The salient part is Price's assertion that health was strongly dependent on diet. As I said, it's kooky, and frankly, I don't know whether I find his views credible or not, though I've shifted from my initial highly skeptical viewpoint. The work of others in the relationship of sugars to health (particularly Roger Lustig and Gary Taubes) makes me somewhat more receptive of Price's general theory.

My reason for posting was more to show that lines of inquiry similar / related to those of the source article have been pursued for a long time.

So: yes, actually, it is relevant.

Incidentally: if you're familiar with any specific criticisms of Prices work, posting those might be of interest. To myself as well as others.