A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Kids Health
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Mark Thorson the REPEATED Liar cannot shut up



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 4th 08, 05:44 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,talk.politics.medicine,alt.support.breast-implant
Jan Drew
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,707
Default 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
[email protected] 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.


  #2  
Old April 4th 08, 06:19 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,talk.politics.medicine,alt.support.breast-implant
Jan Drew
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,707
Default 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
[email protected] 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.


  #3  
Old April 4th 08, 07:16 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,talk.politics.medicine,alt.support.breast-implant
Mark Thorson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default 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.
  #4  
Old April 4th 08, 07:31 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,talk.politics.medicine,alt.support.breast-implant
Mark Thorson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default 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.
  #5  
Old April 4th 08, 07:32 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,talk.politics.medicine,alt.support.breast-implant
Mark Thorson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default 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
  #6  
Old April 5th 08, 01:28 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,talk.politics.medicine,alt.support.breast-implant
Jan Drew
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,707
Default Mark Thorson the REPEATED Liar cannot shut up


"Jan Drew" wrote in message
news

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
[email protected] 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.



  #7  
Old April 5th 08, 01:29 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,talk.politics.medicine,alt.support.breast-implant
Jan Drew
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,707
Default Mark Thorson the REPEATED Liar cannot shut up


"Jan Drew" wrote in message
news

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
[email protected] 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.



  #8  
Old April 5th 08, 01:30 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,talk.politics.medicine,alt.support.breast-implant
Jan Drew
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,707
Default 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
[email protected] 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.


  #9  
Old April 5th 08, 01:41 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,talk.politics.medicine,alt.support.breast-implant
Jan Drew
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,707
Default 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

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Part 2: Mark Throson's repeated rant.....Jan Drew's Hatred For Jews Ilena Rose Kids Health 1 April 3rd 08 08:01 PM
Kane's a pathological liar Doan's a pathologial liar. Greegor Spanking 22 January 22nd 07 03:42 AM
Mike shut it down!! [email protected] Solutions 6 September 17th 04 12:41 PM
FP abused by CPS, DFPS shut up & take it Fern5827 Foster Parents 0 August 6th 04 02:35 PM
Chris Dugan: Shut UP! The Dirt Beneath Your Feet Spanking 0 May 18th 04 02:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.