:IMHO you are reading your POV into Price's statements.  There is nothing in what he is saying that shows he "repudiated" FIT only that he could not find evidence of it being the primary cause.  In fact in chapter 18, Price states "In my investigations regarding the types of individuals who develop rheumatic group lesions as a result of dental focal infections, (1) I found that individuals could be divided into very definite groups in which 15.05 per cent with severe lesions belonged to families in which similar disease symptoms had occurred. Evidence was disclosed of a systemic factor that played a controlling role in determining whether or not the individual would be seriously injured from dental focal infections. It became very clear that the soil was quite as important a determining factor as was the type of infection." 

 :Later on Price reiterates "(i)t is very important that in the consideration of the dental caries problem it shall be kept in mind continually, that it is only one of a large group of symptoms of modern physical degeneration and when teeth are decaying other things are going wrong in the body. Fluorine treatment, like dental extractions, cannot be a panacea for dental caries."   

 :On a related side note the 1930 Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, Volume 23, Issue 2 pg 1184 which mentions Price's work states "dental sepsis is the commonest focus of infection in the body and must be garded as one of the most frequent sources of disease of adult life."  Remember that Pallasch specifically mentioned untreated pulpless teeth as being one of the many foci of infection in his 2000 article and his 2003 article goes over oral FIT past and present commenting on Price's work and states "In the 1920s, the theory of focal infection was widely taught as the cause of a wide range of illnesses with infected teeth as the principal source".  It certainly doesn't help that dental sepsis covers a lot of ground including Tooth abscess and by that standard FIT is anything but dead in the dental community. 

 :Of course that goes back to the whole problem with FIT itselfeven if you limit yourself to Billings the mechanism covers an insane range of modern diseases including ones recognized by modern dentistry.   In that sense FIT itself never diedit just stopped being the be and end all as far as systemic disease was concerned. 

 :There are some other points we still need to fix in there article.  The fact that in 1918 there were issues regarding the FIT inspired extraction craze shows that Price's works didn't " led to the widespread acceptance of the practice of extracting" as the article currently claims.  Furthermore if you actually go to the 2007 version of Ingle's the material does not support the claim it is being used to reference!  In fact, Ingles states that is was the work of British physician William Hunter in 1910 that lead orgy of extractions and the 100 percenters and then it talks about Price beginning his 25-study regarding FIT.  Which when you think about it doesn't make sense as Price's interest shifted from FIT to nutrition in 1925 only 15 years from when Hunter did his work.