Mark Thorson the REPEATED Liar cannot shut up
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....fb847094c3cf8c
Still using *cheap tricks* follow up to alt. null "Mark Thorson" wrote in message ... LadyLollipop wrote: Cell Tech says: Who cares what Cell Tech says. YOU. You landed in court and made a retraction! If you can't point to EVEN ONE statement I made which is a LIE, Groups View all web results » Results 1 - 10 of about 3,070 for nospam@ sonic . net EVEN ONE That's REPEATED LIE. Searched all groups Results 1 - 10 of 568 for author ; Jan Drew If one has no basis , and yet says one does something *deliberately (0.42 seconds) If one has no basis, and yet says one does something *deliberately* that is the same as a lie. If you accuse someone and use the word *deliberately*, you should have a basis. Jan Mark does the original dance, until it backfires: What is the original statement which is a lie? You say that there is a lie in the file "An Anatoxin-A Primer". Let's see that lie. Post a WHOLE ORIGINAL STATEMENT from that file which is a lie. Not the whole file, just a statement from that file which is a LIE. Certainly, you know what that part is, don't you Jan? Or do you just accuse people of being liars without regard to whether they've lied or not? Why don't you post that part, Jan? Then you'd prove that I'd lied, by posting the actual lie itself, rather than merely a statement that refers to the (alleged) lie. Why don't you do that, Jan? Is it because if you did, everybody would see that this statement is OBVIOUSLY NOT A LIE? Is it because if you did, everybody would see the Jan Drew has FALSELY ACCUSED me of being a LIAR? Is it because if you did, everybody would see that it is Jan Drew who is the LIAR? Is that it, Jan? Is that why you won't post this LIE you claim I told? I then ask Mark to post it, notice the backpeddling. I could care less if people see it. No one need to see the original. However, since you think it is so important, post it yourself. Because then everyone would see that it was OBVIOUSLY NOT A LIE. Then you should be most EAGER TO POST IT. Because then everyone would see it is Jan Drew who is LYING when making the FALSE ACCUSATION against me. THEN POST IT!!! Why don't you do that Mark?????????? If I did that, you would just claim the lie was some other statement, not the one I posted. You'd use any excuse to WEASEL out of taking responsibility for your accusation against me. You are the one making the accusation. It is your responsibility to back up that accusation with proof. When you accuse someone of lying, that proof would be a statement which is a lie. Why don't you do that, Jan? Why don't you post an example of one of these LIES you claim I told? Then I wrote: We know you have a hard time handling the truth. What happened to posting the original that would show you didn't lie and I did????? Surely you are most eager to prove me a liar. You can't post it we see that, as you were lying all along about that also. |
Mark Thorson the REPEATED Liar cannot shut up
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....fb847094c3cf8c Still using *cheap tricks* follow up to alt. null "Mark Thorson" wrote in message ... LadyLollipop wrote: Cell Tech says: Who cares what Cell Tech says. YOU. You landed in court and made a retraction! If you can't point to EVEN ONE statement I made which is a LIE, Groups View all web results » Results 1 - 10 of about 3,070 for nospam@ sonic . net EVEN ONE That's REPEATED LIE. Searched all groups Results 1 - 10 of 568 for author ; Jan Drew If one has no basis , and yet says one does something *deliberately (0.42 seconds) If one has no basis, and yet says one does something *deliberately* that is the same as a lie. If you accuse someone and use the word *deliberately*, you should have a basis. Jan Mark does the original dance, until it backfires: What is the original statement which is a lie? You say that there is a lie in the file "An Anatoxin-A Primer". Let's see that lie. Post a WHOLE ORIGINAL STATEMENT from that file which is a lie. Not the whole file, just a statement from that file which is a LIE. Certainly, you know what that part is, don't you Jan? Or do you just accuse people of being liars without regard to whether they've lied or not? Why don't you post that part, Jan? Then you'd prove that I'd lied, by posting the actual lie itself, rather than merely a statement that refers to the (alleged) lie. Why don't you do that, Jan? Is it because if you did, everybody would see that this statement is OBVIOUSLY NOT A LIE? Is it because if you did, everybody would see the Jan Drew has FALSELY ACCUSED me of being a LIAR? Is it because if you did, everybody would see that it is Jan Drew who is the LIAR? Is that it, Jan? Is that why you won't post this LIE you claim I told? I then ask Mark to post it, notice the backpeddling. I could care less if people see it. No one need to see the original. However, since you think it is so important, post it yourself. Because then everyone would see that it was OBVIOUSLY NOT A LIE. Then you should be most EAGER TO POST IT. Because then everyone would see it is Jan Drew who is LYING when making the FALSE ACCUSATION against me. THEN POST IT!!! Why don't you do that Mark?????????? If I did that, you would just claim the lie was some other statement, not the one I posted. You'd use any excuse to WEASEL out of taking responsibility for your accusation against me. You are the one making the accusation. It is your responsibility to back up that accusation with proof. When you accuse someone of lying, that proof would be a statement which is a lie. Why don't you do that, Jan? Why don't you post an example of one of these LIES you claim I told? Then I wrote: We know you have a hard time handling the truth. What happened to posting the original that would show you didn't lie and I did????? Surely you are most eager to prove me a liar. You can't post it we see that, as you were lying all along about that also. |
JAN DREW the REPEATED Liar cannot shut up
Jan Drew the False Accuser wrote:
Cell Tech's words and your lies: I see Cell Tech's words, but I do not see any statement made by me which is a lie. Please point out a statement made by me which is untrue or a lie. Your consistent tactic is to post a whole haystack of lies made against me, mixed in with some true statements made by me, in the hope that naive readers will assume there's a needle in there somewhere. There is not. Your accusation against me is false. Your accusation is a LIE. And you know know it. You are despicable. What statement did I ever make about Cell Tech or their products is a lie? The retraction does not say any of my statements were false, much less a lie. I've asked you before, and you have never been able to show me even one statement I made about Cell Tech which is untrue, much less a lie. When you accuse me of lying, that is a false accusation. If you dispute that, please quote one of these lies you claim I told. You won't do that. And I know why you won't do that. It is because you can't. |
JAN DREW the REPEATED Liar cannot shut up
Am I to interpret that response as your
admission you cannot point to the statement which is the basis for your false accusation that I'm a liar? I can do that about you. Here is what proof looks like. If I lied, why can't you come up with the same sort of proof against me? Quotes of actual statements, with links to the originals. Why is that Jan? To see Jan's ORIGINAL POSTING, go he http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...mb-m01.aol.com Jan wrote: From: Mark Thorson Instead of responding to what you say, Jan is trying to discredit you by making insinuations about who you are or what your motives may be. Soon, she may accuse you of being on the payroll of the pharmaceutical companies, etc. That's the way Jan works. That would be ANOTHER LIE from Mark Thorson. I have NEVER accused anyone of any such thing. So do prove your claim Mark!!!!! You can't YOU JUST LIED AGAIN!!!!!!! ----- example quotes of Jan accusing people of being paid shills ----- Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew: http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...0mb-fn.aol.com Any time alt. health is mentioned the personal trashing starts. Mostly comes from paid shill Mark Probert. Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew: http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...0mb-fw.aol.com Internet bully Mark Probert who is a paid shill and lives off his wife. Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew: http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...0mb-ct.aol.com As for Mark, he is a paid shill and lives off his wife. Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew: http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...0mb-mn.aol.com As long as Mark is here, the paid shill will call names when in fact he is the one who is a bigot. Speaking of his own people. |
JAN DREW the REPEATED Liar cannot shut up
And here is another example, in case one
is not enough. Quoting from this ORIGINAL POSTING from Jan Drew: http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=2...mb-m15.aol.com I have stated nothing about the Catholic faith. ----- statements about Catholics from Jan's earlier postings ----- Quoting from this ORIGINAL POSTING from Jan Drew: http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=2...mb-m10.aol.com Absolutley no bigotry, no act, nor any of the desperate accusations. Eric, do show us where we are instructed to pray to saints. Where did this belief come from? It is a man made rule and the work of Satan, placing saints before Jesus Christ. Quoting from this ORIGINAL POSTING from Jan Drew: http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=2...mb-m10.aol.com The truth that praying to saints doesn't come from God, is in not way a bigot, nor prejudice. It is simply the truth. Jan Quoting from this ORIGINAL POSTING from Jan Drew: http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=2...mb-m27.aol.com Praying to saints comes from man, not God, and indeed comes from Satan. Jan Quoting from this ORIGINAL POSTING from Jan Drew: http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=2...mb-m06.aol.com I personally think the Catholics have done many things wrong. Quoting from this ORIGINAL POSTING from Jan Drew: http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...mb-m24.aol.com There's a huge mistake. NOWHERE is man instructed to pray to ANYONE OTHER THAN GOD THROUGH JESUS HIS SON. Sadly praying to saints comes from Satan. Jan Quoting from this ORIGINAL POSTING from Jan Drew: http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...mb-m24.aol.com All prayers to Saints bounce off the ceiling. No where did God instruct man to pray to anyone except him THROUGH his son Jesus Christ. Praying to Saints is a man made up rule, led by the help of Satan. Quoting from this ORIGINAL POSTING from Jan Drew: http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...mb-m27.aol.com I have never mention Catholics. Praying to saints comes from man, not God, and indeed comes from Satan. Jan |
Mark Thorson the REPEATED Liar cannot shut up
"Jan Drew" wrote in message ... http://groups.google.com/group/misc....fb847094c3cf8c Still using *cheap tricks* follow up to alt. null "Mark Thorson" wrote in message ... LadyLollipop wrote: Cell Tech says: Who cares what Cell Tech says. YOU. You landed in court and made a retraction! If you can't point to EVEN ONE statement I made which is a LIE, Groups View all web results » Results 1 - 10 of about 3,070 for nospam@ sonic . net EVEN ONE That's REPEATED LIE. Searched all groups Results 1 - 10 of 568 for author ; Jan Drew If one has no basis , and yet says one does something *deliberately (0.42 seconds) If one has no basis, and yet says one does something *deliberately* that is the same as a lie. If you accuse someone and use the word *deliberately*, you should have a basis. Jan Mark does the original dance, until it backfires: What is the original statement which is a lie? You say that there is a lie in the file "An Anatoxin-A Primer". Let's see that lie. Post a WHOLE ORIGINAL STATEMENT from that file which is a lie. Not the whole file, just a statement from that file which is a LIE. Certainly, you know what that part is, don't you Jan? Or do you just accuse people of being liars without regard to whether they've lied or not? Why don't you post that part, Jan? Then you'd prove that I'd lied, by posting the actual lie itself, rather than merely a statement that refers to the (alleged) lie. Why don't you do that, Jan? Is it because if you did, everybody would see that this statement is OBVIOUSLY NOT A LIE? Is it because if you did, everybody would see the Jan Drew has FALSELY ACCUSED me of being a LIAR? Is it because if you did, everybody would see that it is Jan Drew who is the LIAR? Is that it, Jan? Is that why you won't post this LIE you claim I told? I then ask Mark to post it, notice the backpeddling. I could care less if people see it. No one need to see the original. However, since you think it is so important, post it yourself. Because then everyone would see that it was OBVIOUSLY NOT A LIE. Then you should be most EAGER TO POST IT. Because then everyone would see it is Jan Drew who is LYING when making the FALSE ACCUSATION against me. THEN POST IT!!! Why don't you do that Mark?????????? If I did that, you would just claim the lie was some other statement, not the one I posted. You'd use any excuse to WEASEL out of taking responsibility for your accusation against me. You are the one making the accusation. It is your responsibility to back up that accusation with proof. When you accuse someone of lying, that proof would be a statement which is a lie. Why don't you do that, Jan? Why don't you post an example of one of these LIES you claim I told? Then I wrote: We know you have a hard time handling the truth. What happened to posting the original that would show you didn't lie and I did????? Surely you are most eager to prove me a liar. You can't post it we see that, as you were lying all along about that also. |
Mark Thorson the REPEATED Liar cannot shut up
"Jan Drew" wrote in message ... http://groups.google.com/group/misc....fb847094c3cf8c Still using *cheap tricks* follow up to alt. null "Mark Thorson" wrote in message ... LadyLollipop wrote: Cell Tech says: Who cares what Cell Tech says. YOU. You landed in court and made a retraction! If you can't point to EVEN ONE statement I made which is a LIE, Groups View all web results » Results 1 - 10 of about 3,070 for nospam@ sonic . net EVEN ONE That's REPEATED LIE. Searched all groups Results 1 - 10 of 568 for author ; Jan Drew If one has no basis , and yet says one does something *deliberately (0.42 seconds) If one has no basis, and yet says one does something *deliberately* that is the same as a lie. If you accuse someone and use the word *deliberately*, you should have a basis. Jan Mark does the original dance, until it backfires: What is the original statement which is a lie? You say that there is a lie in the file "An Anatoxin-A Primer". Let's see that lie. Post a WHOLE ORIGINAL STATEMENT from that file which is a lie. Not the whole file, just a statement from that file which is a LIE. Certainly, you know what that part is, don't you Jan? Or do you just accuse people of being liars without regard to whether they've lied or not? Why don't you post that part, Jan? Then you'd prove that I'd lied, by posting the actual lie itself, rather than merely a statement that refers to the (alleged) lie. Why don't you do that, Jan? Is it because if you did, everybody would see that this statement is OBVIOUSLY NOT A LIE? Is it because if you did, everybody would see the Jan Drew has FALSELY ACCUSED me of being a LIAR? Is it because if you did, everybody would see that it is Jan Drew who is the LIAR? Is that it, Jan? Is that why you won't post this LIE you claim I told? I then ask Mark to post it, notice the backpeddling. I could care less if people see it. No one need to see the original. However, since you think it is so important, post it yourself. Because then everyone would see that it was OBVIOUSLY NOT A LIE. Then you should be most EAGER TO POST IT. Because then everyone would see it is Jan Drew who is LYING when making the FALSE ACCUSATION against me. THEN POST IT!!! Why don't you do that Mark?????????? If I did that, you would just claim the lie was some other statement, not the one I posted. You'd use any excuse to WEASEL out of taking responsibility for your accusation against me. You are the one making the accusation. It is your responsibility to back up that accusation with proof. When you accuse someone of lying, that proof would be a statement which is a lie. Why don't you do that, Jan? Why don't you post an example of one of these LIES you claim I told? Then I wrote: We know you have a hard time handling the truth. What happened to posting the original that would show you didn't lie and I did????? Surely you are most eager to prove me a liar. You can't post it we see that, as you were lying all along about that also. |
Mark Thorson the REPEATED Liar cannot shut up
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....fb847094c3cf8c Still using *cheap tricks* follow up to alt. null "Mark Thorson" wrote in message ... LadyLollipop wrote: Cell Tech says: Who cares what Cell Tech says. YOU. You landed in court and made a retraction! If you can't point to EVEN ONE statement I made which is a LIE, Groups View all web results » Results 1 - 10 of about 3,070 for nospam@ sonic . net EVEN ONE That's REPEATED LIE. Searched all groups Results 1 - 10 of 568 for author ; Jan Drew If one has no basis , and yet says one does something *deliberately (0.42 seconds) If one has no basis, and yet says one does something *deliberately* that is the same as a lie. If you accuse someone and use the word *deliberately*, you should have a basis. Jan Mark does the original dance, until it backfires: What is the original statement which is a lie? You say that there is a lie in the file "An Anatoxin-A Primer". Let's see that lie. Post a WHOLE ORIGINAL STATEMENT from that file which is a lie. Not the whole file, just a statement from that file which is a LIE. Certainly, you know what that part is, don't you Jan? Or do you just accuse people of being liars without regard to whether they've lied or not? Why don't you post that part, Jan? Then you'd prove that I'd lied, by posting the actual lie itself, rather than merely a statement that refers to the (alleged) lie. Why don't you do that, Jan? Is it because if you did, everybody would see that this statement is OBVIOUSLY NOT A LIE? Is it because if you did, everybody would see the Jan Drew has FALSELY ACCUSED me of being a LIAR? Is it because if you did, everybody would see that it is Jan Drew who is the LIAR? Is that it, Jan? Is that why you won't post this LIE you claim I told? I then ask Mark to post it, notice the backpeddling. I could care less if people see it. No one need to see the original. However, since you think it is so important, post it yourself. Because then everyone would see that it was OBVIOUSLY NOT A LIE. Then you should be most EAGER TO POST IT. Because then everyone would see it is Jan Drew who is LYING when making the FALSE ACCUSATION against me. THEN POST IT!!! Why don't you do that Mark?????????? If I did that, you would just claim the lie was some other statement, not the one I posted. You'd use any excuse to WEASEL out of taking responsibility for your accusation against me. You are the one making the accusation. It is your responsibility to back up that accusation with proof. When you accuse someone of lying, that proof would be a statement which is a lie. Why don't you do that, Jan? Why don't you post an example of one of these LIES you claim I told? Then I wrote: We know you have a hard time handling the truth. What happened to posting the original that would show you didn't lie and I did????? Surely you are most eager to prove me a liar. You can't post it we see that, as you were lying all along about that also. |
Mark Thorson the REPEATED Liar cannot shut up
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...l+Te ch+1995&
http://tinyurl.com/b5ymz Quoting from The ORIGINAL post by Mark Thorson. On Saturday, I took two capsules. They made me sort of jittery, but not enough to be sure I wasn't experiencing placebo effect. On Sunday, I took six capsules. Again, I felt sort of jittery, but I couldn't absolutely be sure that wasn't placebo effect. Note that this is more than Cell Tech recommends for new users. They recommend one each of Alpha Sun and Omega Sun for new users, increasing gradually over a few weeks. Because they didn't give me diarrea, I took another six Monday morning before going in to work. That made me very wired, an unmistakable drug-like effect. The closest thing I could compare it to would be like drinking six cups of strong coffee. I found the effect not at all pleasant. It was like the bad effects of coffee without any of the good effects. I'm not sure I'll take any more of the algae. If I do, it will certainly be a lower dose, not more than two capsules daily, as recommended by Cell Tech. I felt so badly at work that I left and took the rest of the day off. http://groups.google.com/group/misc....96617bdd2960b5 http://tinyurl.com/7wstp Quoting from the ORIGINAL from Mark Thorson Showing he is a HYPOCRITE. The case against amalgams is based on anecdotes and lies, not science. http://groups.google.com/group/misc....57138d90ea9fe2 http://tinyurl.com/8sjoa Quoting from the ORIGINAL from Mark Thorson Show more proof of his double standards. Tim Campbell wrote: Sorry gentlemen, I shd have been more clear...In this quote, Cowden was making the more generalized point that at a certain point in the progressive accumulation of evidence anecdote becomes data. That's a famous principle (they call it a "law") of dialectical materialism (i.e. Marxism). It's called the "passing of quantity into quality". At some point when you have enough quantity, it becomes transformed into a quality of its own. It's just a pronouncement, with no particular standing as a valid argument. A thousand reports of flying saucers does not mean flying saucers exist http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...l+Te ch+1995& http://tinyurl.com/b5ymz Quoting from the ORIGINAL from Mark Thorson Funny you should say that. Sunday and Monday nights I had no trouble falling asleep, but I awoke about an hour earlier than I normally do. If the effect were caused by a cocaine- or caffeine-like drug effect, I would expect to have trouble falling asleep in the first place, rather waking up earlier in the morning. And I had a really vivid dream last night, about aliens planting some sort of thing in people's brains so that they could control them, and forcing one person to dress up as an obviously fake alien to discredit the people warning of the alien invasion. http://groups.google.com/group/misc....57f728d0f436fe http://tinyurl.com/dq2d3 Quoting form the ORIGINAL from Mark Thorson Where he *thinks* he knows it all. n article , RCfromLI wrote: Oh, wow, Thorson was wrong. Not only that, he's playing games with his posts. Mark, we forgive you for being wrong but why compound your embarrasment by giving some lame-ass excuse? I was trained as a scientist. That means you admit your mistakes. It's no embarrasment to be on the side of truth. and my experience with physicists is that they think they know a lot more about chemistry than they really do. It would be so typical of a physicist to think that to preserve a molecule, you bring it down to low temperature. You just gave your credibility another shot in the arm. I like taking shots at physicists. You should hear what I have to say about electrical engineers. If I'm right, Cell Tech might be able to save a huge amount of money on their electrical bill by acidifying the raw algae with vinegar or something, rather than freezing. Then, they could simply dry it with air, roll mill it, fumigate it, etc. That would be way cheaper than freeze drying. You should send Cell Tech your resume. As I recall, you even have hands-on experience in this area! More than you know! I even did some undergraduate work on _Daphnia_ behavior. I think I could build a cheap _Daphnia_ excluder that would remove the bulk of the _Daphnia_ before the algae hits the centrifugal separators. _Daphnia_ are a bone of contention between Cell Tech and the FDA, because after the _Daphnia_ have been ground up, they are indistinguishable from insect parts. _Daphnia_, also known as the "water flea", are tiny animals that are not insects. About the size of a sesame seed, they have two little wing-like appendages they use to swim about, seeking out the algae upon which they graze. Your postings are information content-free. My postings are packed with solid information, backed up by specific references so anyone can check out what I say. BTW, I gave you detailed, explicit instructions how to obtain the FDA file on Cell Tech. Did you order a copy yet? When you get it, will you admit that the algae has powerful drug-like effects and addictive qualities consistent with the action of a cocaine-analog drug? http://groups.google.com/group/misc....b7134c1dc3ed88 http://tinyurl.com/cw5og Quoting from one who is SICK of Mark Thorson's OBSESSION Date: 1996/06/02 Subject: Mark Thorson & Super Blue Green Algae I wish to extend my thanks to those of you who went through the trouble to lookup the references that Mark loves to flood every thread mentioning algae as a potential source of nutrition. I spent a substantial amount of time refuting some of his references in public, after which he stopped listening and started thanking me for 'improving' his bibliography. While he displays remarkable stamina, he has a hidden agenda. He quotes out of context and relies on article titles to scare people regardless of the actual tone of the articles content. At first I thought he just didn't understand that more than one kind of algae exists; eventually I came to understand better. And another: RCfromLI Jun 3 1996, 2:00 am Bull**** I didn't refute them! At least two of them are based only on anecdotal evidence and the rest do not conclusively prove anything except that the particular sample of algae they tested contained toxins (just as many fish and shellfish often contain toxins due to environmental conditions.) The articles are, in my opinion, almost zero evidence to support MT's contentions. (See my posts in sci.med.nutrition.) The articles were WEAK and I invite ANYONE to go read them first hand and draw their own conclusions. Folks, reading Thorson's silly-ass piecemeal quotations/references and taking them as the last word is NOT a good idea. Just remember that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing! PLEASE, go to the library and read the articles for yourselves. They are very readable and very enlightening! And another: Mark AdamS Jun 7 1996, 2:00 am [snip] I don't think you can condem the entire world based on one unclear post. However, you are clearly condeming yourself with your own nonstop misrepresentation. Anyone who reads the Lancent article and compares the text therein to your out of context quote will clearly see how objective you are. Mark AdamS Jun 6 1996, 2:00 am Mark KNEW the below, yet he STILL could NOT shut up! CELL TECH PRODUCT SAFETY AND PURITY A message from Christian Drapeau Director, Research and Development Cell Tech Recently, there have been several pieces of misinformation posted on this message board and elsewhere on the Internet regarding Super Blue Green Algae (SBGA). I would like to set the record straight regarding the safety and purity of SBGA once and for all. Super Blue Green Algae is a food supplement that is harvested from Klamath Lake in Klamath Falls, Oregon. The scientific name for SBGA is Aphanizomenon flos aquae. Cell Tech routinely tests its algae for possible toxins to ensure the 100% safety and purity of its products. In response to some of the concerns that have been posted: There are two scientific articles that incorrectly state that Aphanizomenon flos aquae from Klamath Lake could potentially be toxic. These articles generated quite a bit of misunderstanding and controversy and warrant specific attention. In the first article, referring to a toxic bloom in Klamath Lake in the late 1950's, Phinney and Peek reported that "no concrete evidence was obtained as to the effect of this toxin on the biota of the Lake and River, but experiments with mice proved that ingestion of the algal material was quickly lethal, and intraperitoneal injection of the aqueous extract almost instantaneous in causing death" (Phinney and Peek, 1961). The toxicity was incorrectly attributed to Aphanizomenon flos aquae with no further investigation. A sample of the same algal bloom was sent by Phinney to Dr. Paul Gorham, at the National Research Council, Ottawa, Canada, for further analysis. Gorham subsequently found that the sample consisted of equal parts of Aphanizomenon flos aquae and Microcystis. Dr. Gorham established that the toxicity came from Microcystis (Gorham, 1964). The second article is a review by Gentile reporting that blooms of Aphanizomenon flos aquae had been found to be toxic in Klamath Lake (Gentile, 1971). Actually, Aphanizomenon flos aquae was found toxic in Kezar Lake, New Hampshire in 1966 (Sawyer et al., 1968) and 1967 (Gentile et al., 1969). Both articles reported that the isolation of an atypical non-colony forming Aphanizomenon flos aquae from Kezar Lake killed fish and laboratory mice. However, when Gentile wrote his review on algal toxins, he mistakenly stated that the origin of the Kezar Lake sample was Klamath Lake, Oregon. An accurate review of the information mentioned here was written by Dr. Wayne Carmichael and Dr. Paul Gorham who wrote: (beside Kezar Lake . . .) "The only other case where toxic Aphanizomenon flos aquae has been strongly implicated is from Klamath Lake, Oregon, by Phinney and Peek (Phinney and Peek, 1961). The signs of poisoning produced by samples from this bloom, consisting of 50:50 Aphanizomenon, Microcystis, injected i.p. into mice were similar to those of microcystin. It was concluded that Aphanizomenon was either non-toxic or produced a toxin like microcystin. " However, it is the belief of Dr. Wayne Carmichael that Aphanizomenon flos aquae from Klamath Lake is genetically incapable of producing microcystin (Carmichael and Gorham, 1980). In conclusion, Aphanizomenon flos aquae from Klamath Lake has never been found to be toxic. This, however, raises another question: does Microcystis or Anabaena, or any other type of toxic algae grow in Klamath Lake? To answer this question, a sample of fresh algae is taken every day and analyzed for speciation. These tests are conducted on a daily basis by Cell Tech. In addition, an independent lab performs these tests on every batch that Cell Tech harvests. (A batch consists of the product of two days of harvest.) The tests demonstrate that the algae present in Klamath Lake are more than 99% Aphanizomenon flos aquae. It is known that some genera of blue-green algae can produce two types of toxins under certain conditions -- hepatotoxins and neurotoxins. Hepatotoxins are produced by genera of blue-green algae including Anabaena, Nodularia, Oscillatoria and Microcystis. Neurotoxins are mainly produced by genera of dinoflagellates (red waterblooms), and by some genera of Anabaena and Oscillatoria. Aphanizomenon flos aquae has been known to produce neurotoxins under certain conditions in Europe and Northeast America, not in Klamath Lake. The conclusion is that certain strains of Aphanizomenon flos aquae in different parts of the world do have a history of neurotoxicity. However, it is well known that not all blue- green algae are toxic. Aphanizomenon flos aquae from Klamath Lake in Oregon has never been found to be toxic. Furthermore, it is believed that it is highly unlikely for a non-toxic strain of algae to produce a neurotoxin (Rapala, Sinoven, Luukkainen, and Niemela, 1993). To ensure that the algae harvested by Cell Tech are absolutely non-toxic, different biochemical assays are performed in a strict schedule to detect the presence of any toxin. Hepatotoxins are easily detected by a test called enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (An and Carmichael, 1994). Their presence can also be precisely assayed by a protein phosphatase inhibition assay (PPIA) (Takai and Mieskes, 1991; An and Carmichael, 1994). Anabaena primarily produces neurotoxins that are easily detected by high pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC). HPLC is one of the most sensitive and precise methods used to detect trace amounts of organic substances. Cyanobacterial neurotoxins can also be detected by anticholesterase assay (AchA) (Matsunaga, Moore, Niemczura, and Carmichael, 1989). All of the aforementioned testing procedures are made on every batch of Super Blue Green Algae (SBGA) by external laboratories. http://groups.google.com/group/misc....a7087e46bd61f5 http://tinyurl.com/d5m4d Quoting from the 0RIGINAL from Mark Thorson [snip] Note that in the postings from Cell Tech in response to my files, they cite several specific tests they do on their algae. They perform the test for paralytic shellfish toxin, which happens to be a toxin that _Aphanizomenon_ is known to produce. They test for microcystins, which is a toxin that a contaminating algae in Klamath Lake is known to produce. They test for anatoxin-a(s), which is a different molecule from anatoxin-a that has a similar name, because both were originally discovered in an algae called _Anabaena_. To my knowledge, nobody has ever found anatoxin-a(s) in _Aphanizomenon_. But they do not perform the Stevens and Krieger test on the algae. I wonder why? Could taking the anatoxin-a out of _Aphanizomenon_ be like taking the nicotine out of tobacco?] THERE IS THE LIE, HE REPEATED, REPEATEDLY! *But they do not perform the Stevens and Krieger test on the algae*. He made that statement with NO basis. Which is L Y I N G. http://groups.google.com/group/misc....1bc3fa697b6117 http://tinyurl.com/c8j5d Quoting from the ORIGINAL from Mark Thorson AN ANATOXIN-A PRIMER Copyright Mark Thorson 1995, 1996 Super Blue Green (trademark, Cell Tech brand) algae is the species known as _Aphanizomenon_flos-aquae_. The remainder of this file is divided into five parts: I. What do people say about Super Blue Green Algae? II. What is anatoxin-a? III. Where does anatoxin-a come from? IV. What does anatoxin-a do? V. How can algae users protect against anatoxin-a? PART I. What do people say about Super Blue Green Algae? Here's a few quotes collected from both Cell Tech promotional literature and the FDA file on Cell Tech. There's remarkable agreement between these two sources on the effects of the algae. Capitalization added. Quoting from _Personal_Experiences_with_Super_Blue_ _Green_Algae_ (Cell Tech promotional literature): "On my initial consumption I felt better than ever, having incredible energy and elation. The excitement of it KEPT ME UP MOST OF THE NIGHT, yet that day at work I was without fatigue." -- C.H. "Since I've been taking Super Blue Green Algae I experience very little jet-lag, sleep well, feel more alert than exhausted on a long flight. Fellow flight attendants are ASTOUNDED WITH MY ENERGY LEVEL!" -- L.L.D. "When he was in the eighth grade, we decided to give him the Super Blue Green Algae. And we didn't tell anyone, because we didn't want there to be any bias. He took about six capsules, three Omega Sun and three Alpha Sun." "At the end of two weeks three teachers called me and asked me, 'What are you doing different, Mrs. D? Is Ricky BACK ON A DRUG or something?' They said his work had dramatically improved. His attention span was better, his concentration had increased, he was responding and his school work was getting done and it was accurate." -- Mrs. D. "We have begun to suggest Super Blue Green Algae to clients WITHDRAWING FROM COCAINE, with excellent results. It helps them through the depression and cravings connected with KICKING COCAINE." -- Robert Marrone, PhD, Sierra Center for the Healing Arts, Nevada City, CA. Quoting from the official FDA Complaint/Injury Report on Cell Tech, October 31, 1995, filed by Lina Cicchetto, Consumer Complaint Coordinator: "Product was supposed to be used in this manner: for the first week take digestive enzymes with spectrabiotics capsule 2 a day increasing weekly. For energy, after a week add to the initial capsules one capsule of the 'Blue Green Algae' capsule." "She [the complainant] did this for a week then she added the algae, the first day she felt very energized, but did not sleep, next day she was so wired she COULD NOT SLEEP FOR A WEEK." Quoting from the official FDA Complaint/Injury Report on Cell Tech, October 6, 1995, filed by Karen L. Robles, Consumer Safety Officer: "Complainant began taking blue-green algae product and after 10 months felt no benefits. She stopped taking the product and has had an ENERGY IMBALANCE since that time. She has been suffering WITHDRAWL and energy imbalance." Quoting from the official FDA Complaint/Injury Follow-Up Report on Cell Tech, November 24, 1995, filed by Susan R. Nelson, Supervisory Consumer Safety Officer: "She [the complainant] stated she did not feel the benefits and quit taking the product (she was still taking the ------). She immediately had an ENERGY CRASH and had to stay in bed for a week, she couldn't get out of bed. ---------- stated she felt the algae had an ADDICTIVE effect on her and she has not felt the same since she quit the product." ======================= (CAN YOU BEAT THAT?!?! ALL AT ONCE, MARK THORSON USES ANECDOTES!!!!!!! H Y P O C R I T E!!!!!) [snip the repeated that he has repeated, repeatedly for years] [Note that in the postings from Cell Tech in response to my files, they cite several specific tests they do on their algae. They perform the test for paralytic shellfish toxins, which happen to be toxins that _Aphanizomenon_ can also produce. They test for microcystins, which are toxins that a contaminating algae in Klamath Lake is known to produce. They test for anatoxin-a(s), which is a different molecule from anatoxin-a that has a similar name, because both were originally discovered in an algae called _Anabaena_. To my knowledge, nobody has ever found anatoxin-a(s) in _Aphanizomenon_. But they do not perform the Stevens and Krieger test on the algae. I wonder why? Could taking the anatoxin-a out of _Aphanizomenon_ be like taking the nicotine out of tobacco?] ============= BACK TO THE LIE, AGAIN!!! 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. Misstate misstate : to state incorrectly : give a false account of false: intentionally untrue |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:42 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ParentingBanter.com