Cell death accounts for 60 to 70 percent of all uric acid production so if your cellular death rate rises above normal that increases your chances of too much uric acid in the system. That is one reason why stress plays a role in gout attack outbreaks.
Wonder how important information is withheld about what we are told. Studies are not only inconclusive because they can be slanted the findings also can be totally hidden depending on which refrigerator your butter is coming from.
Professor at Harvard Is Being Investigated:
Douglass, who has taught at Harvard since 1978 and has edited the Colgate quarterly since 1997
Fluoride-Cancer Link May Have Been Hidden
Federal investigators and Harvard University officials are probing whether a Harvard professor buried research suggesting a link between fluoridated tap water and bone cancer in adolescent boys.
The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), which funded Chester Douglass's $1.3 million study, and the university are investigating why the Harvard School of Dental Medicine epidemiologist told federal officials he found no significant correlation between fluoridated water and osteosarcoma, a rare form of bone cancer. Douglass, who serves as editor in chief for the industry-funded Colgate Oral Care Report, supervised research for a 2001 doctoral thesis that concluded boys exposed to fluoridated water at a young age were more likely to get the cancer.
The Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization, urged federal officials late last month to explore whether Douglass had skewed his 2004 report to the institute to play down possible risks associated with fluoridation.
The practice of fluoridating tap water -- which more than 170 million Americans drink -- has inspired controversy for years, but the majority of federal and state officials back it as a highly effective way to prevent tooth decay. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has ranked fluoridation as one of the top 10 health achievements of the 20th century, and numerous studies have shown that fluoridation prevents tooth decay. The National Cancer Institute states on its Web site: "Many studies, in both humans and animals, have shown no association between fluoridated water and risk for cancer."
Douglass reported last year that the odds of having osteosarcoma after drinking fluoridated water was "not statistically different" from the risk after drinking non-fluoridated water. But in 2001, Douglass's doctoral student, Elise Bassin, published a thesis using his data that concluded: "Among males, exposure to fluoride at or above the target level was associated with an increased risk of developing osteosarcoma. The association was most apparent between ages 5-10, with a peak at six to eight years of age."
Bassin's thesis work is considered the most rigorous human study to date on a possible connection between fluoridation and osteosarcoma, a rare but lethal form of cancer that affects males nearly twice as often as females. Patients with the cancer live an average of three years after diagnosis. In 1990, an animal study by the National Toxicology Program found "equivocal evidence" of a link between fluoridated water and cancer in male rats. And more than a decade ago, a New Jersey Department of Health survey found that young males in fluoridated communities had a higher rate of osteosarcoma than those in non-fluoridated communities.
"Fluoride safety is a major public health issue, and a Harvard professor potentially falsifying public research results has huge public health implications," said Richard Wiles, senior vice president of the Environmental Working Group. He added that Douglass's role in editing a newsletter funded by Colgate-Palmolive Co. "creates the appearance of a conflict of interest."
Douglass, who has taught at Harvard since 1978 and has edited the Colgate quarterly since 1997, referred inquires to the university's press office. Harvard Medical School spokesman John Lacey said the school "takes all allegations of misconduct seriously and has a standard system for reviewing allegations of research impropriety. The school is assembling an inquiry committee to review the questions raised concerning the reporting of this work."
Douglass has not edited for the newsletter articles on the possible connection between fluoridation and cancer and has not testified publicly on the issue, Lacey added.
The institute issued a statement similar to Harvard's, saying the NIEHS "takes allegations of misconduct very seriously" and is reviewing the matter.
Bassin could not be reached.
Some public health experts, including Richard Clapp, an expert in the environmental causes of cancer at Boston University's School of Public Health, think Bassin's study should prompt additional research. Researchers suspect a possible connection because half of ingested fluoride is deposited in bones, and fluoride stimulates growth in the end of bones, where osteosarcoma occurs. The Environmental Protection Agency has commissioned a National Academy of Sciences study to examine the safety of fluoridation. A report is due next year.
Other info, conspiracies or reality? Interesting at the very least and makes you think, what else are they not telling us. Money makes interesting bed partners.
American âeducation and researchâ was funded by the Aluminum Manufacturing, Fertilizer and Weapons Industry looking for an outlet for the increasingly mounting fluoride industrial waste while attaining positive profit increase. The âdiscoveryâ that fluoride benefited teeth, was paid for by industry that needed to be able to defend "lawsuits from workers and communities poisoned by industrial fluoride emissions" (Bryson 1995) and turn a liability into an asset. Fluoride, a waste constituent in the manufacturing processes of explosives, fertilizers and other ânecessitiesâ, was expensive to dispose of properly and until a âuseâ was found for it in Americaâs water supplies, the substance was only considered a toxic, hazardous waste. Through sly public re-education, fluoride, once a waste product, became the active ingredient in fluorinated pesticides, fungicides, rodenticides, anesthetics, tranquilizers, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, and a number of industrial and domestic
products, fluorinated dental gels, rinses and toothpastes. Fluoride is so much a part of a multibillion-dollar industrial and pharmaceutical income, that any withdrawal of support from pro-fluoridationists is financially impossible, legally unthinkable and potentially devastating for their career and reputation.
Funded by US industrialists, in an attempt to encourage public acceptance of fluoride, Edward Bernays, known also as the father of PR, or the original spin doctor, began a campaign of deception to persuade public opinion. Barnays explained "you can get practically any idea accepted if doctors are in favour. The public is willing to accept it because a doctor is an authority to most people, regardless of how much he knows or doesnât know"(Bryson 2004). Doctors who endorsed fluoridation didnât know that research discrediting fluorideâs safety was either suppressed or not conducted in the first place. Fluoride became equated with scientific progress and since it was introduced to the public as a health-enhancing substance, added to the environment for the childrenâs sake, those opposing fluoride were dismissed as cranks, quacks and lunatics. Fluoride became impervious to criticism because of a relentless PR offensive, but also because of itâs overall toxicity. Unlike chemicals
that have a signature effect, fluoride, a systemic poison, produces a range of health problems, so itâs effects are more difficult to diagnose.
In August 2003, the EPA requested that the National Research Council, the research arm of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), re-evaluate water fluoride safety standards by reviewing recent scientific literature, because the last review in 1993 had major gaps in research. "Neither the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), nor the National Institute for Dental Research (NIDR), nor the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry has any proof on fluorideâs safety or effectiveness"(Sterling 1993). The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology has classified fluoride as an unapproved dental medicament due to itâs high toxicity and the US National Cancer Institute Toxicological Program has found fluoride to be an "equivocal carcinogen" (Maurer 1990).
Currently the US government is continuing to introduce further fluoridation schemes throughout the country, including the Water Act passed in November 2003, which has made it impossible for water companies to undergo civil or criminal hearings as a result of adding fluoride to public water supplies.
In a society where products containing asbestos, lead, beryllium and many other carcinogens have been recalled from the marketplace, it is surprising that fluoride is embraced so thoroughly and blindly. It seems absurd that we would consider paying the chemical industry to dispose of their toxic waste by adding it to our water supply. Hiding the hazards of fluoride pollution from the public is a capitalist-style con job of epic proportions that has occurred because a powerful lobby wishes to manipulate public opinion in order to protect itâs own financial interests. "Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country... our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of" (Bernays 1991).