Alphanizomenon flos-aqua (Text version)
Mark Thorson
In article <52ndck$1...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
Haezl <mar...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
>
>I realized that some people will not have a
>viewer for Word, so I am posting this Text
>version. I'm sure it looks less suspicious.
Nope, it looks just as suspicious as before :-)
WHAT'S IT ALL ABOUT, ALGAE ???
Copyright Mark Thorson 1995, 1996
SBGA is the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) known as
_Aphanizomenon_flos-aquae_. Whether or not it is a good
idea to eat this stuff may be judged by reviewing the
scientific and medical literature.
Quoting from _The_Lancet_, "Hazardous Freshwater Cyano-
Bacteria (Blue-Green Algae)", June 12, 1993, volume 341,
pages 1519 and 1520:
"Cyanobacteria, especially members of the genera
_Microcystis_, _Anabaena_, _Aphanizomenon_, and
_Oscillatoria_, are common and potentially harmful
inhabitants of freshwater. Many species contain
lipopolysaccharide endotoxins, but also, more
importantly, can produce several potent hepatotoxins
(microcystins) and neurotoxins (eg, anatoxins,
saxitoxin)."
"Whenever a diagnosis of cyanobacterial intoxication
is a possibility, it is essential (in the UK) to notify
the local Consultant in Communicable Disease Control.
Control measures may need to be instituted as a
priority to minimize the risk to others. Furthermore,
early notification of potential outbreaks will
facilitate proper prospective epidemiological studies,
which are essential if the risks from cyanobacteria
are to be properly measured."
Quoting from _Journal_of_Medical_Microbiology_,
"Cyanobacteria and Human Health", 1992, volume 36,
page 301:
"_Aphanizomenon_flosaquae_ produces neosaxitoxin, which
causes paralysis by reversibly blocking sodium
conductance in neurones. In addition, lipopolysaccharide
endotoxins have been demonstrated in some blooms. Some
algal toxins are also potent tumor promoters in animal
models."
"It is clear that cyanobacteria are a potential hazard
to human health."
Quoting from _Nature_, "Fatal Attraction To
Cyanobacteria", September 10, 1992, volume 359, page
110:
"The buoyant growth habit of the widely encountered
toxigenic, planktonic genera such as _Microcystis_,
_Anabaena_, _Aphanizomenon_, _Nodularia_ and some
_Oscillatoria_ species can result in scum formation in
lakes and ponds during calm weather, so that an acutely
toxic dose of cyanobacterial toxins can be presented ..."
Quoting from _Journal_of_Applied_Phycology_,
"Anatoxin-A Concentration in _Anabaena_ and
_Aphanizomenon_ Under Different Environmental
Conditions And Comparison Of Growth By Toxic And
Non-Toxic _Anabaena_ Strains: A Laboratory Study",
1993, volume 5, number 6, page 581:
"Anatoxin-a-concentration in cells of _Anabaena_-
and _Aphanizomenon_-strains and in their growth
media were studied in the laboratory in batch
cultures at different temperatures, light fluxes,
orthophosphate and nitrate concentrations and with
different nitrogen sources for growth."
"The highest light flux studied did not limit the
growth or decrease the level of the toxin in the
cells of _Aphanizomenon_."
Quoting from _Journal_of_Applied_Bacteriology_,
"Cyanobacteria Secondary Metabolites--the Cyanotoxins",
1992, volume 72, pages 448 and 449:
"The production of neurotoxin by _Aphanizomenon_
_flos-aquae_ was first demonstrated by Sawyer _et_al._
(1968). These neurotoxins were later shown to be
saxitoxin (STX) and neosaxitoxin (NEOSTX) (LD50 i.p.
mouse equals about 10 micrograms/kilogram), the two
primary toxins of red tide paralytic shellfish
poisoning (PSP)."
"Acute hepatotoxicosis involving the hepatotoxins
(liver toxins) is the most commonly encountered
toxicosis involving cyanobacteria. These toxins are
produced by strains of species within the genera
_Microcystis_, _Anabaena_, _Nodularia_, _Oscillatoria_
and _Nostoc_. In addition, chemically undefined
hepatotoxins are being studied in _Cylindrospermopsis_,
_Aphanizomenon_, _Gloeotrichia_ and _Coelosphaerium_.
Clinical signs of hepatotoxicosis have been observed
in field poisonings involving cattle, sheep, horses,
pigs, ducks and other wild and domestic animals.
Most laboratory studies have involved the use of
mice, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits and pigs.
Collectively, the signs of poisoning in these animals
include weakness, anorexia, pallor of mucous membranes,
vomiting, cold extremities, and diarrheoa."
Haezl
e...@netcom.com (Mark Thorson) wrote:
>In article <52ndck$1...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
>Haezl <mar...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
>>
>>I realized that some people will not have a
>>viewer for Word, so I am posting this Text
>>version. I'm sure it looks less suspicious.
>
>Nope, it looks just as suspicious as before :-)
>
>WHAT'S IT ALL ABOUT, ALGAE ???
>Copyright Mark Thorson 1995, 1996
>
>SBGA is the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) known as
>_Aphanizomenon_flos-aquae_. Whether or not it is a good
>idea to eat this stuff may be judged by reviewing the
>scientific and medical literature.
(snip)
>Clinical signs of hepatotoxicosis have been observed
>in field poisonings involving cattle, sheep, horses,
>pigs, ducks and other wild and domestic animals.
>Most laboratory studies have involved the use of
>mice, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits and pigs.
>Collectively, the signs of poisoning in these animals
>include weakness, anorexia, pallor of mucous membranes,
>vomiting, cold extremities, and diarrheoa."
Thank-you for the information. I will take it under
advisement if any of these animals show such signs of
poisoning.:)
I would like to point out that the strains of
Alphanizomenon being harvested from Klamath Lake
are constantly monitored for signs of toxicity,
and none have been found. Instead, everyone is
reporting excellent health and vigor. Perhaps
the laboratory conditions are the real cause of
the hepatotoxicity, while in the greater laboratory
of the natural realm the conditions are much more
in favor of health.
Blessed be,
Haezl
at Brigit's Garden
an organic herbal offering
Mark Thorson
In article <52q7sp$7...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
Haezl <mar...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
>
>and none have been found. Instead, everyone is
>reporting excellent health and vigor. Perhaps
Everyone? No, not everyone. Here's some
reports that are contradictory to your statement.
IS THERE A DRUG IN THE BLUE-GREEN ALGAE ???
Copyright 1996 Mark Thorson
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:
"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."
Quoting from the official FDA Complaint/Injury Report
on Cell Tech, October 5, 1995, filed by Mark Fow,
Division of Emergency and Enforcement Operations:
"Complainant is/was a distributor of the product. She
took product from 4/95 to 7/95. During that period her
extremities became swollen. When she stopped taking it
the swelling disappeared. Upon rechallenge, swelling
returned. She knows several other users with similar
experiences. The firm is unresponsive to her questions
about this problem."
Quoting from the official FDA Complaint/Injury Report
on Cell Tech, April 4, 1995, filed by Cecilia Wolyniak,
Division of Emergency and Enforcement Operations [quoting
a complainant]:
"I believe Cell Tech's algae is a _powerful_drug_ which
must be regulated by the FDA. Further, the Oregon
Department of Agriculture has cited Cell Tech for rat
droppings in the storage areas and for a substantial
number of insect parts in the product. It is difficult
to believe that the FDA would permit a company like Cell
Tech to sell what I believe to be a potent drug, under the
guise of the label of 'food supplements,' under DSHEA of
1994 without oversight, monitoring, control and mandated
safety testing. Simple logic would dictate that in
addition to efficacy safety testing, the FDA would not
permit a Merck, Squibb or a Genentech to allow insect
particles in their products sanctioned by the FDA or
permit rat droppings in their product storage areas."
Haezl
e...@netcom.com (Mark Thorson) wrote:
>In article <52q7sp$7...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
>Haezl <mar...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
>>
>>and none have been found. Instead, everyone is
>>reporting excellent health and vigor. Perhaps
>
>Everyone? No, not everyone. Here's some
>reports that are contradictory to your statement.
>
>IS THERE A DRUG IN THE BLUE-GREEN ALGAE ???
>Copyright 1996 Mark Thorson
(snip)
DOES MARK THORSON HAVE SOME HIDDEN PURPOSE ???
copyright 1996 Haezl at Brigit's Garden :)
It is interesting that none of the cases cited in
your file reported hepatotoxicosis or
weakness, anorexia, pallor of mucous membranes,
vomiting, cold extremities and diarrhea as
the "scientific studies" predict in your first
file.
It seems inconsistent to start another line of
attack until the anecdotal verification of your
first file is accomplished.
I wonder what lies behind this vehement reaction
to my original post, which had a great deal more
to attack than my simple endorsement of this food?
I have said a lot of things that would be more
controversial.
>Quoting from the official FDA Complaint/Injury Report
>on Cell Tech, April 4, 1995, filed by Cecilia Wolyniak,
>Division of Emergency and Enforcement Operations [quoting
>a complainant]:
>
>"I believe Cell Tech's algae is a _powerful_drug_ which
>must be regulated by the FDA. Further, the Oregon
>Department of Agriculture has cited Cell Tech for rat
>droppings in the storage areas and for a substantial
>number of insect parts in the product. It is difficult
>to believe that the FDA would permit a company like Cell
>Tech to sell what I believe to be a potent drug, under the
>guise of the label of 'food supplements,' under DSHEA of
>1994 without oversight, monitoring, control and mandated
>safety testing. Simple logic would dictate that in
>addition to efficacy safety testing, the FDA would not
>permit a Merck, Squibb or a Genentech to allow insect
>particles in their products sanctioned by the FDA or
>permit rat droppings in their product storage areas."
I doubt that the CellTech facility is as bad as
this statement would lead one to believe. It seems
to me that there are no closed doors, and I will
take steps as soon as practical for me to visit
Klamath Lake and see for myself. In the meantime
we have to be aware that Alphanizomenon flos-aqua
is considered a food. Like corn or spinach, or
Broccoli, foods are desirable to other living
things, especially if it is good food. Just think
about how the restaurant industry skates on the
edge of the practical as we share this planet with
a lot of other life.
Unlike chemicals patented by Merck, Squibb or Genetech,
Alphanizomenon is a life-form that lives in a very
healthy lake, is harvested and freeze-dried in an
excellent facility and sold as a food. Sounds a lot
more like farming than pharmaceuticals, and less prone
to contamination than farming with pesticides and
chemical "fertilizers". During corn-shelling time I
have stood near the crib to watch the rodents scatter.
If they didn't like the corn, neither would I.
This leads me to wonder if you, Mr. Thorson, possibly
represent the interests of some chemical industry,
possibly using the methods of misdirection to
further those anti-organic agendas. Just a thought.
Mark Thorson
In article <52sn8r$5...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
Haezl <mar...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
>
>DOES MARK THORSON HAVE SOME HIDDEN PURPOSE ???
>copyright 1996 Haezl at Brigit's Garden :)
>
>It is interesting that none of the cases cited in
>your file reported hepatotoxicosis or
>weakness, anorexia, pallor of mucous membranes,
>vomiting, cold extremities and diarrhea as
>the "scientific studies" predict in your first
>file.
Quoting from "Blue-Green Algae Blues" in _Vegetarian_Times_,
issue 216, August 1995, page 18:
"Cell Tech distributors acknowledge that blue-green algae
users can experience nausea, vomiting, tingling, and flatulence,
signs the body is 'ridding itself of toxins'."
>It seems inconsistent to start another line of
>attack until the anecdotal verification of your
>first file is accomplished.
Inconsistent? I like to think I am very consistent.
Ask any SBGA dealer on the net.
>I wonder what lies behind this vehement reaction
>to my original post, which had a great deal more
>to attack than my simple endorsement of this food?
>I have said a lot of things that would be more
>controversial.
I only noticed the one where you were hawking the algae.
>>Quoting from the official FDA Complaint/Injury Report
>>on Cell Tech, April 4, 1995, filed by Cecilia Wolyniak,
>>Division of Emergency and Enforcement Operations [quoting
>>a complainant]:
>>
>>"I believe Cell Tech's algae is a _powerful_drug_ which
>>must be regulated by the FDA. Further, the Oregon
>>Department of Agriculture has cited Cell Tech for rat
>>droppings in the storage areas and for a substantial
>>number of insect parts in the product. It is difficult
>>to believe that the FDA would permit a company like Cell
>>Tech to sell what I believe to be a potent drug, under the
>>guise of the label of 'food supplements,' under DSHEA of
>>1994 without oversight, monitoring, control and mandated
>>safety testing. Simple logic would dictate that in
>>addition to efficacy safety testing, the FDA would not
>>permit a Merck, Squibb or a Genentech to allow insect
>>particles in their products sanctioned by the FDA or
>>permit rat droppings in their product storage areas."
>
> I doubt that the CellTech facility is as bad as
>this statement would lead one to believe. It seems
You doubt, but you do not say that you know.
>to me that there are no closed doors, and I will
>take steps as soon as practical for me to visit
>Klamath Lake and see for myself. In the meantime
In other words, you have not seen for yourself, yet.
>we have to be aware that Alphanizomenon flos-aqua
>is considered a food. Like corn or spinach, or
Considered by whom? Pond scum? That doesn't sound
like "food" to me. Toxic pond scum? That would for
sure not be "food" in my kitchen.
>Broccoli, foods are desirable to other living
>things, especially if it is good food. Just think
>about how the restaurant industry skates on the
>edge of the practical as we share this planet with
>a lot of other life.
Such as pond scum.
>Unlike chemicals patented by Merck, Squibb or Genetech,
>Alphanizomenon is a life-form that lives in a very
>healthy lake, is harvested and freeze-dried in an
>excellent facility and sold as a food. Sounds a lot
Or so you believe. You don't know.
>more like farming than pharmaceuticals, and less prone
>to contamination than farming with pesticides and
>chemical "fertilizers". During corn-shelling time I
>have stood near the crib to watch the rodents scatter.
>If they didn't like the corn, neither would I.
>This leads me to wonder if you, Mr. Thorson, possibly
>represent the interests of some chemical industry,
>possibly using the methods of misdirection to
>further those anti-organic agendas. Just a thought.
Again, just a pure poison-pen speculation with no
evidence. Just a dodge to throw doubt on someone who
knows the truth against which you have no defense.
Currently, my work is mostly on formulation of
silicone polymer systems, which is not an industry
threatened by cyanobacterial products, food, drug, or
otherwise.
Aumkara Productions
Hi
are you all referring to the blue-green algae that floats on rivers? If you
are then I most heartily recommend DO NOT EAT IT! In australia blue-green
algae periodically comes into bloom on our inland waterways and poisons the
fish, killing them by the thousands. The water becomes so contaminated that
it even kills any stock that drink it. It is costing the Australian
taxpayer millions of dollars each year in trying to clear this toxic stuff
from the waterways.
When this stuff comes into bloom, people are warned not to bathe in or
drink the water, and are not to eat any fish caught in it. This is to
prevent the loss of human life. How you can recommend for people to
deliberately go out and buy the stuff to eat is completely beyond me.
R
--
*****************************************
Great minds discuss ideas
Average minds discuss events
Small minds discuss people
*****************************************
Haezl
e...@netcom.com (Mark Thorson) wrote:
>In article <52sn8r$5...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
>Haezl <mar...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
>>
>>DOES MARK THORSON HAVE SOME HIDDEN PURPOSE ???
>>copyright 1996 Haezl at Brigit's Garden :)
>>It is interesting that none of the cases cited in
>>your file reported hepatotoxicosis or
>>weakness, anorexia, pallor of mucous membranes,
>>vomiting, cold extremities and diarrhea as
>>the "scientific studies" predict in your first
>>file.
>
>Quoting from "Blue-Green Algae Blues" in _Vegetarian_Times_,
>issue 216, August 1995, page 18:
>"Cell Tech distributors acknowledge that blue-green algae
>users can experience nausea, vomiting, tingling, and flatulence,
>signs the body is 'ridding itself of toxins'."
I'm wondering why I never experienced any of these effects?
>Inconsistent? I like to think I am very consistent.
>Ask any SBGA dealer on the net.
>>I wonder what lies behind this vehement reaction
>>to my original post, which had a great deal more
>>to attack than my simple endorsement of this food?
>>I have said a lot of things that would be more
>>controversial.
>I only noticed the one where you were hawking the algae.
My statements regarding the aquisition of information
from CellTech in the form of an audio tape is hardly
"hawking". My statements were directed toward the
consequences of having more health and energy- what
we might do with it. Since my own results and my
families' indicates the effectiveness of this product
I thought it would be interesting to discuss these matters.
Your attack sidesteps these important issues: current
farming practices, "third-world" hunger, the incursion
of European chauvinism in elder cultures, and what the
technologically advanced nations might better spend
some effort on than fighting each other. With that in
mind I will not further waste any effort with mutual
character assasinations, but challenge you to address
some of these issues.
>>This leads me to wonder if you, Mr. Thorson, possibly
>>represent the interests of some chemical industry,
>>possibly using the methods of misdirection to
>>further those anti-organic agendas. Just a thought.
Not an attack; a simple speculation.
>Again, just a pure poison-pen speculation with no
>evidence. Just a dodge to throw doubt on someone who
>knows the truth against which you have no defense.
>Currently, my work is mostly on formulation of
>silicone polymer systems, which is not an industry
>threatened by cyanobacterial products, food, drug, or
>otherwise.
I just can't help wondering why your attack is so
vehement. My agenda is entirely in he open, while
the energy you are expending seems to have no purpose
other than to attack.
Blessed be,
Haezl
at Brigit's Garden
an organic herbal offering
Haezl
"Aumkara Productions" <da...@midcoast.com.au> wrote:
>Hi
>are you all referring to the blue-green algae that floats on rivers? If you
>are then I most heartily recommend DO NOT EAT IT! In australia blue-green
(snip)
How you can recommend for people to
>deliberately go out and buy the stuff to eat is completely beyond me.
>
>R
Of course not. The algae at issue is a particular kind
from Klamath Lake in Oregon. It is harvested and subjected
to as thorough examination as any other plant food- probably
more. The source is pure and uncontaminated.
Mr Thorson has cited some laboratory studies that indicate
the possibility of some toxins in some samples (from where
they were taken has not been addressed.) He also listed
some statements he has collected from persons with different
experiences than mine, and not cared to discuss the other
issues in my original posting. It has led me to wonder why
he is so vehement.
Your concern is directed toward a very broad range of
algaes that may have nothing to do with Alphanizomenon
flos-aqua, and certainly nothing to do with Klamath Lake.
I intend, as time and opportunity permits, to get more
information of a first-hand kind- including the eating
of Alphanizomenon as long as I continue to experience
the effects of good health.
I would like to add that attacks of a similar nature
have been made against a number of the medicinal herbs
I continue to grow and use on a similar basis. These
attacks have often originated from sources at risk from
the success of herbal remedies.
I no personal feelings about Mr. Thorson.
Mark Thorson
In article <530cka$8...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
Haezl <mar...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
>
>Of course not. The algae at issue is a particular kind
>from Klamath Lake in Oregon. It is harvested and subjected
>to as thorough examination as any other plant food- probably
>more. The source is pure and uncontaminated.
Oh yeah? "Uncontaminated"? Are you implying that the algae
living in Klamath Lake is not toxic?
Quoting from _Microbial_Toxins_ vol. VII, pages 39-40:
"In 1968, an _Aphanizomenon_flos-aquae_ sample from
Klamath Lake was successfully cultured (Gentile, 1968).
This sample was collected in usual fasciculate form.
Initial growth was slow with fascicle size decreasing.
In a second culture, which was aerated, the fascicles
disintegrated and the growth of the resulting solitary
trichomes was rapid (T = 22 hours). Mass cultures
derived from this inoculum were toxic to fish (_Fundulus_
_heteroclitus, _Cyprinodon_variegatus_) and white mice
(MLD = 10 mg/kg in 5 minutes). No attempt was made to
determine if the fasciculate form was toxic. Although
there is evidence that cultural conditions can affect
toxin production (Gorham, 1964b; Perry and Gorham, 1966;
Gentile and Maloney, 1969), there is no reason to believe
that the factors involved in maintaining fasciculate
integrity (McLachlan _et_al_, 1963; Guseva, 1937;
Zehnder and Gorham, 1960) are related to toxin production.
O'Flaherty and Phinney (1970) have reported on the
unialgal culture of _Aphanizomenon_flos-aquae_ in defined
medium in the fasciculate form from a bloom in Upper
Klamath Lake, Oregon. They have maintained the
fasciculate form in modified ASM medium for more than
3 years. Maintenance and growth of fascicles was
obtained when the concentration of ferric iron was 0.18
mg/liter. Gentile and Maloney (1969) were unable to
induce fascicle formation in the toxic clone of
_Aphanizomenon_flos-aquae_ isolated from Kezar Lake,
New Hampshire. This was not unexpected since this isolate
was never found in the fasciculate form in nature.
However, using the nutritional and culture conditions
suggested by O'Flaherty and Phinney (1970), fasciculate
growth was induced in a non-fasciculate culture originally
isolated from Klamath Lake (Gentile, 1970). Both the
fasciculate and non-fasciculate cultures were toxic."
Some people say that Gentile was confused about the source
of his toxic algae, that all of it came from Kezar Lake.
If Gentile were mistaken about
the source of his algae, that would mean he was comparing
the Kezar Lake material against itself. That seems unlikely
in light of his comments with regard to fasciculate vs.
non-fasciculate algal morphology.
(Fasciculate means the individual filaments (i.e. trichomes)
occur in bundles, rather than as separate strands. This was
once thought to be an indicator of toxicity. Gentile's work
suggests that it is not.)
Mark Thorson
In article <5309u3$8...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
Haezl <mar...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
>
>My statements regarding the aquisition of information
>from CellTech in the form of an audio tape is hardly
>"hawking". My statements were directed toward the
>consequences of having more health and energy- what
>we might do with it. Since my own results and my
>families' indicates the effectiveness of this product
>I thought it would be interesting to discuss these matters.
Your statements about your motives would be a little more
believable if you didn't stand to make a profit off of
selling the algae.
>Your attack sidesteps these important issues: current
>farming practices, "third-world" hunger, the incursion
>of European chauvinism in elder cultures, and what the
>technologically advanced nations might better spend
>some effort on than fighting each other. With that in
>mind I will not further waste any effort with mutual
>character assasinations, but challenge you to address
>some of these issues.
These issues are a smokescreen to distract readers from
the real issue: the cocaine-analog drug, anatoxin-a.
>>>This leads me to wonder if you, Mr. Thorson, possibly
>>>represent the interests of some chemical industry,
>>>possibly using the methods of misdirection to
>>>further those anti-organic agendas. Just a thought.
>
>Not an attack; a simple speculation.
A speculation with absolutely no foundation. A
speculation with loaded words like "chemical" and
"anti-organic".
>>Again, just a pure poison-pen speculation with no
>>evidence. Just a dodge to throw doubt on someone who
>>knows the truth against which you have no defense.
>>Currently, my work is mostly on formulation of
>>silicone polymer systems, which is not an industry
>>threatened by cyanobacterial products, food, drug, or
>>otherwise.
>
>I just can't help wondering why your attack is so
>vehement. My agenda is entirely in the open, while
>the energy you are expending seems to have no purpose
>other than to attack.
Your agenda is transparent. You want to push this algae
on the uninformed public. My agenda is to bring an end
to the abuse of the Internet for commercial advertising
purposes by Cell Tech. In case you don't know the whole
story, this started as a flamewar in misc.health.alternative
between myself and a former in-office employee at Cell
Tech (now an SBGA distributor), Chris Hardwicke. I
haven't seen a posting from C.H. in a long time, but
the files I created to win that flamewar still exist,
and I now use them whenever I see other SBGA distributors
abusing the net.
Haezl
e...@netcom.com (Mark Thorson) wrote:
>In article <5309u3$8...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
>Haezl <mar...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
>>
>>My statements regarding the aquisition of information
>>from CellTech in the form of an audio tape is hardly
>>"hawking". My statements were directed toward the
>>consequences of having more health and energy- what
>>we might do with it. Since my own results and my
>>families' indicates the effectiveness of this product
>>I thought it would be interesting to discuss these matters.
>
>Your statements about your motives would be a little more
>believable if you didn't stand to make a profit off of
>selling the algae.
The only profit I have made at this time is more health
and vigor, but I am willing to believe I and my family
could be unique.
>>I just can't help wondering why your attack is so
>>vehement. My agenda is entirely in the open, while
>>the energy you are expending seems to have no purpose
>>other than to attack.
>
>Your agenda is transparent. You want to push this algae
>on the uninformed public. My agenda is to bring an end
>to the abuse of the Internet for commercial advertising
>purposes by Cell Tech. In case you don't know the whole
>story, this started as a flamewar in misc.health.alternative
>between myself and a former in-office employee at Cell
>Tech (now an SBGA distributor), Chris Hardwicke. I
>haven't seen a posting from C.H. in a long time, but
>the files I created to win that flamewar still exist,
>and I now use them whenever I see other SBGA distributors
>abusing the net.
Well, at last you have an explaination for your vehemence.
I suspected it might be something personal. I was not
aware of your flamewar with someone from CellTech, but
I am not surprised.
Now if you will please refer to my original post, there
was some information and the suggestion that more _free_
information from CellTech was available. There was a
more lengthy discussion of what it might mean if the
experience I have been having was to be extended to many
others. I never made the suggestion that anyone else should
buy CellTech products. Read carefully. In fact, at this
time (10/3/96) I have not sold a single cell of CellTech
SBGA to anyone.
I am still curious about anyone else's _experiences_ of
eating Alphanizomenon flos-aqua, first hand, not from
anonymous complaintants. The best thing about this
forum is the rapidity and wide distribution of information
and thought. In fact, I appreciate your response, and
am saving all the information you have shared.
Mark Thorson
In article <531t9b$b...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
Haezl <mar...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
>
>I am still curious about anyone else's _experiences_ of
>eating Alphanizomenon flos-aqua, first hand, not from
>anonymous complaintants. The best thing about this
>forum is the rapidity and wide distribution of information
>and thought. In fact, I appreciate your response, and
>am saving all the information you have shared.
Wait till tomorrow. Just this week I received my shipment
of Alpha Sun and Omega Sun. I plan to try the Omega Sun
tomorrow and report my results.
I showed the literature that came with the algae to the
secretary at work, and she immediately wanted the phone
number of my distributor so she could buy some. Then,
I showed her the FDA file on the algae, and she totally
changed her mind. "Oooh, insect parts, forget it!"
I have a number of experiments planned for tomorrow.
I sure hope Cell Tech sent me a potent batch. There's
an unfortunate possibility that Cell Tech may have
known to whom this shipment was sent, and since there's
a simple treatment to destroy anatoxin-a I can't be sure
that this is a typical manufacturing batch. If I were
to send it out for analysis and it showed zero anatoxin-a,
that would not be proof that there's no anatoxin-a in
the algae.
Haezl
e...@netcom.com (Mark Thorson) wrote:
>In article <531t9b$b...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
>Haezl <mar...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
(snip)
>I have a number of experiments planned for tomorrow.
>I sure hope Cell Tech sent me a potent batch. There's
>an unfortunate possibility that Cell Tech may have
>known to whom this shipment was sent, and since there's
>a simple treatment to destroy anatoxin-a I can't be sure
>that this is a typical manufacturing batch. If I were
>to send it out for analysis and it showed zero anatoxin-a,
>that would not be proof that there's no anatoxin-a in
>the algae.
I am so impressed with this change of direction, that if
you are at all suspicious of your sample I will send you
some of what I have, or order some for you and forward it.
If there is a simple treatment to destroy the anatoxin-a,
then why wouldn't CellTech do it routinely anyway?
Do you not believe that the other contents in the analysis
could be beneficial enough?
I find it realy hard to believe
that this "cocaine analog" could be the source of my
increased well-being for about a month. I am sure that
_cocaine_ would by now be robbing me of reserves of energy
and nutrition.
Just today I was so busy that I was unable to eat a meal
until this evening. I ate some granola and about four
capsules of "Alpha Sun" on the run. I probably sat down
for about ten minutes this afternoon. I am sitting here
now at 7:00 and I don't feel drained at all. Neither am
I "wired" or nervous. If this is a drug I am sure it is
better than cocaine.
I promise to go to bed early and sleep, and the good news
is that I will have both Saturday and Sunday off for the
first time in two months. The question remains: it it a
good thing to be able to go on like this, just because
I can?
Mark Thorson
In article <5348tb$9...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
Haezl <mar...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
>
>I am so impressed with this change of direction, that if
>you are at all suspicious of your sample I will send you
>some of what I have, or order some for you and forward it.
for the offer.
>If there is a simple treatment to destroy the anatoxin-a,
>then why wouldn't CellTech do it routinely anyway?
out of cigarettes. The big tobacco companies could
produce a nicotine-free cigarette, but nobody would
buy them.
>Do you not believe that the other contents in the analysis
>could be beneficial enough?
account for the reported mental effects (and the immune
system effects, too). If someone could prove to me
that the amount of anatoxin-a in the algae is below
the level that could be psychoactive, I would be about
90% sure this other compound was responsible. (Note
that 90% sure is the same thing as not being sure.)
>I find it realy hard to believe
>that this "cocaine analog" could be the source of my
>increased well-being for about a month. I am sure that
>_cocaine_ would by now be robbing me of reserves of energy
>and nutrition.
additional "energy" and it doesn't burn them out. It's
mostly a question of dosage and how slowly the drug is
ingested.
>Just today I was so busy that I was unable to eat a meal
>until this evening. I ate some granola and about four
>capsules of "Alpha Sun" on the run. I probably sat down
>for about ten minutes this afternoon. I am sitting here
>now at 7:00 and I don't feel drained at all. Neither am
>I "wired" or nervous. If this is a drug I am sure it is
>better than cocaine.
a few minutes from now. I want to make sure I'm not
missing out on a drug better than cocaine.
>I promise to go to bed early and sleep, and the good news
>is that I will have both Saturday and Sunday off for the
>first time in two months. The question remains: it it a
>good thing to be able to go on like this, just because
>I can?
morning so I would have a "fresh" brain to work with,
not biased by alcohol, caffeine, etc. Also, I was afraid
that the reported diarrea effect might kick in if I used
it before going to work.
I'll be looking for how quickly it kicks in. Rapid onset
will suggest, but not prove, that it is a drug effect.
Note that some nutrients can have rapid onset, too. The
niacin flush reaction is an example.
If it's necessary to use the algae for several days to
get an effect, that will suggest, but not prove, it is
a nutrient effect. Note that some drugs, like marijuana,
don't have much if any effect on naive users. You have
to use it several times before your brain "learns" to
sense the presence of the drug.
My plan is to take one capsule of Omega Sun, and if I
don't feel anything for an hour, take another one.
My main fear about taking the algae is that there could
be hepatotoxins that slipped through Cell Tech's testing
program. So, I will be reluctant to take more than two
capsules, or to take them daily for several days.
The experiment will begin in a few minutes. Wish me luck!
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.
Haezl
e...@netcom.com (Mark Thorson) wrote:
>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.
Are you trying to tell me that coffee has good effects
besides temporary alertness?
>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.
There is good reason to increase dosages more slowly,
and include the enzyme and pro-biotic supplements.
What is your normal diet? These factors have to be
taken into consideration.
I don't understand why you would be suspicious of any
samples I might send you. I am not a chemist, and
wouldn't know how to alter this plant to be more
beneficial and less toxic. I resent any implied
accusations against my character as well.
But let that go. I am waiting for the promised
chemical analysis, and hope you regain your
desired level of homeostasis.
Haezl
e...@netcom.com (Mark Thorson) wrote:
>In article <5348tb$9...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
>Haezl <mar...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
>>
>I just got out of bed and planned my experiments for this
>morning so I would have a "fresh" brain to work with,
>not biased by alcohol, caffeine, etc. Also, I was afraid
>that the reported diarrea effect might kick in if I used
>it before going to work.
>I'll be looking for how quickly it kicks in. Rapid onset
>will suggest, but not prove, that it is a drug effect.
>Note that some nutrients can have rapid onset, too. The
>niacin flush reaction is an example.
Yes, so now you'll be suspicious of the nutritional aspect
if it is borne out in analysis. Hmm.
>If it's necessary to use the algae for several days to
>get an effect, that will suggest, but not prove, it is
>a nutrient effect. Note that some drugs, like marijuana,
>don't have much if any effect on naive users. You have
>to use it several times before your brain "learns" to
>sense the presence of the drug.
Naive users? I never heard of such a thing. Is this
analysis of THC reactions from your experience or
what literature? I hope you won't quote me from
"Reefer Madness" or something. :)
>My plan is to take one capsule of Omega Sun, and if I
>don't feel anything for an hour, take another one.
>My main fear about taking the algae is that there could
>be hepatotoxins that slipped through Cell Tech's testing
>program. So, I will be reluctant to take more than two
>capsules, or to take them daily for several days.
>The experiment will begin in a few minutes. Wish me luck!
Good luck, you wild and crazy person. Go boldly forward
with your own "algae experience" and keep me posted.
If you are interested later we can introduce you to
Tlitliltzin or Teonanacatyl but you are probably much
safer to remain in your relationship with Alphanizomenon. :)
D. Batts
> 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.
Mark,
To make this a fair test of the algae, I hope you follow the Cell Tech
program and take ony one of each the first three days and add one cap every
three days.
I have beeh taking algae for a year and I only take six total per day.
(3alpha, 3 omega + probotics) The amount needed for each person varies. I
would never recommend that a new user take 1.5 grams per day. Please dont
booger the test by not following the recommended dosage.
Btw, have you noticed any changes in your sleeping patterns. More dreaming,
sleeping more or fewer hours.
Health, Hope and Freedom
D. Batts
Mark Thorson
In article <Batt-ya02318000...@news.onramp.net>,
D. Batts <Ba...@onramp.net> wrote:
>
>I have beeh taking algae for a year and I only take six total per day.
>(3alpha, 3 omega + probotics) The amount needed for each person varies. I
>would never recommend that a new user take 1.5 grams per day. Please dont
>booger the test by not following the recommended dosage.
>
>Btw, have you noticed any changes in your sleeping patterns. More dreaming,
>sleeping more or fewer hours.
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.
David Blake
Haezl wrote:
>
> e...@netcom.com (Mark Thorson) wrote:
> >It was like the bad effects of coffee without
> >any of the good effects.
>
> Are you trying to tell me that coffee has good effects
> besides temporary alertness?
Certainly. It enhances the release of dopamine in the brain -
which boosts frontal cortical activity and gives a
'rewarding' feeling.
--
Dave Blake
dbl...@phy.ucsf.edu
http://www.keck.ucsf.edu/~dblake
David Blake
D. Batts wrote:
> Mark,
>
> To make this a fair test of the algae, I hope you follow the Cell Tech
> program and take ony one of each the first three days and add one cap every
> three days.
>
You are absolutely right. He needs to start taking his nutrional
supplement slowly so that he can be properly addicted without
noticing. How many fewer coffee drinkers would there be
if everyone had six cups on their first go at it ?
Mark's point remains. No purely nutritional supplement should get
you wired.
D. Batts
When I first started taking the algae, I would have many vivid dreams one
after the other. This effect tapered off after a few weeks. My dreams are
still more vivid, but the number and frequency of the dreams returned to
there pre-algae level. My girlfriend told me that she never dreamed. She
started dreaming about three weeks after starting the algae.
The first few days taking SBGA I would sleep a few hours.I would wake up
feeling like I had slept more that I actually had. Its a hard thing to put
in words, but it seems that the quality of the sleep is better, more
restful.
I wake up alert well rested not groggy and tired with fewer hours of sleep.
As a distributor of this product I have found that most people notice
little or nothing the first week or so. However some have an almost instant
response with just one or two capsules. (Within an hour or two.) I have no
clue as to why.
D. Batts
I also found
Terry Van Dorn
I have been taking Cell-Tech SBG Algae for about a year now, and I have
never had any ill effects. I started by taking 1 each of Alpha & Omega and
worked my way up eventually to now taking 2 each in the morning and 2 each
in the afternoon. I started noticing an increase in energy after about 3
days.
I have found the algae makes me have more even energy all day long. I have
never gotten a buzz off it. I used to have low blood sugar and needed to
eat every once in awhile to keep from going to sleep. After the algae, I
just have nice,even energy all day long, whether I eat or not. I still get
hungry and eat regular meals, but I dont need to snack constantly like
before. And even if I skip meals occasionally, I dont feel run down like
before. If I run out of the algae I still feel good for about a week, then
I notice the old symptoms of low energy start to come back gradually over
the next week or so. I take this to mean it is a nutrient effect, not a
drug effect.
Mark Thorson <e...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<eeeDyt...@netcom.com>...
> In article <5348tb$9...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
> Haezl <mar...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
> >
> I'll be looking for how quickly it kicks in. Rapid onset
> will suggest, but not prove, that it is a drug effect.
> Note that some nutrients can have rapid onset, too. The
> niacin flush reaction is an example.
>
Haezl
Ba...@onramp.net (D. Batts) wrote:
Mark Thorson wrote:
>> 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.
I can't avoid the impression of the pattern of paranoid delusion
in this mind. The belief that there is something "out there" trying
to get in against your will is consistent with the vehemence of
your cause. It is, in fact, a very common minor delusion in our
current culture. (cf. Whitley Streiber) I would be willing to discuss
this with you in private, but it has little to do with the
Alphanizomenon.
>As a distributor of this product I have found that most people notice
>little or nothing the first week or so. However some have an almost instant
>response with just one or two capsules. (Within an hour or two.) I have no
>clue as to why.
I feel the answer to this is simple. When a person's base-line energy
and nutrition are imbalanced and depleted it is difficult to process
what is made available. The time it takes to reach a homeostatic
level of well-being and start to increase to a more advanced level can
take weeks or even months for some people. Others who already
have ample resources will feel the effects sooner.
Blessed be,
Haezl
at Brigit's Garden
an organic herbal offering
Haezl
ja...@pobox.com (Tim) wrote:
>[snip]
>> I can't avoid the impression of the pattern of paranoid delusion
>> in this mind.
>Because he had a BAD DREAM?!? Even talking-therapy quacks rarely stoop so low.
You read too much into my statement. Read c a r e f u l l y. I
was merely stating an impression, not making a diagnosis. I am not a
doctor.
>> The belief that there is something "out there" trying
>> to get in against your will is consistent with the vehemence of
>> your cause.
>Sure, if you're the literary-bullshit type. This defensiveness is
>consistent with someone who fears that their cause will be discredited by
>semi-objective evidence. (let's face it, we can't exactly verify Mark's
>dreams...he may just be telling you this to troll for silly responses, so
>score 1 for him, 0 for you, if that's his strategy.) Or maybe he's just
>satisfied that the evidence against SBGA's wholesomeness and nutritive
>value is stronger than that for it.
I am not a doctor, but I have extensive experience with the inner
recesses of animal experience. I am not the least concerned with
being discredited. For me, at least, this is not a competitive sport
but a forum for discussion. Give yourself a thirty point headstart
and I'm quite happy to follow along here behind. You win!
I really can't help but wonder if Mark just doesn't want to allow the
possibility of Alphanizomenon flos-aqua as an effective ally due to
some powerful need to be _right_. Is this your need as well?
Not very scientific.
Silly me. If you have been reading this discussion from the
beginning, my intention was simply to address the issues of extended
abilities and to what these might be applied. I am convinced by my
own response and several others who are close to me that
Alphanizomenon is effective in increasing general well-being on a
consistent and safe basis. The question was- now what?
Are we going to stop fighting each other and get to work on our
collective problems, or just keep accelerating until we reach entropic
nonviability as a specices?
I really feel this has something to do with this very common theme of
alien interference.
>> It is, in fact, a very common minor delusion in our
>> current culture. (cf. Whitley Streiber) I would be willing to discuss
>> this with you in private, but it has little to do with the
>> Alphanizomenon.
I really mean it. I am interested in the travelling you do in the
dream state, and I have no need to push you in any particular
direction. I have a day job.
Believe it or not, there are an infinite number of life-forms on this
planet (and others; we'll soon know officially) who have an interest
in the level of damage we cause in our overzealous intrusion into
_their_ part of this ecosystem. It just might be an interpretation of
their collective reaction to what we are doing that is coming into
your dreams. Really. (This includes many who are not apparent to
you.)
>What makes you so sure? </troll?:001>
what's that> <?troll?:001> <mean? ....hm.
(sorry if I wandered into your personal territory. The groups just
got added by someone here and I didn't notice. Tell you what, after
this I will eliminate your group from further discussion- is it
sci.med.nutrition?)
>[snip]
>> I feel the answer to this is simple. When a person's base-line energy
>> and nutrition are imbalanced and depleted it is difficult to process
>> what is made available. The time it takes to reach a homeostatic
>> level of well-being and start to increase to a more advanced level can
>> take weeks or even months for some people.
>I'm wondering, have you consuted the literature on the turnover time for
>nutrient deficiencies to cause genetic overexpression of the various
>transport factors? And that of such expression once a substrate is
>introduced?
Oh, gag me with your jargon. Simply marvelous. :)
You must be from sci.med.nutrition.
Would you care to define just what is "the literature" you are
referring to, or is this a generic issue?
>Please get back to me (or the group) on this theory. I'll send you some
>petri dishes and TLC plates if you want to be as cool as Mark and do your
>own experiment at home. (you'll need to buy your own hamsters,
>endonuclease, etc.) Hell, I'll even throw in some basic lab protocols from
>my old notes, if I can find some that are easily generalized.
Not impressed.
As I understand it, Mark was sending his samples to a lab. (No answer
as yet.) CellTech has their own laboratory that out of self-interest
most probably is very careful not to allow anyone to bring suit for
poisoning. This whole line of accusation is very silly.
>> Others who already
>> have ample resources will feel the effects sooner.
>You know, I'm tempted to interpret this last quote metaphorically,
>something I would not normally do. Shame on you! </troll?:002>
When I begin to feel the effects of any toxicity I will "discontinue
use" and begin hiring some experienced lawyers. We'll clean up,
something I would not normally do. :)
Then I can quit that day job.
Until then, shame on you. :)
Blessed be,
Haezl
C. Jayne Stevens
If Haezl is actually ingesting blue-green algae, the question arises as to
whether she/he will be able to complete this thread before death ensues,
given that said algae is toxic/noxious/lethal.
--
C. Jayne Stevens.
Bedfordshire, England.
gypsy...@enterprise.net
. . . at least the wheels go round . . .
Haezl
mar...@cyberamp.net (Haezl) wrote:
>ja...@pobox.com (Tim) wrote:
>>[snip]
Well, I've been away for a bit, and in the meantime I have some
official material from CellTech that is available as an automatic fax.
You dial 1-800-565-5092 and reply to the automated message with a
touch-tone phone. You want fax #127 for a pretty thorough reply to
Mark Thorson's accusations. A complete list of faxes you can receive
is #999. There's a lot to read, and I've just read a little now.
At this time I have no way to convert a Fax to a text file except by
transcribing it, or I would post the reply here. Maybe later, if I
need the typing practice. : )
After two months of use, I can say that although I have no major
health problems to begin with, I am continuing to enjoy a continuous
supply of vigor. My liver functions just fine, and though sometimes I
feel rushes of energy when I had been slowing down late in the day, I
am certain this is not like I would feel after several cups of coffee
or a cigarette. I used to do both. The effect would last less than
an hour, and then I would crash. Steady partaking of Aphanizomenon is
a continuous and debtless support for me.
(yes, I have been misspelling her name for some time now- blush!)
BTW, Mark Thorson has done us all a big favor by bringing his material
to our attention. I hope he continues to do so, as it has been quite
interesting. Thank you, Mark. That's what this medium is for.
Mark Thorson
In article <54c8m2$d...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
Haezl <mar...@cyberamp.net> wrote:
>
>Well, I've been away for a bit, and in the meantime I have some
>official material from CellTech that is available as an automatic fax.
>You dial 1-800-565-5092 and reply to the automated message with a
>touch-tone phone. You want fax #127 for a pretty thorough reply to
>Mark Thorson's accusations. A complete list of faxes you can receive
>is #999. There's a lot to read, and I've just read a little now.
You don't have to get the fax-on-demand. Somebody else already
posted fax #127 in another newsgroup. Here's a version with my
comments added.
> From Christian Drapeau, Director of R&D, Cell Tech:
>
> For the record, Cell Tech would like to respond to some of the
> most insidious misrepresentations of the scientific literature
> that are currently circulating on the Internet. As the Director
> of R&D for Cell Tech, and with the assistance of several
> scientists who have studied blue green algae and algal biotoxins
> for several decades, I would like to review the facts, correct the
> inaccuracies, and set the record straight regarding the safety and
> purity of Super Blue Green (TM) algae.
>
> Although some of the negative posts on the Internet cite what
> appear to be impressive references regarding Aphanizomenon
> flos-aquae in an apparent effort to support the notion that Super
> Blue Green (TM) algae could be toxic, none of these references
> demonstrate the toxicity of Aphanizomenon flos-aquae from Klamath
> Lake. After years of regular testing by Cell Tech and several
In the introduction to a book Carmichael edited, _The_Water_
_Environment_ (Plenum, 1981), on page 5, there is a table
of reports of toxic algae published in the scientific
literature. If you look under _Aphanizomenon_flos-aquae_,
you see two entries, one for samples from Kezar Lake
and the other for Klamath Lake. In the entry for Klamath
Lake, Carmichael cites two reports, Phinney and Peak (1961)
and Gorham (1964).
> independent laboratories, the strain of Aphanizomenon flos-aquae
> growing in Klamath Lake has not been shown to produce toxins of any
> kind. Strains of Aphanizomenon flos-aquae growing in Europe
> (Finland) (Rapala et al., 1993) and in New Hampshire (Sawyer et
> al., 1968; Gentile et al., 1969) have been found to produce toxins
> under certain specific conditions, but Aphanizomenon flos-aquae
> from Klamath Lake remains to this date a non-toxic strain.
> Actually, the toxicity of Aphanizomenon flos-aquae is not common
> and only a few strains have been identified as toxic. (Gorham,
> 1964).
>
> A preliminary summary of a toxicity test on Klamath Lake
> Aphanizomenon flos-aquae was published by Gentile (1971) in a
> review article on blue green and green algal toxins. A mouse
> assay was performed on a colony isolate of Aphanizomenon
> flos-aquae cultured for a short period of time in the laboratory.
> Signs of poisoning in mice were reported as similar to that of the
> Kezar Lake Aphanizomenon flos-aquae later shown to produce a toxin
> with similarities to saxitoxin and its derivatives. However,
> several questions need to be answered concerning this possible
> neurotoxic Klamath Lake Aphanizomenon flos-aquae. These include
> 1) lack of taxonomic verification of Aphanizomenon flos-aquae as
> the dominant algae in the tested culture, 2) lack of a complete
> mouse bioassay which would have established the minimum lethal
> dose, LD50, and toxicity compared to known saxitoxin standards,
> and 3) lack of a confirmation of toxicity by other laboratories
> working with these neurotoxins. For these reasons, it cannot be
> concluded that Aphanizomenon flos-aquae from Klamath Lake produces
> a neurotoxin. As quoted by Gentile (personal communication to
> W.W.C., March 27, 1996). "This anecdotal toxicity test on Klamath
> Lake Aphanizomenon flos-aquae should be rigorously restudied
> before it can be concluded that the alga produces a toxin."
> Periodic toxicity tests in the 1980's plus frequent testing since
> 1991 have failed to reveal any neurotoxins in Klamath Lake
> Aphanizomenon flos-aquae.
Cell Tech's consultant claims that Gentile is backing away from
his report that _Aphanizomenon_flos-aquae_ from Klamath Lake
is toxic. Gentile seemed more confident in his 1971 paper.
Some people say Gentile was confused about the source of his
algae, that all of it came from Kezar Lake. If Gentile were
mistaken about the source of his algae, that would mean
he was comparing the Kezar Lake material against itself.
That seems unlikely in light of his comments with regard to
fasciculate vs. non-fasciculate algal morphology.
(Fasciculate means the individual filaments (i.e. trichomes)
occur in bundles, rather than as separate strands. This was
once thought to be an indicator of toxicity. Gentile's work
suggests that it is not.)
> In the second example, Sawyer et al. (1968) plus Gentile and
> Maloney (1969) reported toxicity of an atypical non-colony forming
> Aphanizomenon flos-aquae that killed fish and laboratory mice.
> This Aphanizomenon flos-aquae came from Kezar Lake in New
> Hampshire. More recently, Rapala et al. (1993) reported toxicity
> of Aphanizomenon flos-aquae isolated from water blooms in Finland.
> Numerous articles dealing with various other types fof blue-green
> algae have also been referenced on the Internet in an attempt to
> establish that Aphanizomenon flos-aquae from Klamath Lake could be
> toxic. Lost in the sheer number of citations is the plain and
> simple fact that not one of these articles pertains to
> Aphanizomenon flos-aquae from Klamath Lake. Blue-green algae are
> a group of microorganisms of which only a few strains have
> demostated toxicity -- and Aphanizomenon flos-aquae from Klamath
> Lake is not one of these toxic strains.
Can you cite even one paper that reports the occurrence of
a non-toxic strain of _Aphanizomenon_ from anywhere in the world?
I can cite a report of a non-neurotoxic strain of _Anabaena_.
(That would be the Rapala paper.) Can you do the same for
_Aphanizomenon_?
> Another post includes a quote from Rapala et al. (1993) that is
> cited in an attempt to mislead readers. Rapala et al. state, "The
> amount of toxin in the cells of the toxic strains was high, often
> exceeding 1% of their dry weight." However, this sentence is
> talking specifically about toxic strains of blue-green algae and
> again does not pertain to the non-toxic strains studied such as
> Aphanizomenon flos-aquae from Klamath Lake. Actually, according
> to the article, only the strain of Aphanizomenon flos-aquae from
> Finland was found to produce a toxin. As concluded by Rapala et
Rapala only included strains of algae from Finland in his study.
Why do you suppose that is? Is toxic _Aphanizomenon_ only found
in Finland? Or do you suppose it might have something to do
with the fact that Rapala works for the University of Helsinki?
> al., it was not possible to make a non-toxic strain of
> Aphanizomenon flos-aquae produce a toxin. Algal toxicologists
Aha! There's a flat-out misrepresentation of the Rapala (1993)
paper! Rapala made no such conclusion! Rapala studied three
types of algae: toxic _Aphanizomenon_, toxic _Anabaena_, and
a non-neurotoxic strain of _Anabaena_. In his study, Rapala
never observed the non-neurotoxic strain of _Anabaena_ to produce
anatoxin-a. Rapala did not have a non-neurotoxic strain of
_Aphanizomenon_ in his study, so how could he have made a similar
conclusion about _Aphanizomenon_?
Also, Rapala notes that his non-neurotoxic strain of _Anabaena_
came from a hepatotoxic bloom, so it is not strictly true to say
that any of Rapala's algae were non-toxic, even though Rapala
refers to his one anomalous non-neurotoxic strain of _Anabaena_
as "non-toxic" in a few places.
> throughout the world accept the generality that non-toxic strains
> of all classes of algae cannot produce toxins under any
> conditions. Any concern that this might happen is scientifically
> unrealistic. Conversions or mutations to toxic forms have never
> been documented in algae.
If you look at the Rapala paper, Figure 1, you can see that
during the course of his study some strains of toxic algae did
indeed become non-toxic, then started producing toxin again.
Admittedly, these were _Anabaena_ strains -- the _Aphanizomenon_
were _always_ toxic.
Also, just because the toxin went to zero as determined by HPLC
doesn't mean it wasn't there. If Rapala had used the Stevens
and Krieger protocol for detecting anatoxin-a, he might have
found it. Judging from the graphs in Figure 1, it looks like
the detection threshold for standard HPLC must be around one
milligram per gram of algae. That's a really huge amount of
anatoxin-a (about 0.1%, dry weight), so obviously anyone using
that form of HPLC for detecting anatoxin-a could be letting
a lot of water pass under the bridge.
> Cell Tech's choice of testing procedures for a neurotoxin called
> anatoxin-a have been called into question by one individual on the
> Internet. The individual cites one particular reference as
> offering the best and most sensitive way to assay the presence of
> neurotoxins. The proposed technique has never been adopted by
> expert algal toxicologists for various reaons. In fact, this
> particular reference is the only scientific literature available on
> this technique. The truth is Cell Tech tests every batch of its
> product for all currently know blue-green algal toxins using the
> most scientifically acceptable methods available. For neurotoxins
> this includes 1) saxitoxins are tested for using a Food and Drug
> Administration (FDA) approved method used to detect these same
> toxins in seafood and 2) anatoxin-a(s) is tested for using a
> sensitive enzyme assay that is based on the toxins mechanism of
> action -- the only acceptable method available for detecting this
> neurotoxin. Using these testing methods, no neurotoxins have been
> detected in Super Blue Green (TM) algae form Klamath Lake, Oregon.
It's a good thing to test for saxitoxins and anatoxin-a(s).
But these molecules are not anatoxin-a.
> Several other references have been used in a transparent attempt
> to establish a similarity between cocaine and anatoxin-a. The
> only similarities are in structure, not in action. Anatoxin-a
> mimics acetylcholine, the neurotransmitter involved in muscular
> contraction. Since anatoxin-a cannot be degraded by
> acetylcholinesterase, the enzyme that normally cleaves
> acetylcholine, it leads to sustained and intenses muscular
> contractions, which include the diaphragm. Death occurs by
> respiratory failure. Cocaine does not affect cholinergic
> transmission, but is known to affect the catecholinergic
> transmission (adrenaline) and to selectively block the nervous
> transmission mediating pain. It is obvious that cocaine does not
> affect cholinergic transmission as anatoxin-a does. The only
> reason cocaine is related to anatoxin-a in some pieces of
> literature is because cocaine has been used as a substrate to
> artificially synthesize anatoxin.
Quoting from "Cyanobacteria and Human Health" in _Journal_of_
_Medical_Microbiology_, 1992, volume 36, page 301:
"Some cyanobacteria produce potent neurotoxins. _Anabaena_
_flos-aquae_ produces anatoxin-a, which is an alkaloid cocaine
analog, and causes death in experimental animals within 5-30
minutes from respiratory paralysis."
Note that although this quote refers to _Anabaena_, there's
plenty of other literature I can cite which shows _Aphanizomenon_
also produces anatoxin-a. Also note that the tests Cell Tech
uses would detect anatoxin-a if the level were high enough to
cause rapid death. What I question is why Cell Tech doesn't
use more sensitive tests that would detect lower, sub-lethal
levels of this drug. Could it be that taking the anatoxin-a out
of the algae would be like taking the nicotine out of cigarettes?
> The notion put forth in one post that cyanobacterial intoxication
> may be contagious is completely at odds with scientific
> understanding of the nature and function of these toxins. The
> Lancet says "Whenever a diagnosis of cyanobacterial intoxication
> is a possibility, it is essential to notify the local Consultant
> in Communicable Disease Control. Control measures may need to be
> instituted as a priority to minimize the risk to others.
> Furthermore, early notification of potential outbreaks will
> facilitate proper prospective epidemiological studies which are
> essential if the risks from cyanobacteria are to be properly
> measured." The correct interpretation of this passage is as
> follows"
>
> First, if a body of water is found to be toxic, people have to be
> alerted not to use this water.
>
> Second, early notification of cyanobacterial intoxication will
> allow scientists to do more extensive epidemiological studies to
> look for the overall impact of such toxic bloom on a population.
>
> Hence, any episode believed to be caused by cyanobacterial
> intoxication must be seen by an epidemiologist. The implication
> that blue-green algae may also be involved in diarrheal illness
> reflects an incomplete search of the scientific literature. It
> has been established that diarrheal diseases originally thought to
> be caused by the presence of blue-green algae, were indeed caused
> by a microorganism called Cyclospora cayetanesis that looks like
> blue-green algae to the untrained eye (Kinght, 1995, "This
> intestinal parasite is not a blue-green alga (cyanobacteria), as
> had been proposed, but a member of the family Eimeriidae. Now
> being called Cyclospora caytanesis . . . ").
How long has it been since I removed the quote from the faulty
paper that misidentified the parasite? It must be about a year.
But Drapeau keeps referring to it in his rebuttal to my files,
because he has so little grounds for legitimate criticism of my
files.
Those readers with long memories might remember who first
brought up this flaw in the older versions of my files. It was
only after this person posted this criticism that it appeared
in any of Drapeau's rebuttals. It was only after this person
posted that I removed that quote from my files. Who was this
person? It was me!
> The information contained in this post is intended to set the
> record straight regarding much of the misinformation currently
> circulating on the Internet. Although we do not have the time
> available that it would take to address every single post that
> contains wrong information, we felt it was important to address
> these particular posts since they seem to be a primary source of
> much of the inaccurate and misleading information that is
> circulating.
What misinformation? If there is any flaw or error in any of
my files, please let me know. I will either fix the error
or explain why it is not an error. My files do change now and
then, in response to either criticism or new information.
Haezl
e...@netcom.com (Mark Thorson) wrote:
>You don't have to get the fax-on-demand. Somebody else already
>posted fax #127 in another newsgroup. Here's a version with my
>comments added.
>> From Christian Drapeau, Director of R&D, Cell Tech:
>>
>> For the record, Cell Tech would like to respond to some of the
>> most insidious misrepresentations of the scientific literature
>> that are currently circulating on the Internet. As the Director
>> of R&D for Cell Tech, and with the assistance of several
>> scientists who have studied blue green algae and algal biotoxins
>> for several decades, I would like to review the facts, correct the
>> inaccuracies, and set the record straight regarding the safety and
>> purity of Super Blue Green (TM) algae.
(snip- Some highly convoluted manipulations)
>What misinformation? If there is any flaw or error in any of
>my files, please let me know. I will either fix the error
>or explain why it is not an error. My files do change now and
>then, in response to either criticism or new information.
Thank-you Mark. You are a very busy person to keep up with
all of this material. Do you care to address the issue as to why
you are so dedicated to this task? You must be a saint.
For my part, it has been over two months now that I have been
enjoying Aphanizomenon flos-aqua for her nutritional support.
If there is any toxic side-effects I do not notice them as much
as a cup of coffee. I still drink that brew, though I _can_
detect slight discomfort to my kidneys. I'll drink dandelion tea
to balance that.
I still feel the overriding anecdotal evidence of SBGA algae eaters
indicates the CellTech product is safe. All of the laboratory
studies, and their arguable conclusions, cannot deny the experience
of the vast amount of people with a personal relationship with
Aphanizomenon.
The years of denial of the benefits of many medicinal herbals by the
AMA comes to mind. Echinacea would not be as popular for the support
of our immune systems if laboratory studies had not been guided by
folkloric indicators. Milk Thistle looks like an unapproachable weed,
but she is a powerful ally for our livers. Who would think to make a
thorough study of this benefit without our remembering how our
ancestors depended on Silybum marianum?
If there is a nicotine-like effect it must be mitigated by the
significant nutritional benefit, or on my work schedule of late, I
would be dead indeed. I'm doing fine. How are you?
Mark Thorson
In article <54qemv$a...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
Haezl <mar...@cyberamp.net> wrote:
>
>Thank-you Mark. You are a very busy person to keep up with
>all of this material. Do you care to address the issue as to why
>you are so dedicated to this task? You must be a saint.
I've answered that question many times before. It's my hobby.
Shooting down misinformation about _Aphanizomenon_flos-aquae_
is my sport. I do it for fun. Do I make myself perfectly
clear?
>For my part, it has been over two months now that I have been
>enjoying Aphanizomenon flos-aqua for her nutritional support.
"her" nutritional support? _Aphanizomenon_flos-aquae_ is female?
>If there is any toxic side-effects I do not notice them as much
>as a cup of coffee. I still drink that brew, though I _can_
>detect slight discomfort to my kidneys. I'll drink dandelion tea
>to balance that.
In my experience, one capsule of Omega Sun has about the same
effect as one cup of strong black coffee.
>I still feel the overriding anecdotal evidence of SBGA algae eaters
>indicates the CellTech product is safe. All of the laboratory
>studies, and their arguable conclusions, cannot deny the experience
>of the vast amount of people with a personal relationship with
>Aphanizomenon.
Did you know it took over 30 years from the time lab studies
indicated tobacco smoke was carcinogenic until the surgeon
general's warning was put on the side of cigarette packs?
Until that happened, the pro-tobacco argument was much like
the one you just stated, i.e. millions of people smoke so it
must be safe or at least not too dangerous.
>The years of denial of the benefits of many medicinal herbals by the
>AMA comes to mind. Echinacea would not be as popular for the support
>of our immune systems if laboratory studies had not been guided by
>folkloric indicators. Milk Thistle looks like an unapproachable weed,
>but she is a powerful ally for our livers. Who would think to make a
>thorough study of this benefit without our remembering how our
>ancestors depended on Silybum marianum?
Compare that with the decades of denial that tobacco is harmful.
>If there is a nicotine-like effect it must be mitigated by the
>significant nutritional benefit, or on my work schedule of late, I
>would be dead indeed. I'm doing fine. How are you?
I haven't taken more algae recently, but I do plan some more
experiments, and I'm going to give some to my best friend Cindy
to see what she thinks of it. She's a smoker, so I think the
health risk from the algae is small compared to the other risk
her life. And I'd like to see if the algae could satisfy her
craving for tobacco.
Prairie
Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> In article <54qemv$a...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
> Haezl <mar...@cyberamp.net> wrote:
> >Thank-you Mark. You are a very busy person to keep up with
> >all of this material. Do you care to address the issue as to why
> >you are so dedicated to this task? You must be a saint.
>
> I've answered that question many times before. It's my hobby.
> Shooting down misinformation about _Aphanizomenon_flos-aquae_
> is my sport. I do it for fun. Do I make myself perfectly
> clear?
Sorry, I missed your previous statements concerning what you do for fun.
Anything else? Something that might involve fresh air? :)
> >For my part, it has been over two months now that I have been
> >enjoying Aphanizomenon flos-aqua for her nutritional support.
>
> "her" nutritional support? _Aphanizomenon_flos-aquae_ is female?
Considering how often and over a long expanse of time "his" has been
the preferred collective nomenclature, I like to relate to my plant
allys as feminine. Though I know there is sexual reproduction among
many plants, and some are exclusively pollen-bearers or ovarian, many
are able to fertilize themselves. As herbs have a very nurturing
quality, I feel justified in relating to them collectively as female
in spite of the minority with predominately male characteristics.
Something of a reversal of cultural habit. :)
Perhaps that is why it is so difficult for me to view Aphanizomenon
as a threat. If I grow tobacco and offer some to the devas as the
natives of this land have done, it wouldn't be an offense. If I smoke
some as a sacrament, my healthy body wouldn't suffer. It is the
habitual
and constant, neurotic abuse that is a threat to health. I know how to
relate to Nicotania in a balanced manner.
The tobacco industry is a giant near-monopoly with an agenda reaching
back to Sir Walter Raleigh, et. al. It was practically the economic
basis for the colonies that became the United States. From the World
War
period it is clear that the spread of nicotine addiction was at least
tolerated by the US Government. My father was routinely partly paid in
cigarette rations during W.W.II, without even considering that he had no
need for them. He gave up his habit after some struggle when I was
quite
young. If CellTech shows similar signs of abuse of power I will leap to
your side of the net.
My own tobacco plants will continue to be herbal allies, divorced from
any connection to the chemicalized brew served up by RJ Reynolds & CO.
> >If there is any toxic side-effects I do not notice them as much
> >as a cup of coffee. I still drink that brew, though I _can_
> >detect slight discomfort to my kidneys. I'll drink dandelion tea
> >to balance that.
> In my experience, one capsule of Omega Sun has about the same
> effect as one cup of strong black coffee.
How can you be so certain this is not a nutritional benefit?
> >I still feel the overriding anecdotal evidence of SBGA algae eaters
> >indicates the CellTech product is safe. All of the laboratory
> >studies, and their arguable conclusions, cannot deny the experience
> >of the vast amount of people with a personal relationship with
> >Aphanizomenon.
> Did you know it took over 30 years from the time lab studies
> indicated tobacco smoke was carcinogenic until the surgeon
> general's warning was put on the side of cigarette packs?
> Until that happened, the pro-tobacco argument was much like
> the one you just stated, i.e. millions of people smoke so it
> must be safe or at least not too dangerous.
What do your files indicate concerning the long term effects of the
toxins you claim? Hepatotoxins can be countered with Silybum marianum.
We still invoke the curative properties of Comfrey in spite of the
slight discomfort to our livers. We are careful not to eat her roots
in quantity. That would be foolish.
> >The years of denial of the benefits of many medicinal herbals by the
> >AMA comes to mind. Echinacea would not be as popular for the support
> >of our immune systems if laboratory studies had not been guided by
> >folkloric indicators. Milk Thistle looks like an unapproachable weed,
> >but she is a powerful ally for our livers. Who would think to make a
> >thorough study of this benefit without our remembering how our
> >ancestors depended on Silybum marianum?
>
> Compare that with the decades of denial that tobacco is harmful.
Let's make a clear distinction between the products of the tobacco
industry
and Nicotania, or this discussion will make no sense to me. I refuse to
make polarized judgements concerning life.
> >If there is a nicotine-like effect it must be mitigated by the
> >significant nutritional benefit, or on my work schedule of late, I
> >would be dead indeed. I'm doing fine. How are you?
> I haven't taken more algae recently, but I do plan some more
> experiments, and I'm going to give some to my best friend Cindy
> to see what she thinks of it. She's a smoker, so I think the
> health risk from the algae is small compared to the other risk
> her life. And I'd like to see if the algae could satisfy her
> craving for tobacco.
I really commend you for your ability to explore what is best in
Aphanizomenon. She can, like any ally, be a support or a hindrance
depending on what you choose to do. Taking eight capusles a day and
working twelve hours straight for weeks, even with nutritional support
alone, would be stupid. That is just the subject I have been wanting
to discuss as an appendix to the larger subject of herbs. If SBGA can
make it possible to extend our work-schedules, is it not injurious
enough
if we do what we have been doing, even without any direct toxicological
side-effects? Can we not become a toxic influence ourselves if we
overgrow our limitations without considering the effect on others?
Maybe that is a subject that belongs in another newsgroup, but only
just outside it. The herbs in our gardens and in the wilder spaces
between the pavement are living on the edge of a kind of madness that
threatens to overwhelm us if we do not addrress this relationship.
Do we relate to them as allies, or a commodity to _use_
and discard the remains without reverence? There are consequences to
disregarding our connections to ourselves.
Aphanizomenon flos-aqua is not an evil entity threatening us with her
anatoxin-a, or whatever. We can choose a relationship of knowledge and
understanding and explore what she means to us.