There's an article by Peter M. Dunn in the Archives of Disease in Childhood: Fetal & Neonatal titled, Francis Glisson (1597–1677) and the “discovery” of rickets.

In the mid-1600s, Glisson and a number of other London doctors provided the a series of papers and observations on rickets. Glisson and his contemporaries were able to identify what didn't cause rickets, namely that:

1. Rickets was not a congenital disease
2. Rickets was not a contagious disease
3. Rickets was not caused by syphilis

Glisson hypothesized that rickets might be caused by excessive feeding:

The nearest he came to a nutritional cause was to blame excessive feeding with its resulting indigestion, adding: “... and perhaps this may be reputed among the especial causes why this disease doth more frequently invade the cradles of the rich than afflict poor men’s children.”

Another Englishman, Daniel Whistler, wrote the first published paper on rickets, his dissertation in 1645.

Whistler believed that rickets had an antenatal origin due to the mother drinking too much alcohol.

The article, A History of Rickets in the United States, written by Sister Mary Theodora Weick and published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, discusses presumed causes of the disease in 17th, 18th and 19th century America, as well as "cures."

Some thoughts as to the cause of rickets include:

• "Lay in [the baby] being neglected, left in wet or unclean clothing, and deprived of 'open air' and exercise."
• Bowel disturbances
• Calcium and phosphorus deficiencies
• Fluid in the brain

Some of the "cures" included:

• Herbal remedies, such as "a mixture of snakeroot and saffron steeped in rum and water or blackberry syrup"
• Giving the baby laxatives
• Dashing water into the baby's face and giving the baby cold baths in order to improve circulation