Christian Drapeau responds to Mark Thorson
ALGA...@aol.com
February 1, 1998
Open 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 he
has 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 not
a cocaine analog. This demonstrates a lack of scientific expertise, which is
understandable since Thorson is not a medical scientist but an electrician,
as well as his inability to accept what is scientifically accurate. I'll
first 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 door
key.
As mentioned numerous times, anatoxin-a is an agonist of acetylcholine,
(mimics the action of acetylcholine) the neurotransmitter at the
neuromuscular junction. Cocaine, on the other hand, does not affect
cholinergic (acetylcholine) transmission but is rather known to effect the
catecholaminergic transmission (adrenaline) and to selectively block the
nervous transmission mediating pain. Although cocaine and anatoxin-a share
some structural similarities, they have two totally different actions in the
body (much like glutamate and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), two of the main
central neurotransmitters which share structural similarities (both are amino
acids) but have two totally different actions on the nervous system - in the
brain, glutamate is the main stimulatory neurotransmitter whereas GABA is
the main inhibitory neurotransmitter).
To put this into perspective, let's us the analogy of a key. Think of
anatoxin-a as a key that opens the door to your house and cocaine is the key
that opens the door to your car. The keys will look basically similar to
each other in structure yet they will open two very different locks with very
different results.
Thorson's view probably originates from the fact that cocaine can be used as
a substrate to produce synthetic anatoxin-a in a lab. This is similar to
saying that a key may be transformed to open another door by manipulating its
structure (in the same way that cocaine can be made with anatoxin-a) but
without this physical transformation they do totally different things.
However, to continue stating that the energy felt by people eating Super
Blue-Green Algae is due to the presence of a "cocaine analogue" demonstrates
a clear lack of knowledge in neurology and biochemistry. By perpetuating
this claim he demonstrates an unwillingness to accept what is fact and
suggests 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 and
extremely difficult to perform. The two scientists who developed this assay
no longer have the equipment to perform it and in fact, no laboratory is
currently set up to perform this test. On the other hand, a new assay was
recently developed to measure anatoxin-a with the same sensitivity and
accuracy 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 not
contain 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 no
neurotoxins whatsoever were ever found after two years of testing by the most
reputable scientists in algal toxicology throughout the world.
Regarding microcystin, it again seems appropriate to remind Mr. Thorson of
the very basic principles of toxicology. Any number of substances can be
toxic; it is simply a matter of concentration. For example:
Example 1. Aflatoxin Aflatoxin is one of the most potent liver toxins and
carcinogens ever documented. It is produced by some strains of Aspergillus
flavus and most strains of Aspergillus parasiticus, two fungi growing on
various crops. More specifically, aflatoxin is known to be associated with
peanuts, cottonseed and corn Now, consider the ramifications of all food
products made from peanuts and corn. Although aflatoxin is known to cause
cancer in animals, the FDA allows low levels of this toxin because it is
considered an "unavoidable contaminant" of these foods. So it is accepted in
certain levels even though according to scientists of the University of
Maryland, "aflatoxins at levels even lower than those listed as guidelines
may cause some undesirable side effects." Deaths and cancer have also been
reported due to exposure to aflatoxin. Despite these known facts on
aflatoxins, microcystin continues to come under fire. This is despite the
fact that not one single health problem has ever been documented to be
related to the presence of minute amounts of microcystin in blue-green algae
products.
Example 2. Shellfish Poisoning Saxitoxins are neurotoxins found in
shellfish. They are produced by species of marine algae which accumulate in
shellfish during blooms, better known as red tides. Saxitoxins block sodium
channels responsible for the propagation of action potentials along neurons.
Depending on the dose, saxitoxins may cause nausea, vomiting, paralysis and
death by respiratory distress. Currently, the action level for shellfish
toxins is 80 µg of toxins per 100 g of shellfish. Over the years and
throughout the world, hundreds of deaths and thousands of cases of
intoxication have been reported Yet, in spite of this, minimum amounts of
neurotoxins are allowed and are even considered non-toxic.
Again, it is not the presence of a substance which is determined as unsafe
but the level of that substance within a product. As for microsystin safe
levels have been established by experts in risk assessment. These risk
assessment evaluations took factors such as lifetime exposure,
susceptibility within the population, possible cancer promoting effects and
many other health concerns into consideration. In summary, the levels
established as safe are indeed safe beyond any doubt. The algae put on the
market by Cell Tech meets these standards and are absolutely safe. Mr.
Thorson's intent to create alarm and public panic regarding the microcystin
issue demonstrates a lack of knowledge or slanderous intent. In light of the
information shared above, the focus on microcystin in blue-green algae
certainly appears to be a vicious obsession. If Mark Thorson is truly
interested in public safety, would it not be much wiser and more meaningful
to address real concerns of public safety such as pesticide residue in food,
hormones, antibiotics and other chemicals in animal products, the ubiquitous
estrogen-mimicking substances, or the epidemic use of antacids which is
literally killing thousands of Americans each year?
Why Mr. Thorson spends so much lime and energy bashing Cell Tech and Super
Blue-Green Algae remains a mystery to me and many other scientists who have
the background to properly interpret the scientific literature. He does not
appear to be interested in discovering the truth since it has been conveyed
to him many times, and out of the court case mentioned above, he knows that
there 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 to
freedom of speech which, when coupled with the power of the internet, allows
someone to spread erroneous statements in a manner not possible if
information on the net was reviewed by the scientific community
If you have received an unsolicited posting from Mr. Thorson, we would
appreciate letting us know by calling Distributor Services (541)-883-8848 or
by faxing (541)-884-1869.
Sincerely,
Christian Drapeau, MSc.
Cell Tech, Research and Development
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
tjohnson
NOW - FOR THE REST OF THE STORY:
K.C. Laboratories and Cell Tech
In 1982, K.C. Laboratories of Klamath Falls, Oregon, and its president,
Victor H. Kollman, began selling Blue Green Manna products (derived from
another type of alga) with claims that they were effective against a wide
range of health problems. In 1983, the FDA began legal action to stop the
scheme, but marketing of the products did not stop. Finally, in 1986, at
the agency's request, a U.S. District Court judge issued a permanent
injunction ordering all parties involved to stop manufacturing,
distributing, and selling blue-green algae harvested from Klamath Lake,
Oregon. Explaining his decision, the judge said:
At the trial on January 9, 1986, the government introduced additional
evidence of the widespread use of blue-green algae Manna products, and of
the therapeutic claims that were made for these products. Victor Kollman
denied that he had made therapeutic claims. . . . Nevertheless he continued
to claim his product has a beneficial effect on the human body . . . as a
food, and not a drug. The government showed that taken at the recommended
dosage of 1.5 grams, its value as a nutrient is negligible. Further, the
cost of the defendant's products, which exceeds $300 per pound, is so high
as compared to other sources of the same nutrients that it is apparent that
these products are not intended to be used as a food.
In 1985, the judge had ruled that the products were misbranded and
unapproved new drugs, and had issued a preliminary injunction against their
sale. His 1986 order cited evidence that more than 2,500 people had been
distributing Manna products with therapeutic claims that defied the
injunction. He also reported that since the injunction was issued, hundreds
of distributors had written or telephoned with claims that Manna products
had cured them or members of their families of such problems as Alzheimer's
disease, heart trouble, skin disturbances, allergies, prostate problems,
lack of sex drive, emotional problems, and alcoholism.
At the 1986 trial, the defendants argued that because other algal products
are sold as foods or food supplements, they too should be allowed to sell
blue-green algae as food-changing the packaging, trade name, and
distribution system if necessary. But the judge ruled that "the demand can
no longer be controlled, even if the defendants have a desire to do it."
Stating that Kollman had attempted to mislead not only the court but also
purchasers of the products, the judge concluded that a permanent injunction
was necessary to prevent the defendants from "benefiting from their past
violations by meeting the demand they had created for their products." In
other words, even if questionable claims were stopped, people who believed
the previously made claims would still buy the products.
Although the judge's ruling appears to have ended the sale of Manna
products, a similar line called Super Blue Green Algae is still marketed by
Cell Tech Inc., a company headed by Kollman's brother Daryl. According to a
company promotional tape, "By detoxifying your systems and balancing your
nutritional levels, Super Blue Green provides your body and spirit with
ingredients that result in experiences of increased energy, mental clarity,
dietary control and feelings of overall well-being. This can enable people
to deal with the many stresses of this modern world."
Cell Tech's literature states that the products do not provide "cures" for
diseases and are not intended as a substitute for medical care. Despite
this disclaimer, many distributors have made dubious therapeutic claims in
advertisements, at health expositions, and in private sales pitches to
prospective customers.
The Bottom Line
Spirulina products contain no nutrients that are not readily available from
food -- at a much lower price. They have no proven value for treating any
medical problem.
__________________
This article is adapted from The Vitamin Pushers: How the "Health Food"
Industry Is Selling Americans a Bill of Goods, by Stephen Barrett, M.D.,
and Victor Herbert, M.D., published in 1994.
=========================================================
ALGA...@aol.com wrote in article <6d58pe$mba$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Mark Thorson
In article <6d58pe$mba$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <ALGA...@aol.com> wrote:
> February 1, 1998
> Open 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 he
>has received the answers many times), but is rather attempting to create
>fear in people who may be interested in eating blue-green algae.
Ha! I've posted the safety issues surrounding the algae numerous
times, and the silence from Cell Tech has been deafening.
If not anatoxin-a, then what is the stuff in the algae which is
responsible for the feelings of "energy" reported by SBGA users?
It is certainly not a nutritional effect, because supplements with
greater amounts of vitamins, minerals, and amino acids are not
credited with such profound effects. It's not glycogen, neuropeptides,
or any of the other bogus explanations offered by SBGA distributors.
What is the official Cell Tech party line? What is the explanation
offered by Christian Drapeau for the feelings of "energy" for which
the algae is famous?
>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
by Gentile (1971) to produce neurotoxins. Cite one reference in the
scientific literature that says _Aphanizomenon_ from any location
anywhere is not capable of producing neurotoxins.
>refused to accept this as well as the scientific fact that anatoxin-a is not
>a cocaine analog. This demonstrates a lack of scientific expertise, which is
>understandable since Thorson is not a medical scientist but an electrician,
>as well as his inability to accept what is scientifically accurate. I'll
>first 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 door
>key.
degree in Neurobiology from the University of California, Berkeley
Campus, and I am currently employed as a technical writer at
IBM Almaden Research Center (IBM does not endorse, support,
condone, or in any way acknowledge my statements about the algae).
I also edit a column in Computer Architecture News, a publication
of the Association for Computing Machinery, but I'm not paid for
that.
What are your qualifications? Do you have a degree in Neurobiology?
Do you have a degree from a real university, one with respectable
credentials?
Never been found to contain neurotoxins? At least two reports
in the scientific literature (you know them -- Phinney and Peak, and
the later report by Gentile) report the algae from Klamath Lake is
toxic. Can you cite even one report in the reputable scientific
literature that finds the algae in Klamath Lake to be non-toxic?
Quoting from "Cyanobacteria and Human Health", in _Journal_of_Medical_
_Microbiology_, volume 36, 1992:
"Some cyanobacteria produce potent neurotoxins. _Anabaena_
_flosaquae_ produces anatoxin-a, which is an alkaloid cocaine
analogue, and causes death in experimental animals within 5-30 min
from respiratory paralysis."
I think the editor of a reputable scientific journal on medical
microbiology is more qualified than myself to comment on what is
or is not a cocaine analog. (The difference in spelling over the
word "analog" is a UK/USA difference.)
The fact that SBGA users have up to the present not been dying
in droves certainly indicates your algae does not contain levels
of anatoxin-a or anything else that are quickly lethal. I have
raised the issue of whether sub-lethal levels are present, and
Cell Tech has been unresponsive.
>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 and
>extremely difficult to perform. The two scientists who developed this assay
>no longer have the equipment to perform it and in fact, no laboratory is
>currently set up to perform this test. On the other hand, a new assay was
>recently developed to measure anatoxin-a with the same sensitivity and
>accuracy 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 not
>contain 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 no
>neurotoxins whatsoever were ever found after two years of testing by the most
>reputable scientists in algal toxicology throughout the world.
from direct sources, Mr. Crapeau. But nobody with the evidence
is willing to step forward, as you well know, so I have no supportable
basis on which to dispute your claim.
>Regarding microcystin, it again seems appropriate to remind Mr. Thorson of
>the very basic principles of toxicology. Any number of substances can be
>toxic; it is simply a matter of concentration. For example:
>
> Example 1. Aflatoxin Aflatoxin is one of the most potent liver toxins and
>carcinogens ever documented. It is produced by some strains of Aspergillus
>flavus and most strains of Aspergillus parasiticus, two fungi growing on
>various crops. More specifically, aflatoxin is known to be associated with
>peanuts, cottonseed and corn Now, consider the ramifications of all food
>products made from peanuts and corn. Although aflatoxin is known to cause
>cancer in animals, the FDA allows low levels of this toxin because it is
>considered an "unavoidable contaminant" of these foods. So it is accepted in
>certain levels even though according to scientists of the University of
>Maryland, "aflatoxins at levels even lower than those listed as guidelines
>may cause some undesirable side effects." Deaths and cancer have also been
>reported due to exposure to aflatoxin. Despite these known facts on
>aflatoxins, microcystin continues to come under fire. This is despite the
>fact that not one single health problem has ever been documented to be
>related to the presence of minute amounts of microcystin in blue-green algae
>products.
in the algae might not impose an increased cancer risk to the
person taking a capsule or two per day. But some of the promotional
literature for the algae recommends much higher levels, like 8 to 12
capsules. And it says there's no real limit to how much you can
take, because it's a food. I've talked to people taking much higher
levels, like 30 capsules daily.
There's scientific literature that recommends no more than 0.75
micrograms per day for 70 kilograms body weight as a safe level.
That's three capsules, assuming Cell Tech is adhering to their new
rules. (Regulations which they protest against as being too low.)
If there's a cancer epidemic in the offing, we might not know it
for several years. It could be like the Mad Cow Disease in England,
which only became obvious in retrospect.
> Example 2. Shellfish Poisoning Saxitoxins are neurotoxins found in
>shellfish. They are produced by species of marine algae which accumulate in
>shellfish during blooms, better known as red tides. Saxitoxins block sodium
>channels responsible for the propagation of action potentials along neurons.
> Depending on the dose, saxitoxins may cause nausea, vomiting, paralysis and
>death by respiratory distress. Currently, the action level for shellfish
>throughout the world, hundreds of deaths and thousands of cases of
>intoxication have been reported Yet, in spite of this, minimum amounts of
>neurotoxins are allowed and are even considered non-toxic.
they provided a pleasant or addictive drug effect. None of the
effects reported by SBGA users sound to me like the effects of
saxitoxin or neosaxitoxin.
>Again, it is not the presence of a substance which is determined as unsafe
>but the level of that substance within a product. As for microsystin safe
>levels have been established by experts in risk assessment. These risk
>assessment evaluations took factors such as lifetime exposure,
>susceptibility within the population, possible cancer promoting effects and
>many other health concerns into consideration. In summary, the levels
>established as safe are indeed safe beyond any doubt. The algae put on the
case for levels at least four times lower than what was implemented.
Cell Tech was (and is) arguing for levels much higher.
>market by Cell Tech meets these standards and are absolutely safe. Mr.
>Thorson's intent to create alarm and public panic regarding the microcystin
>issue demonstrates a lack of knowledge or slanderous intent. In light of the
>information shared above, the focus on microcystin in blue-green algae
>certainly appears to be a vicious obsession. If Mark Thorson is truly
Do you suppose a cocaine-analog drug could do the same thing?
>interested in public safety, would it not be much wiser and more meaningful
>to address real concerns of public safety such as pesticide residue in food,
>hormones, antibiotics and other chemicals in animal products, the ubiquitous
>estrogen-mimicking substances, or the epidemic use of antacids which is
>literally killing thousands of Americans each year?
post advertisements for estrogen-mimicking substances or whatever,
well... perhaps they should avoid posting to the newsgroups I read.
>Why Mr. Thorson spends so much lime and energy bashing Cell Tech and Super
>Blue-Green Algae remains a mystery to me and many other scientists who have
>the background to properly interpret the scientific literature. He does not
>appear to be interested in discovering the truth since it has been conveyed
>to him many times, and out of the court case mentioned above, he knows that
>there 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 to
>freedom of speech which, when coupled with the power of the internet, allows
>someone to spread erroneous statements in a manner not possible if
>information on the net was reviewed by the scientific community
distributors ceased to abuse the Internet discussion groups for
commercial advertising purposes, I'd stop posting my files.
I was drawn into this struggle in particular by two SBGA
distributors, Gordie Tong (a.k.a. Noah's Dove) and Chris Hardwicke.
It was their persistance (even though they didn't have any ammo
on their side) which provoked my research which lead to the files
I post. If Cell Tech does not mend their ways, more files will
be coming.
>If you have received an unsolicited posting from Mr. Thorson, we would
>appreciate letting us know by calling Distributor Services (541)-883-8848 or
>by faxing (541)-884-1869.
You download postings, nobody sends them to you.
I've received unsolicited spam advertising from SBGA
distributors twice. I'm sure if they knew who they were
it to, they wouldn't have sent it. But it is that kind
of despicable behavior which invites retaliation.
It sounds to me like you are planning to attack my freedom
of speech, kinda like the Great Flamewar that has been
occurring in alt.religion.scientology for the last few
years. Church of Scientology can't deny the nutty beliefs
that are an official part of their religion, so they've
thrown all their effort in suppressing any discussion
of their religion. Rather than debate the issues, they
just sue, sue, sue.
Aren't you capable of defending SBGA in an open forum?
There's plenty of issues to explore. I'm perfectly
ready to examine each issue in-depth. You've been so silent
all these years. If you can prove I'm wrong, I'll admit
I'm wrong. You'll be able to quote me in your advertisements.
(Well, maybe not e-mail spam or advertisements in the
Internet discussion groups, but stuff like the _New_Leaf_
or the fax-on-demand service).