J
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.
------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
------