

---

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
It's good to see you back, beverly. I'm sure you'll be interested to hear I made kefir for the first time yesterday. I plan to taste it when I get home from work tonight.


quote--"I'm not saying this is the case here. But it might be, and the best way to figure it all out is to perform a scientific study. That way we can look at the numbers and get a better idea of what the average person can expect, rather than only hearing about the extreme cases."

IME, after spending literally years reading various nutrition message boards, vegan, raw, meat-eating, low-carb, Price/Pottenger, et al, I would have to say that there are very few foods or dietary approaches that always work well for everyone. However, raw is basically a common sense issue.

There are only a few foods besides most grains that really need to be cooked, mainly some seaweeds, starchy root vegetables, and some green veggies. Pretty much everything else can be eaten raw. If people want to consume large amounts of cooked grains, they can. Personally, I do a little better when I minimize my grains. It depends on the person. I think it's worthy of note that the big grain-eaters on the planet, East Asians, are usually very short. Their children are usually noticeably taller when those kids are raised in the USA, with more animal products. There's a balance in there somewhere. It's up to each individual to find it.

Dr. Price's work is only one jumping off point. I see his biases more and more clearly over time--he never saw the usefulness of coconut oil because he had a personal bias against it. He saw that, when the price of copra (dried coconut) incread from $4 a ton to $400 a ton, the natives who lived on those islands with the trees were inundated with ships bringing Western processed foods. The natives promptly got sick/started having cavities. When the price dropped again, they had no more access to those foods. They got better again. He let the bias he got from watching that process distort his opinion of coconut, IMO. I'm just guessing at his thought processes.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Just poking my head in. I am too busy to afford much time on the fora these days.

Glad to hear you are trying kefir. I just gave some grains away today and will again to a couple more people in the near future. Ah, how I love kefir!
 

---

Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
 
*waves to beverly*

I also have recently tried kefir thanks to you. I'm really liking it, although the rest of the family is unimpressed.

I'm glad to hear that you've gotten started with dairy goats. We just got a herd of Boer does for meat, and we're looking for a currently-milking Nubian doe or two for dairy. What breeds do you have?

--Mel
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
We have a Nubian which isn't producing that well, but it's not her fault -- the folks we bought her from had to sell off their herd because of family illness, and they had let the milking slack off. We'll breed her again as soon as she goes into heat. Our other goat is a La Mancha/Alpine cross, which we bred with a La Mancha and who just gave birth to two does last week. She looks like she'll be a great producer, but she's still producing colostrum.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Hey, Mel! I am loving life so much. How beautiful it was to see our dairy herd essentially double in a day.

Pics!

I've heard several people say now that the Alpine/LaMancha cross is an amazing producer known for long, productive lactations. They are good candidates for milking through two years. I think I may do that and see how it goes.

By law, I can't sell milk if I have more than 9 does that I am milking. So, when I get a herd I'm happy with, and maybe a little before that, I will start breeding the dairy gals to meat goats and build a meat herd. I've seen too many people let their dairy herd get out of control size-wise, and I don't want to fall into that trap.
 

---

Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
 
Awesome! We had an Alpine in Arizona that was still producing close to a gallon a day after nearly two years of milking. We'd certainly be willing to get an Alpine again if we can't find a Nubian, but we'd like to have the higher milkfat percentage. Plus, Nubians are meatier than most dairy breeds, so they produce really nice meat kids when bred to Boers.

Unfortunately, I believe Ohio takes the lead as the strictest state in regards to raw milk. You can't even sell it for pet food here. The Department of Agriculture seems to be bent on wiping out all raw milk drinking in the state. The good news is that a few months ago an Ohio judge ruled that properly contracted herd-share agreements aren't illegal, so maybe the tide is beginning to turn.

--Mel
 

---

Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by beverly:

By law, I can't sell milk if I have more than 9 does that I am milking.

---

Out of curiosity, what is the rationale for that?
 

---

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
"I've seen too many people let their dairy herd get out of control size-wise, and I don't want to fall into that trap."

My goat milk folks have about 20-25 goats right now. They used to have around 100.

One of their Nubians gives 2 gallons, that's right, I said it, 2 gallons of milk a day.
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 

quote:

---

and very curious about Dr. Price's work.

---

quote:

---

A few have already been convinced to some degree

---

quote:

---

Plus, Nubians are meatier than most dairy breeds, so they produce really nice meat kids when bred to Boers.

---

quote:

---

Unfortunately, I believe Ohio takes the lead as the strictest state in regards to raw milk. You can't even sell it for pet food here. The Department of Agriculture seems to be bent on wiping out all raw milk drinking in the state. The good news is that a few months ago an Ohio judge ruled that properly contracted herd-share agreements aren't illegal, so maybe the tide is beginning to turn.

---

quote:

---

Out of curiosity, what is the rationale for that?

---

I think it is a quality-control issue. You can have as many animals as you want in a dairy as long as you are certified. That means you have to jump through every obnoxious, unreasonable (and expensive!) hoop the government can possibly think up, and if you cross them, they can shut you down. For cows, you can have no more than 3. I also cannot advertise and must sell from my home. I think someday I shall have exactly 9 milking does and exactly 3 milking cows.

quote:

---

One of their Nubians gives 2 gallons, that's right, I said it, 2 gallons of milk a day.

---

That is phenomenal! Nubians are not known for their volume.
 

---

Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
 
actually steven has successfully disconvinced me on Price to a certain extent, while hatrack has always been a boon to improving my knowledge.

I heard about Weston Price through a relatively circuitous route

Home Theatre Forum

to

John Stone Fitness

to

Jeremy Likness

to

Mercola (utter quack) & Weston Price Foundation

ultimately, what's different from four years ago? I cut way back on sugar, transfat and flour consumption, don't skimp on butter, eat smaller portions of more nutrient dense foods, try to exercise more, and make my own saurkraut, pickles and kefir.

but I've never been a member of WAPF and probably never will and I certainly think steven's done a bad job presenting the historical context of Price's scientific background. I also think it's foolish to take Price's 1930s era conclusions as holy writ, I think he was pursuing an interesting avenue of research that should be seriously looked at and perhaps in some respects continued, but I think his work has been so wholesalely Guru-ized by the WAPF that it's almost impossible to seriously credit his work when he's viewed as a sort of L Ron Hubbard figure.

The anecdotal evidence of health benefits I've come across from pursuing a diet low in processed food and high in nutrient dense foods often using traditional preparations is quite compelling though. But I don't think that is do to Price, I think it's simply good nutrition.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Well said, Adam_S.
 

---

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
"That is phenomenal! Nubians are not known for their volume."

They have mucho butterfat.

I'll be tasting my first batch of kefir tomorrow.
 

---

Posted by ChrisMasterjohn (Member # 10521) on :
 
Hi everyone,

This is the real Chris Masterjohn and I did not write the previous post in this thread. I do not have time to participate in this forum but just wanted to make that clear.

Thanks,
Chris
 

---

Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
 
btw, a little 'real' background on Price should be noted

Price was a dental surgeon and later became a prominent research scientist. His son died from infections/complications of a root canal that Price had personally performed in the mid 1890s. Later he was working with primitive radiography the early 1900s before Radium had even been named. in 1916 he became the Director of Research for the National Dental Association (now the ADA). One of the major studies instituted under Price involved, you guessed it, root canals infection. It took place over 25 years, resulted in as many scientific articles and a thousand page report (hohum).

Following this, I believe Price returned to private practice, but noticed a marked increase in cavity incidence, especially among children, than he remembered from the 1890s. He felt it was dramatic enough change to merit scientific study and he promptly began to look for a suitable control group that had not experienced such an increase. He was unable to find in the United States any group that could withstand the scientific rigour required for a proper control group. So, in the early to mid 1930s he began to look abroad for any community that could provide a clear control group. He discovered that a remote region of the Swiss Loetshental Vally contained several communities that fit his needs. A long term and stable Very low incidence of cavities that was very consistent throughout the community. What's more he discovered that in urban areas of Switzerland, such as Bern, that the increase in cavity incidence followed the same pattern over the prior thirty years that he had seen in America, England and most of the rest of the 'first world' of the 1930s. Price was delighted, he not only had finally found a control group, but he also had found genetically similar experimental group that was experiencing the exact problem he was hoping to study.

What's more is that Price discovered a crossover effect. When members of the control community emigrated to the experimental community they quickly (over several years) developed cavities on a pace with the rest of the experimental community (though not as many cavities, but statistically similar). But if they returned to their isolated control group community, their rate of cavities would shift down to align with the low rate of the control group (not their cavities 'went away' just the rate of new cavities)

Price gathered multiple soil, water, plant, grain, milk, manure and livestock samples from both control and experimental groups, as well as taking saliva swabs/samples from as many members of each community as he could (as well as independently cataloguing their cavities. he had all these samples returned to America for laboratory chemical analysis (I suppose by this time, the state of the art German facilities had grown unavailable, Price would have naturally been fluent in German as he would have been unable to function as a medical researcher in that era without German). Price also had continual samples of the milk, plant life, soil and water shipped at regular intervals (several times a year) and then began a program to systematically gather the same data on American soil, milk, water and plant life from hundreds of sites scattered across the USA. He also catalogued many of his subjects with photography, xrays and an basic anthropological study of their culture, foods, and traditions (later he also dabbled in archeology).

Price's initial hypothesis was that the more vegetarian lifestyle was a significant factor (if diet was a factor at all, he didn't yet have the data), since, in the control group, Meat was usually only eaten on Sundays, and the rest of the week relied on root vegetables, rye bread, eggs, butter and milk. Subsistence fare when you think about just how limited a diet of less than a dozen options is (btw, this and similar diets, are what the Weston Price Foundation idolizes and foolishly insists we should adopt, something Price never advocated or even hinted at). The experimental group had access to (and enthusiastically used) all the food benefits and diversity of modernity.

Price was surprised at the results of his chemical tests, the data that most strongly correlated with the differences between control and experimental groups was that of the fat soluble vitamins, A, D, and E. The consumption of these elements in the experimental group had been declining as a percentage of diet while the rate of cavities had been increasing. While among the control group, the consumption of fat soluble vitamins had remained steady stable. What was odd, was the amount of fat soluble vitamins in the butterfat and milk, the exceptionally rich mountain soil, grew grass that when eaten by cattle led to milk with a butterfat unusually rich in fat soluble vitamins.

Vitamins 'couldn't possibly' explain cavities, there was obviously a confounding factor at work. So Price set out to find another Community that could provide a control and experimental groups of the scientific quality that Switzerland had yielded, but this time without access to cattle/dairy.

he found communities that met this criteria in the Outer Hebrides Islands off the coast of Scotland. Their control group diet was even more limited, oat mush and cod, the islands soil couldn't support any forms of agriculture that would allow domesticated animals to survive. The experimental group with the very typical and steady increase of cavity incidence again had access to the modern culture and diverse foodstuffs. Price took the same rigorous samples and procedures, and also took samples of the cod and cod products consumed in such large quantities.

Stymied again, the cod products proved to be just as unusually rich a source of fat soluble vitamins as the butterfat of the Mountain Swiss had been.

In many ways Price then got sidetracked by what became a much more intriguing line of research, anthropology. From then on he focused on what I'd call border groups. Groups of communities with the same heritage, but some communities have fully embraced modernization, while some communities have thoroughly rejected it. Price continued his researches on cavities and eventually concluded that foods rich in fat soluble vitamins had very little effect on cavity prevention, but that a diet that strongly limited the most modernized foods, sugar, sweets and wheat flour and was supplemented with foods rich in fat soluble vitamins had some benefit in cavity prevention.
 

---