A Classic post fromm Mark Thorson.

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Jan, Mar 13, 2004.

  1. Jan

    Jan Guest

    Here's a quote from a classic DEBBEE posting:

    Here's a retraction from Mark Thorson and a classic example
    of his obsession with Cell Tech. He is a liar with NO class.

    Jan

    http://www.celltech.com/resources/info_central/response.asp

    Does Super Blue Green Algae contain Anatoxin-a?(posted 6-19-
    01) One individual was responsible for a great deal of
    miscommunication regarding anatoxin-a, information which is
    still accessible on many Internet sites. Cell Tech sued Mark
    Thorson for posting defamatory statements about Cell Tech,
    its products and its personnel to various Internet or Usenet
    news groups. Cell Tech's lawsuit against Mr. Thorson has now
    been settled. As part of the settlement agreement, Mr.
    Thorson has posted the Retraction Statement that appears
    below. Although he did retract the allegations that he had
    been widely circulating, we all know that one cannot, with a
    single correct statement, undo all the harm done by many mis-
    statements that continue to circulate.

    The following is a retraction statement that Mark Thorson
    has posted to various newsgroups:

    Subject: Retraction of Anatoxin-a Primer

    During the last several years, I have from time to time
    posted to this and other newsgroups a file of information
    called "An Anatoxin-a Primer." I now retract the statements
    made in the Anatoxin-a Primer.

    The Anatoxin-a Primer implied that Super Blue Green Algae
    from Klamath Lake, produced by Cell Tech, contains anatoxin-
    a (a neurotoxin I characterized as addictive), and that Cell
    Tech deliberately avoids testing for this toxin because anatoxin-
    a is responsible for the effects reported by SBGA users. I
    have since been advised that Cell Tech conducts regular
    tests that would disclose anatoxin-a, and that this toxin
    has never been found in Super Blue Green Algae. I had no
    basis for the suggestions I made in the Anatoxin-a Primer,
    and I hereby retract it in full.

    <snip>

    >> >> >What I do see is a person who acknowledged a mistake
    >> >> >and corrected it.
    >> >> AFTER he was forced! Lawsuit don't usually happen
    >> >> without some
    negotiation. My
    >> >> guess would be, he had some notice from Cell Tech
    >> >> lawyers to cease and
    desist
    >> >> before the actual lawsuit.
    >> >And you would be wrong about that. There was no notice
    >> >whatsoever before being served with the summons.
    >>
    >> That's hard to believe, and unusal.
    >
    >It is unusual. Nevertheless, that is what happened.

    Anyone can search the archives, there is page after page of
    your statements about Cell Tech. Furthermore you imply it
    was complete surprise that Cell Tech was going to sue you
    and you had no notice. You are even a bigger liar than I
    thought! Asterisks are mine to show where you were warned.

    This is just a bit of what was said, and yes it is just bits
    and peices at random, if anyone is inteersted they can do a
    search themselves. The below is just an example of how you
    jump the band wagon on ANY new product posted on MHA. At
    this point, I am beginning to wonder if you are getting paid
    to try and stop any alternative product. Or is it just you
    obsession with MLM?

    Now, I asked you to drop it, but no you had to carry on, so
    this proof that you have indeed lied in saying you had no
    notice. This would not have been posted, had you dropped it.

    Jan

    =============================
    >I got annoyed by an SBGA distributor who was posting
    >commercial
    advertisementsto this newsgroup, I created my files, and now
    I post them whenever I see an SBGA distributor pop up.

    >According to Mark Thorson - Cell Tech and Wayne Carmichael
    >have ceased to
    communicate with him.

    From: Mark Thorson ([email protected]) Subject: Calling All
    SBGA Distributors !!! Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,
    misc.health.alternative, rec.food.veg View: Complete Thread
    (2 articles) | Original Format Date: 1998/11/01

    Check out the latest on www.celltech.com! They've addeda
    DISTRIBUTOR SUGGESTION FORM! Just go to their website,print
    it out, and MAIL or FAX to Cell Tech! I guess theyhaven't
    quite got the hang of this web stuff. Either that,or they
    hate e-mail.What questions might a web-connected SBGA
    distributor have?Here are a few suggestions:1. Cell Tech has
    claimed to have test results using theStevens and Krieger
    protocol showing no detectable levelsof anatoxin-a in
    typical manufacturing batches of the product.If Cell Tech
    really can show test results from a reliablelaboratory
    following a test protocol of adequate sensitivitythat
    there's no level of anatoxin-a in the product thatcould be
    responsible for the psychoactive effects reportedby SBGA
    users, I offer to stop posting AN ANATOXIN-A PRIMER.Just let
    me see the reports and verify them. That's all,just release
    them to me and that particular nightmare isover. Why doesn't
    Cell Tech do that?2. What level of SBGA use is safe? A
    statement fromCell Tech's hired consultant Wayne Carmichael
    appears tosupport a safe use level of no more than six
    capsules perday. And yet, many SBGA addicts take much more
    than that,risking possible liver cancer and death. Does Cell
    Techstand by their story that unlimited usage is safe?3.
    What is in laboratory report #1399? What is Cell Techtrying
    to hide from its distributors? Does it have anythingto do
    with the loss of life mentioned in the report? WillCell Tech
    release the actual whole contents of this explosivedocument?
    Here's an e-mail I received from C. Drapeau onthis
    matter:From [email protected] Mon Aug 17 20:22:34 1998Return-
    Path: <[email protected]>Received: from mail-01.cdsnet.net
    ([206.107.16.35])by netcom18.netcom.com
    (8.8.5-r-beta/8.8.5/(NETCOM v1.02)) with SMTP id3for
    <[email protected]>; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 20:22:07 -0700
    (PDT)Received: (qmail 2016 invoked from network); 18
    Aug 1998 03:11:06 -0000Received: from
    d01a871b.dip.cdsnet.net (HELO christian-d)
    (208.26.135.27)by mail.cdsnet.net with SMTP; 18 Aug
    1998 03:11:06 -0000Received: by localhost with
    Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 20:01:28 -0700Message-
    ID: <[email protected]>From:
    Christian Drapeau <[email protected]>To:
    "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>Cc: "'Marta
    Kollman'" <[email protected]>Subject: Lab Report on
    Sample # 1399Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 20:00:30 -0700Return-Receipt-
    To: Christian Drapeau <[email protected]>X-Mailer:
    Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI -
    9..0.4211MIME-Version: 1.0Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"Content-Transfer-
    Encoding: 7bitStatus: ROAugust 17, 1998Subject: Lab Report
    on Sample No. 1399

    ****Dear Mr. Thorson,The analysis report for Klamath Lake
    Sample # 1399 ("Analysis Report")written by Dr. Wayne
    Carmichael and which you forwarded to me by e-mail
    onSaturday, August 15, 1998, is property of Cell tech. The
    Analysis Report contains confidential proprietary
    information that constitutes a tradesecret. Its release to
    you or any person who is not an employee of CellTech was not
    authorized, and your release of it to anyone is
    notauthorized. Any use or release by you of the Analysis
    Report or the contents of the report may subject you to
    civil compensatory and punitive damages and criminal
    penalties under both federal and state law, including but
    not limited to the Electronic Espionage Act of 1996, the
    Uniform TradeSecrets Act, and common law claims for unjust
    enrichment and conversion**********

    ****.On behalf of Cell Tech, I demand that you: (a) not
    post, publish or disseminate the whole or any part of the
    Analysis Report or use the information that is in the report
    in any way; (b) return to Cell Tech by Monday, August 24,
    1998, all copies of the Analysis Report in your possession
    or subject to your control; and (c) delete the Analysis
    Reportand any information learned as a result of any use of
    the report from all information systems in your possession
    or subject to your control.The Analysis Report should be
    returned to the following address:Cell Tech1300 Main
    StreetKlamath Falls, OR 97601-5914Attention: Christian
    Drapeau As you may know, Dr. Wayne Carmichael has been a
    scientific consultant for Cell Tech for many years. He will
    be visiting Cell Tech with Dr. Donald Anderson in early
    September. I would like to take advantage of this
    opportunity to extend you an invitation to visit Cell Tech
    on September 2nd, 1998 to see our facility and discuss
    issues that are of concern to you. Please notify me of your
    decision by email

    Respectfully,Christian DrapeauDirector of Research and
    DevelopmentCell Tech*****

    From: [email protected] ([email protected]) Subject: Re: Blue Green
    Algae and Mark Thorson Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
    View: (This is the only article in this thread) | Original
    Format Date: 1995/11/25

    On Sat, 25 Nov 1995, Mark Thorson wrote:> Opinions? Opinions
    are worthless. I have FACTS.> My facts are backed up by
    REFERENCES to scientific> journals. You don't have to take
    my word for it,> you can go check out my sources of
    information> any time you like, because I cite the actual>
    information> source documents and
    page numbers.I am aware that you cite documents. That does
    not mean that you present the truth. You have, in my
    experience, repeatedlyquoted so-called authorities in a
    continuing campaign to create fear about a product that (as
    far as I can tell) is no more harmful than a good green
    salad. I have yet to see the first credible report
    connecting this product to a serious safety problem.>
    Against this, the scumheads are utterly defenseless.I fail
    to see what is accomplished by namecalling, except as it
    illustrates your own inability to persuade civilly.You say:>
    There is no scientific literature
    supporting> their claims or refuting the safety questions> I
    supporting> have raised.You
    are mistaken. In your zeal to stamp out SBGA, you deny the
    existence of data which supports the supplier's claims that
    the product is safe. It is one thing to say you don't have
    confidence in their data or sources, but you are
    beinguntruthful to say "there is no scientific literature. .
    . "> Once again, I ask why does Cell Tech perform>
    sophisticated and costly tests for
    microcystins> and anatoxin-a(s), but they do not perform>
    microcystins> the Stevens and
    Krieger (1988) protocol for> detecting anatoxin-a (a
    molecule distinct in
    structure> and function from anatoxin-a(s))? As a cocaine>
    structure> analog drug known
    to be produced by _Aphanizomenon_> algae, it seems to me
    that this would be
    the> first toxin you would test for if you were concerned>
    the> about protecting the
    safety of the customers.I do not have a clue about the
    answer, but your style of questioning suggests that you DO
    know the answer. You arequite clearly implying that they're
    hiding some sinister data. In the absence of any proof of
    actual danger, or proof that they are either not doing the
    right tests or are hiding the results, you seem to me to be
    a mere heckler with some kind of a chip on your shoulder. If
    you have credible data about an actual (rather than
    hypothetical) problem, you have failed to present it as far
    as I know. > The reports of increased "energy", appetite>
    reduction, and reduced sleep are all consistent with> the
    action of a cocaine-like drug. How do we know> that anatoxin-
    a is not in fact the active ingredient> in SBGA, and that
    taking anatoxin-a out of SBGA would> be like taking the
    nicotine out of tobacco?One could also ask how we know
    Thorson is not a secret agent of Saddam Hussein, seeking to
    cultivate the sale of a competitive product called Super
    Bloodwort Gas Atomizer? Be serious, man!! This is pure scare
    tactic, with no substannce that I can detect.I personally
    have come to the conclusion that Cell Tech'salgae is of
    little or no value to most people. It is a very costly way
    to ingest trace nutrients that might be missing from your
    diet, and probably will do nothing whatever for you if
    you're already getting a good balanced diet. I don't KNOW
    that, can't prove it, and don't plan to try. Tried it myself
    with no perceptible results, but it didseem to help other
    people I know.HOWEVER, I am not on a campaign against the
    stuff. I wonder why you are? Were you jilted by a Cell
    Techdistributor? There are hundreds (thousands?) ofreally
    harmful products out there being peddled by selfish,greedy
    people who do no care what happens to the buyers. Why don't
    you lay off the algae and take on, say,
    [email protected] - the unofficial Mayor of Sill Hill

    From: [email protected] ([email protected]) Subject: Christian
    Drapeau responds to Mark Thorson Newsgroups: sci.life-
    extension View: Complete Thread (2 articles) | Original
    Format Date: 1998/02/26

    February 1, 1998Open Response to Mark
    Thorson:After having read countless
    postings and arguments written by Mark
    Thorson,it is disappointing to find
    that he is not truly looking for
    answers (as hehas received the answers
    many times), but is rather attempting
    to create fear in people who may be
    interested in eating blue-green
    algae.Mr. Thorson's main argument is
    that anatoxin-a is a cocaine analog.
    First of all, anatoxin-a is a
    neurotoxin and Super Blue Green Algae
    has never been found to contain any
    neurotoxins. Mr. Thorson knows this
    but has also refused to accept this as
    well as the scientific fact that anatoxin-
    a is nota cocaine analog. This
    demonstrates a lack of scientific
    expertise, which isunderstandable
    since Thorson is not a medical
    scientist but an electrician,as well
    as his inability to accept what is
    scientifically accurate. I'l lfirst
    provide you with the scientific
    explanation as to why this is false
    and then place this into perspective
    by comparing his argument to a basic
    doorkey.As mentioned numerous times,
    anatoxin-a is an agonist of
    acetylcholine,(mimics the action of
    acetylcholine) the neurotransmitter at
    theneuromuscular junction. Cocaine, on
    the other hand, does not
    affectcholinergic (acetylcholine)
    transmission but is rather known to
    effect thecatecholaminergic
    transmission (adrenaline) and to
    selectively block thenervous
    transmission mediating pain. Although
    cocaine and anatoxin-a sharesome
    structural similarities, they have two
    totally different actions in thebody
    (much like glutamate and gamma-
    aminobutyric acid (GABA), two of the
    maincentral neurotransmitters which
    share structural similarities (both
    are aminoacids) but have two totally
    different actions on the nervous
    system - in thebrain, glutamate is the
    main stimulatory neurotransmitter
    whereas GABA isthe main inhibitory
    neurotransmitter).To put this into
    perspective, let's us the analogy of a
    key. Think ofanatoxin-a as a key that
    opens the door to your house and
    cocaine is the keythat opens the door
    to your car. The keys will look
    basically similar toeach other in
    structure yet they will open two very
    different locks with verydifferent
    results.Thorson's view probably
    originates from the fact that cocaine
    can be used asa substrate to produce
    synthetic anatoxin-a in a lab. This is
    similar tosaying that a key may be
    transformed to open another door by
    manipulating itsstructure (in the same
    way that cocaine can be made with anatoxin-
    a) butwithout this physical
    transformation they do totally
    different things. However, to continue
    stating that the energy felt by people
    eating SuperBlue-Green Algae is due to
    the presence of a "cocaine analogue"
    demonstratesa clear lack of knowledge
    in neurology and biochemistry. By
    perpetuatingthis claim he demonstrates
    an unwillingness to accept what is
    fact andsuggests an intent slanderous
    to Super Blue Green Algae.Regarding
    the Stevens and Krieger assay
    profusely mentioned by Thomson, this
    assay was a PhD thesis on a technique
    that was never used by other
    scientists. It is a very precise assay
    but also very time consuming
    andextremely difficult to perform. The
    two scientists who developed this
    assayno longer have the equipment to
    perform it and in fact, no laboratory
    iscurrently set up to perform this
    test. On the other hand, a new assay
    was recently developed to measure anatoxin-
    a with the same sensitivity
    andaccuracy as the Stevens and Krieger
    assay, using the well known and easy
    to perform ELISA technique.In
    addition, Mr. Thomson is well aware
    that Super Blue Green Algae does
    notcontain any neurotoxin as he was
    actually involved with a court case in
    which the plaintiff against Cell Tech
    claimed there were neurotoxins in the
    algae. Mr. Thomson is also well aware
    that the case was dropped because
    noneurotoxins whatsoever were ever
    found after two years of testing by
    the mostreputable scientists in algal
    toxicology throughout the
    world.Regarding microcystin, it again
    seems appropriate to remind Mr.
    Thorson ofthe very basic principles of
    toxicology. Any number of substances
    can betoxic; it is simply a matter of
    concentration. For example:Example 1.
    Aflatoxin Aflatoxin is one of the most
    potent liver toxins andcarcinogens
    ever documented. It is produced by
    some strains of Aspergillusflavus and
    most strains of Aspergillus
    parasiticus, two fungi growing on
    various crops. More specifically,
    aflatoxin is known to be associated
    withpeanuts, cottonseed and corn Now,
    consider the ramifications of all
    foodproducts made from peanuts and
    corn. Although aflatoxin is known to
    causecancer in animals, the FDA allows
    low levels of this toxin because it
    isconsidered an "unavoidable
    contaminant" of these foods. So it is
    accepted incertain levels even though
    according to scientists of the
    University ofMaryland, "aflatoxins at
    levels even lower than those listed as
    guidelinesmay cause some undesirable
    side effects." Deaths and cancer have
    also been reported due to exposure to
    aflatoxin. Despite these known facts
    onaflatoxins, microcystin continues to
    come under fire. This is despite
    thefact that not one single health
    problem has ever been documented to
    berelated to the presence of minute
    amounts of microcystin in blue-green
    algaeproducts.Example 2. Shellfish
    Poisoning Saxitoxins are neurotoxins
    found inshellfish. They are produced
    by species of marine algae which
    accumulate inshellfish during blooms,
    better known as red tides. Saxitoxins
    block sodiumchannels responsible for
    the propagation of action potentials
    along neurons.Depending on the dose,
    saxitoxins may cause nausea, vomiting,
    paralysis anddeath by respiratory
    distress. Currently, the action level
    for shellfishtoxins is 80 µg of toxins
    per 100 g of shellfish. Over the years
    andthroughout the world, hundreds of
    deaths and thousands of cases
    ofintoxication have been reported Yet,
    in spite of this, minimum amounts
    ofneurotoxins are allowed and are even
    considered non-toxic.Again, it is not
    the presence of a substance which is
    determined as unsafebut the level of
    that substance within a product. As
    for microsystin safelevels have been
    established by experts in risk
    assessment. These riskassessment
    evaluations took factors such as
    lifetime exposure,susceptibility
    within the population, possible cancer
    promoting effects andmany other health
    concerns into consideration. In
    summary, the levelsestablished as safe
    are indeed safe beyond any doubt. The
    algae put on themarket by Cell Tech
    meets these standards and are
    absolutely safe. Mr.Thorson's intent
    to create alarm and public panic
    regarding the microcystinissue
    demonstrates a lack of knowledge or
    slanderous intent. In light of
    theinformation shared above, the focus
    on microcystin in blue-green
    algaecertainly appears to be a vicious
    obsession. If Mark Thorson is truly
    interested in public safety, would it
    not be much wiser and more meaningfu
    lto address real concerns of public
    safety such as pesticide residue in
    food,hormones, antibiotics and other
    chemicals in animal products, the ubiquitousestrogen-
    mimicking substances, or the epidemic
    use of antacids which isliterally
    killing thousands of Americans each
    year?Why Mr. Thorson spends so much
    lime and energy bashing Cell Tech and
    SuperBlue-Green Algae remains a
    mystery to me and many other
    scientists who havethe background to
    properly interpret the scientific
    literature. He does notappear to be
    interested in discovering the truth
    since it has been conveyedto him many
    times, and out of the court case
    mentioned above, he knows thatthere is
    no neurotoxin whatsoever present in
    Super Blue-Green Algae. In addition,
    Mr. Thorson makes a concerted and
    unsolicited effort to track down and
    forward his postings to anyone he
    suspects to be interested or involved
    with Super Blue Green Algae. I suppose
    that this is an unfortunate side
    tofreedom of speech which, when
    coupled with the power of the
    internet, allowssomeone to spread
    erroneous statements in a manner not
    possible ifinformation on the net was
    reviewed by the scientific communityIf
    you have received an unsolicited
    posting from Mr. Thorson, we
    wouldappreciate letting us know by
    calling Distributor Services (541)-883-
    8848 orby faxing (541)-884-1869.

    Two people have told that Cell Tech was planning to use
    theStevens and Krieger protocol on typical manufacturing
    batchesof the algae to see if it contained anatoxin-a. That
    was severalmonths ago. If Cell Tech has that data now, they
    aren't talking.Hmmm.... do you suppose maybe they found
    something?

    Mineral supplements don't make people rave about the
    energyit gives them. Vitamin pills don't do that either.
    Neitherdo amino acids. No, I think we have to look elsewhere
    for theactive principle in the algae. We have to ask "What
    is specialabout this algae that _Spirulina_ and _Chlorella_
    don't have?"If this were any other algae, that would be a
    tough questionto answer. But this species of algae is known
    to be capableof producing a cocaine-analog drug. Hmmm.... do
    you supposethat could be just a coincidence?

    No, it's not nonsense. In fact, Cell Tech has a page on itin
    their fax-on-demand system. If you have a fax machine,
    call(800) 565-5092 to request a copy of document 133. While
    you'reat it, you might ask for a copy of document 101, which
    is astatement on Daryl Kollman's recent stay in jail.

    ------------------------------------------------------------
    --------------
    ------
     
    Tags:


Loading...