Mark Thorson's Weaseling, Hatred, & LIES
- From: "JanD" <JanD@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 03:15:25 GMT
BEWARE!!
Mark Thorson makes libelous statements and then retracts same when faced
with law suits.Being a slow learner he will always do this until he converts
to Falun Dafa.
"Mark Thorson" <nospam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:43769A28.3A0BFF96@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Here is a link to a web version of an original source
> for many of the alternative medicine conspiracy theories
> about "organized medicine", Jews, etc.:
>
> http://www.holocaust-history.org/der-ewige-jude/stills.shtml
>
> The part about medicine is frame 34,
> about halfway down the page.
>
> This is how people like Jan are taught to hate.
> She doesn't make up stuff like this on her own.
I was never taught to hate, far from it.
Neither have I made stuff up, like that.
It is people like you who make up stories.
Your hate is all over the net.
Out of control, and caused you to lie, with no regard of who you hurt.
You had no self control, warned over and over.
Given chance, after chance, but you could not shut your mouth.
It is YOU who was taken to court, and YOU who made the retraction.
http://www.celltech.com/resources/info_central/response.asp
Does Super Blue Green Algae contain Anatoxin-a?(posted 6-19-01)
One individual was responsible for a great deal of miscommunication
regarding
anatoxin-a, information which is still accessible on many Internet sites.
Cell
Tech sued Mark Thorson for posting defamatory statements about Cell Tech,
its
products and its personnel to various Internet or Usenet news groups. Cell
Tech's lawsuit against Mr. Thorson has now been settled. As part of the
settlement agreement, Mr. Thorson has posted the Retraction Statement that
appears below. Although he did retract the allegations that he had been
widely
circulating, we all know that one cannot, with a single correct statement,
undo
all the harm done by many mis-statements that continue to circulate.
The following is a retraction statement that Mark Thorson has posted to
various
newsgroups:
Subject: Retraction of Anatoxin-a Primer
During the last several years, I have from time to time posted to this and
other newsgroups a file of information called "An Anatoxin-a Primer." I now
retract the statements made in the Anatoxin-a Primer.
The Anatoxin-a Primer implied that Super Blue Green Algae from Klamath Lake,
produced by Cell Tech, contains anatoxin-a (a neurotoxin I characterized as
addictive), and that Cell Tech deliberately avoids testing for this toxin
because anatoxin-a is responsible for the effects reported by SBGA users. I
have since been advised that Cell Tech conducts regular tests that would
disclose anatoxin-a, and that this toxin has never been found in Super Blue
Green Algae. I had no basis for the suggestions I made in the Anatoxin-a
Primer, and I hereby retract it in full.
Misstate
misstate
: to state incorrectly : give a false account of
false:
intentionally untrue
===============
Cell Tech says:
****That does not mean that
you present the truth.*****
*****but you are being
*****untruthful*******
***Mark Thorson,it is disappointing to find that he is not truly looking for
answers***
************** (as he has received the answers*** many times)*****
*** Mr. Thorson knows this but has also refused to accept****
(as proven he is still doing it)
***intent slanderous***
***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 noneurotoxins whatsoever were ever
found after two years of testing by the mostreputable scientists in algal
toxicology throughout the world****
****Mr.Thorson's intent to create alarm and public panic
regarding the microcystinissue demonstrates a lack of knowledge or
slanderous
intent.***
In light of the information shared above, the focus on microcystin in
blue-green algaecertainly appears to be a
***vicious obsession.***
***Why Mr. Thorson spends so
much lime and energy bashing Cell Tech and SuperBlue-Green Algae remains a
mystery to me and many other scientists who 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***
==
Mark still says he didn't lie, as the above show he most certainly did and
he
can cry he didn't until the cows come home.
Untruthful:
not containing or telling the truth : FALSE, INACCURATE <untruthful report
synonym see DISHONEST
Then he used the bit of the original that clearly show he didn't lie and
ask me to post it. I don't need the original, I know what he stated in his
retraction.
On Sat, 25 Nov 1995, Mark Thorson wrote:
> Opinions? Opinions are worthless. I have FACTS.
> My facts are backed up by REFERENCES to scientific
> journals. You don't have to take my word for it,
> you can go check out my sources of information
> any time you like, because I cite the actual
> source documents and page numbers.
I am aware that you cite documents.
****That does not mean that
you present the truth.*****
You have, in my experience, repeatedly
quoted so-called authorities in a continuing campaign to
create fear about a product that (as far as I can tell) is no
more harmful than a good green salad. I have yet to see the
first credible report connecting this product to a serious
safety problem.
> Against this, the scumheads are utterly defenseless.
I fail to see what is accomplished by namecalling, except
as it illustrates your own inability to persuade civilly.
You say:
> There is no scientific literature supporting
> their claims or refuting the safety questions
> I have raised.
You are mistaken. In your zeal to stamp out SBGA, you deny
the existence of data which supports the supplier's claims
that the product is safe. It is one thing to say you don't
have confidence in their data or sources,
*****but you are being
*****untruthful*******
to say "there is no scientific literature. . . "
> Once again, I ask why does Cell Tech perform
> sophisticated and costly tests for microcystins
> and anatoxin-a(s), but they do not perform
> the Stevens and Krieger (1988) protocol for
> detecting anatoxin-a (a molecule distinct in structure
> and function from anatoxin-a(s))? As a cocaine
> analog drug known to be produced by _Aphanizomenon_
> algae, it seems to me that this would be the
> first toxin you would test for if you were concerned
> about protecting the safety of the customers.
I do not have a clue about the answer, but your style of
questioning suggests that you DO know the answer. You are
quite clearly implying that they're hiding some sinister
data. In the absence of any proof of actual danger, or
proof that they are either not doing the right tests or
are hiding the results, you seem to me to be a mere heckler
with some kind of a chip on your shoulder. If you have
credible data about an actual (rather than hypothetical)
problem, you have failed to present it as far as I know.
> The reports of increased "energy", appetite
> reduction, and reduced sleep are all consistent with
> the action of a cocaine-like drug. How do we know
> that anatoxin-a is not in fact the active ingredient
> in SBGA, and that taking anatoxin-a out of SBGA would
> be like taking the nicotine out of tobacco?
One could also ask how we know Thorson is not a secret
agent of Saddam Hussein, seeking to cultivate the sale
of a competitive product called Super Bloodwort Gas
Atomizer? Be serious, man!! This is pure scare tactic,
with no substannce that I can detect.
I personally have come to the conclusion that Cell Tech's
algae is of little or no value to most people. It is a
very costly way to ingest trace nutrients that might be
missing from your diet, and probably will do nothing
whatever for you if you're already getting a good balanced
diet. I don't KNOW that, can't prove it, and don't plan to
try. Tried it myself with no perceptible results, but it did
seem to help other people I know.
HOWEVER, I am not on a campaign against the stuff.
I wonder why you are? Were you jilted by a Cell Tech
distributor? There are hundreds (thousands?) of
really harmful products out there being peddled by selfish,
greedy people who do no care what happens to the buyers.
Why don't you lay off the algae and take on, say, whiskey?
w...@xxxxxxxx - the unofficial Mayor of Sill Hill
From: ALGAV...@xxxxxxx (ALGAV...@xxxxxxx)
Subject: Christian Drapeau responds to Mark Thorson
Newsgroups: sci.life-extension
View: Complete Thread (2 articles) | Original Format
Date: 1998/02/26
February 1, 1998Open Response to Mark Thorson:After
having read countless postings and arguments written by
***Mark Thorson,it is disappointing to find that he is not truly looking for
answers***
************** (as 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 nota 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'l lfirst provide you with the
scientific explanation as to why this is false and then place this into
perspective by comparing his argument to a basic doorkey.As mentioned
numerous
times, anatoxin-a is an agonist of acetylcholine,(mimics the action of
acetylcholine) the neurotransmitter at theneuromuscular junction. Cocaine,
on
the other hand, does not affectcholinergic (acetylcholine) transmission but
is
rather known to effect thecatecholaminergic transmission (adrenaline) and to
selectively block thenervous transmission mediating pain. Although cocaine
and
anatoxin-a sharesome structural similarities, they have two totally
different
actions in thebody (much like glutamate and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA),
two
of the maincentral neurotransmitters which share structural similarities
(both
are aminoacids) but have two totally different actions on the nervous
system -
in thebrain, glutamate is the main stimulatory neurotransmitter whereas
GABA
isthe main inhibitory neurotransmitter).To put this into perspective, let's
us
the analogy of a key. Think ofanatoxin-a as a key that opens the door to
your
house and cocaine is the keythat opens the door to your car. The keys will
look basically similar toeach other in structure yet they will open two very
different locks with verydifferent results.Thorson's view probably
originates
from the fact that cocaine can be used asa substrate to produce synthetic
anatoxin-a in a lab. This is similar tosaying that a key may be transformed
to
open another door by manipulating its structure (in the same way that
cocaine
can be made with anatoxin-a) butwithout this physical transformation they do
totally different things. However, to continue stating that the energy felt
by
people eating SuperBlue-Green Algae is due to the presence of a "cocaine
analogue" demonstratesa clear lack of knowledge in neurology and
biochemistry.
By perpetuatingthis claim he demonstrates an unwillingness to accept what
is
fact 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 andextremely difficult to
perform.
The two scientists who developed this assayno longer have the equipment to
perform it and in fact, no laboratory iscurrently set up to perform this
test.
On the other hand, a new assay was recently developed to measure
anatoxin-a
with the same sensitivity andaccuracy as the Stevens and Krieger assay,
using
the well known and easy to perform ELISA technique.In addition,
***Mr. Thomson
is well aware that Super Blue Green Algae does 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 noneurotoxins whatsoever were ever
found after two years of testing by the mostreputable scientists in algal
toxicology throughout the world****
..Regarding microcystin, it again seems
appropriate to remind Mr. Thorson of the very basic principles of
toxicology.
Any number of substances can betoxic; it is simply a matter of
concentration.
For example:Example 1. Aflatoxin Aflatoxin is one of the most potent liver
toxins andcarcinogens ever documented. It is produced by some strains of
Aspergillusflavus and most strains of Aspergillus parasiticus, two fungi
growing on various crops. More specifically, aflatoxin is known to be
associated withpeanuts, cottonseed and corn Now, consider the
ramifications
of all foodproducts made from peanuts and corn. Although aflatoxin is
known
to causecancer in animals, the FDA allows low levels of this toxin because
it
isconsidered an "unavoidable contaminant" of these foods. So it is accepted
incertain levels even though according to scientists of the University
ofMaryland, "aflatoxins at levels even lower than those listed as
guidelinesmay
cause some undesirable side effects." Deaths and cancer have also been
reported due to exposure to aflatoxin. Despite these known facts
onaflatoxins, microcystin continues to come under fire. This is despite
thefact that not one single health problem has ever been documented to
berelated to the presence of minute amounts of microcystin in blue-green
algaeproducts.Example 2. Shellfish Poisoning Saxitoxins are neurotoxins
found
inshellfish. They are produced by species of marine algae which accumulate
inshellfish during blooms, better known as red tides. Saxitoxins block
sodiumchannels responsible for the propagation of action potentials along
neurons.Depending on the dose, saxitoxins may cause nausea, vomiting,
paralysis
anddeath by respiratory distress. Currently, the action level for
shellfishtoxins is 80 µg of toxins per 100 g of shellfish. Over the years
andthroughout the world, hundreds of deaths and thousands of cases
ofintoxication have been reported Yet, in spite of this, minimum amounts
ofneurotoxins are allowed and are even considered non-toxic.Again, it is not
the presence of a substance which is determined as unsafebut the level of
that
substance within a product. As for microsystin safelevels have been
established by experts in risk assessment. These riskassessment evaluations
took factors such as lifetime exposure,susceptibility within the
population,
possible cancer promoting effects andmany other health concerns into
consideration. In summary, the 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 microcystinissue demonstrates a lack of knowledge or
slanderous
intent.***
In light of the information shared above, the focus on microcystin in
blue-green algaecertainly appears to be a
***vicious obsession.***
If Mark Thorson
is truly interested in public safety, would it not be much wiser and more
meaningful to address real concerns of public safety such as pesticide
residue
in food, hormones, antibiotics and other chemicals in animal products, the
ubiquitousestrogen-mimicking substances, or the epidemic use of antacids
which
isliterally killing thousands of Americans each year?
***Why Mr. Thorson spends so
much lime and energy bashing Cell Tech and SuperBlue-Green Algae remains a
mystery to me and many other scientists who 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
communityIf you have received an unsolicited posting from Mr. Thorson, we
would appreciate letting us know by calling Distributor Services
(541)-883-8848
orby faxing (541)-884-1869.
===========
Mark does the original dance, until it backfires:
What is the original statement which is a lie?
You say that there is a lie in the file "An Anatoxin-A Primer".
Let's see that lie. Post a WHOLE ORIGINAL STATEMENT
from that file which is a lie. Not the whole file, just a statement
from that file which is a LIE.
Certainly, you know what that part is, don't you Jan?
Or do you just accuse people of being liars without
regard to whether they've lied or not?
Why don't you post that part, Jan? Then you'd prove
that I'd lied, by posting the actual lie itself, rather than
merely a statement that refers to the (alleged) lie.
Why don't you do that, Jan?
Is it because if you did, everybody would see that this statement
is OBVIOUSLY NOT A LIE?
Is it because if you did, everybody would see the Jan Drew
has FALSELY ACCUSED me of being a LIAR?
Is it because if you did, everybody would see that it is
Jan Drew who is the LIAR?
Is that it, Jan?
Is that why you won't post this LIE you claim I told?
I then ask Mark to post it, notice the backpeddling.
I could care less if people see it. No one need to see the original.
However,
since you think it is so important, post it yourself.
>Because then everyone would see that it was
>OBVIOUSLY NOT A LIE.
Then you should be most EAGER TO POST IT.
>Because then everyone would see it is
>Jan Drew who is LYING when making the FALSE ACCUSATION against me.
THEN POST IT!!!
Why don't you do that Mark??????????
If I did that, you would just claim the lie was some
other statement, not the one I posted. You'd use
any excuse to WEASEL out of taking responsibility
for your accusation against me.
You are the one making the accusation. It is
your responsibility to back up that accusation
with proof. When you accuse someone of lying,
that proof would be a statement which is a lie.
Why don't you do that, Jan? Why don't you
post an example of one of these LIES you claim I told?
Then I wrote:
We know you have a hard time handling the truth.
What happened to posting the original that would show you didn't lie and I
did????? Surely you are most eager to prove me a liar.
You can't post it we see that, as you were lying all along about that also.
==============
AFTER REPEATEDLY LYING, OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
>From: Mark Thorson
>I merely posted the URL
>to a database that had your PUBLIC information in it, the
>same information anyone could have found in a phone book.
Wrong.
The URL to a database is:
http://www.switchboard.com
At the top of that page is says:
Telephone Directory.
>
>http://www.goxxxxxxxxxxxxx
filter=0
Yes, nice of you to do it again as anyone can see what you posted in that
post.
For the readers please note Rich was speaking of Ka&g, and Mark got
confused.
>Nowhere in that posting do I post your "private address and phone
number".
In that posting, you posted a link that says at the top Switchboard
*People
Results*
>I did not, otherwise a Google search on my name and this
>newsgroup for "Bryant" would turn up such a posting.
Can it Mark. Anyone can clearly see this Byrant things is just another
dirty
trick of yours.
You are a liar and you know it.
> At the time
>I posted it, three J. Drew's showed up in Bloomington,
Well now.
That was a people's results page and NOT the URLto a database that had
your
PUBLIC information.
You went to the datebase, then you posted the results AFTER you did the
searching.
Now to prove the total liar, you are. You see Mark liars are sooner or
later
exposed. Today is your day, and most likely you won't learn, that your
bringing
it up over and over, is a problem with you.
My asterisks added.
From: Mark Thorson (nos...@xxxxxxxxx)
Subject: Re: Admitting when one is wrong
View this article only
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 2002-05-26 21:30:10 PST
Karuna wrote:
>Is this what happened?
>
>Mark (Thorson): In July 2001, someone suggested to you, here on mha,
that
>another poster was most likely female and also might be apprehensive
about
>being harrassed by others on the 'net. You responded by posting a linked
>access to several names and phone numbers, one of which might be that
>person, thereby *inviting* such harrassment.
>
>Is that true?
**"Inviting" is your characterization, but I did post
the link to switchboard.com, which was a simple
search that yielded several names, any or none
of which could have been Jan, which came from
a public database.***
**And if Jan had said it that way, I would not have disputed the accuracy
of
what she said, except in the area of intent.
*** It was more of an impulse***
decision, triggered by the previous posting in the thread
***It was as though a finger-shaped holes suddenly appeared in front of
me.**
****I couldn't resist sticking my finger in it.****
At the time, it didn'tseem like a big deal, because it was just like
calling up information on the phone. But I see now that it doesn't look
any
different than encouraging harassment, so I agree that I shouldn't have
done
it.
On this one point, Jan, I apologize. I do not wish any third party to
harass
you.
===
This should clear it up, and the fact that you continue to call me a liar,
when
you know it is YOU who is doing the lying.
I truly hope you get help for your probelm.
Sincerely,
Jan
.
- Prev by Date: Re: This proves Jan is obsessed with me....
- Next by Date: Re: Repeatitis From Mark Thorson
- Previous by thread: Original Source For Alt Med Conspiracy Theories/Bigotry
- Next by thread: Mark Probert LIAR & HYPOCRITE
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
