I wrote many of you about a year ago advising you of a controversy taking

place regarding the presence of toxins in blue-green algae (if you haven't

already, please see the attached copy).  I notified my upline, who notified

his, etc.  At any rate, I'm sure Cell Tech was well aware of this controversy

even before I was aware of Cell Tech.

My upline then sent me a copy of a letter that CT wrote to somebody else in

response to this issue.  (Apparently, I didn't rate a direct reponse -- and

why should I?  After all, I've only sold one E.A.T. kit in over a year.)  In

the letter, CT said they were preparing to use the Stevens and Krieger

protocol to test for the presence of anatoxin in the algae.  I don't have the

letter in front of me, but it said something to effect of "please be patient"

and "everything is OK with the algae", and so on.

But here's the funny part:  I haven't heard from CT since then.  Wouldn't you

think it wise for a company to provide its sales people and distributors with

as much information as possible about their products?

Over the past year I've seen and heard CT mentioned in the both the print and

electronic news media several times (i.e. the New York Times, Prevention

magazine, News Channel Four [New York] and Consumer Reports).  But it doesn't

seem to me that CT responds with the same degree of publicity with which they

are trashed.  For example, if Prevention magazine writes something (true or

not) about CT or blue-green algae in general, what purpose does it serve for

CT to release a "fax-on-demand" or to post a response on a Web Site?  While

CT seeks to reassure consumers and distributors about the safety and efficacy

of their products, the general public walks away thinking that algae is a

scam.  Why does CT preach to the converted?

I've heard a lot of negative things about the algae over the past year.  But

all I get from CT are feel-good letters once in a while from Darryl Kollman.

 CT even wants us to PAY for their newsletter!  Pay for information about a

company that we are a part of and whose products we buy and (attempt to)

sell?  This is a joke.  What gives here?


Content-ID: <0_12544_868290047@emout09.mail.aol.com.3604>

Content-type: text/plain;


Subj:	SBGA

Date:	96-06-07  09:32:35 EDT

From:	RCfromLI@aol.com

I am a fellow Cell Tech consumer/distributor and am writing to alert you to a

controversy currently taking place regarding the presence of toxins in Super

Blue Green Algae.

First, let me say that I have been using SBGA for over two months now and I

have been quite amazed at the product's effect on my energy level and moods.

SBGA has made me feel better than I ever thought I could.  As a scientist,

however (and one who questions everything), I am concerned about what I've

been reading lately.

Some of you may have already read the posts on the newsgroups,

sci.med.nutrition and misc.health.alternative (if you haven't, please

do).  There is also a World Wide Web page,

http://luff.latrobe.edu.au/~botbml/cyanotox.htmlwhich is dedicated in

part to bringing this discussion to light without the animosity, hysteria and

flame wars which abound whenever somebody posts anything on Usenet extolling

the benefits of SBGA.

The controversy seems to boil down to whether or not the effects reported by

SBGA users can be attributed to a substance called anatoxin.  This neurotoxin

is what chemists call a *cocaine analog*, meaning its molecular structure is

a chemical precursor and similar to that of cocaine's.  In high enough doses,

anatoxin causes paralysis and, in still-higher doses, will certainly cause

death.  The effects reported by SBGA users such as increased  energy,

elevated mood and reduced appetite, etc., are consistent with the action of a

cocaine-analog drug.  I have argued about this with certain individuals on

the Internet.  I said that anyone who has taken an elementary chemistry

course knows that changing so much as one atom or the "handedness" of a

molecule can change a chemical's nature from beneficial to poisonous.  And

though that may be true, I'm not so sure anymore that that is the case here.

The question in my mind is whether or not SBGA contains anatoxin and, if so,

in what amounts.  Cell Tech claims that Bioassays and HPLCs show that SBGA

doesn't have any anatoxin in it --  and I believe them.  But those tests are

not sensitive enough to detect small amounts of anatoxin.  There is a

procedure developed by Stevens and Krieger (Journal of Analytical Toxicology,

1988) that WILL detect small amounts.  I know that the test can be performed

on the freeze-dried product as well as fresh samples and so I will try to

enlist an independent laboratory to perform the test on some SBGA that I have

at home.  I will also request of Cell Tech (and you should, too) that they,

themselves, perform this test on samples of SBGA and make the results

available for public scrutiny.

Obviously, SBGA will not sicken or cause death among those who use it.  And I

believe Cell Tech when they say that there has never been a reported case of

a toxic reaction due to consumption of SBGA.  But the question here is

whether accumulated sub-lethal or minute doses of anatoxin are responsible

for the increased energy levels reported among users of the product.  It is

entirely possible  (in fact, probable) that very small

amounts of anatoxin are not enough to cause sickness in humans but ARE enough

to produce a psychopharmacologic effect.  An example of this is that although

Nicotine is a deadly poison at high doses, its use is self-limiting (people

would get very ill before they could smoke enough cigarettes to overdose on

Nicotine).  Smaller doses of Nicotine are not lethal, but ARE

psychopharmacologically active and dangerous in the long run.

I do not take the these assertions lightly and neither should you, especially

if you are feeding SBGA to your children.  I would imagine that kids would be

particularly susceptible to any long-term effects the SBGA may produce.

Please don't tell me to "trust my feelings about the algae" or that "if it

makes you feel good, that's all that matters".  Those cannot be the sole

criteria.  I have ingested many substances in my life that made me feel good

and I know that most of them were definitely NOT good for me.  Liking the

effects of SBGA is just not a good enough reason for me to continue eating it

if there is any possibility of long-term damage to my body from consuming it.

If anyone out there is aware of any scientific literature (when I say

scientific literature I

mean articles published in peer-reviewed journals) that refutes anything I

have stated above, please let me know.  Cell Tech's Fax-On-Demand #127 is

somewhat misleading on this subject insofar as Aphanizomenon flos-aquae may

be a "non-toxic" strain of BGA, but whether it is toxic or not does not

address the question of whether *trace amounts* of anatoxin are present in

it.  This is important because the amount of anatoxin in one or two grams of

SBGA may not be significant but it's CUMULATIVE effects are unknown.  When

think about how much algae I eat (six Alpha Sun and six Omega Sun per day, a

BG bite [500 grams of Alpha sun], PLUS the Alpha Sun

contained in the probiotics, enzymes, Super Q10 and Super Sprouts) I realize

that it amounts to quite a lot.

FOD #127 asserts that other methods for detecting anatoxin (presumably, the

Stevens and Krieger protocol) have "never been adopted by expert algal

toxicologists".  I don't know whether this is true or not (no references are

cited which would attest to that) and it doesn't really matter.  The point is

that the assays and HPCLs Cell Tech performs cannot detect trace amounts of


Also keep in mind that Cell Tech publications like "Don't Dine Without

Enzymes" or even books like "The Genesis Effect" (by John W. Apsley [and

somebody may want to find out exactly what KIND of doctor Apsley is]) DO NOT

qualify as scientific literature.  Biased publications such as these would

never be accepted among trained scientists.

What we, as consumers, need to do is to request that the people at Cell Tech

perform the Stevens and Krieger protocol for detection of anatoxin on some

samples of the blue green algae harvested from Klamath Lake.  I'm sure it is

well within their means to do so and it would serve to set everyone's mind at

ease (and to quiet the noise on the Internet).  It would also behoove Cell

Tech to submit for publication the results of these analyses (and perhaps

other studies which demonstrate SBGA's beneficial effects) so as to quiet

their critics.

I would invite any and all of you to read the journal articles on algae

(cyanobacteria) cited in the posts in sci.med.nutrition and

misc.health.alternative and come to your own conclusions.  You may also want

to participate in the discussions taking place in the above-mentioned

newsgroups.  Come in and help me defend your (our) products.  I'm not

prepared to continue fighting this battle myself and so far, it seems, the

other side is winning.

At this point, I have not and will not mention anything about neurotoxins to

any potential SBGA customers.  Nor will I turn away anyone who wants to sign

up with me as a distributor.  I'm not going to verbalize any of the above to

anyone until I'm thoroughly convinced one way or the other.

Let me reiterate; I have no ax to grind with Cell Tech or anyone else at this

point.  I happen to like the effects of SBGA and I hope I'm wrong about my

suspicions. I would be happier, in fact, if I'm wrong than if I'm not.  If my

suspicions are unfounded, I will let you all know.  And when I see the

results of a Stevens and Krieger analysis of the algae that turns up negative

for anatoxin, I will post messages on the Internet vindicating SBGA.


P.S. Please share this information with other distributors you know who may

not have email.