Druginfo: 15th January 2002
Stuart has certainly given us food for thought - I'd
really like to see responses from people other than the usual correspondents
- whether on the literature presented so extensively, or on the
policy issues (registerability of herbal preparations or the desirability
of marketing something that is only just starting to be tested),
or on the business processes at play.
(Andy Gray, Senior Lecturer,
Dept of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology, Nelson R Mandela
School of Medicine, University of Natal, Moderator of the Druginfo
Druginfo: 15 January 2002
I enjoyed reading Stuart's
report on Sutherlandia. At face value, it should be taken seriously
and studied. This is a good piece of consumer advocacy. We need
more of these efforts.
(Rene Doms, pharmacist and
lawyer, MD of Pharma Natura)
Druginfo: 22 January 2002
HIV/AIDS is a new disease
about which we learn new aspects daily. The physiological effects
of this illness are, in many respects unknown to us.
Long-term safety: "has enjoyed a long history of safe and widespread
use in Southern Africa" founds no justification in immune compromised
patients, as it previously could not have been exploited for this
purpose. How do the imminent array of scientists justify testing
the safety of a drug after marketing the substance?
The Bill of Rights under
the Constitutions states; Freedom and security of the person 12
(2) Everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity,
which includes the right
to make decisions concerning reproduction;
to security in and control over their body; and
not to be subjected to medical or scientific experiments
without their informed consent.
Are we experimenting on an unsuspecting population and infringing
their fundamental rights?
Doms, pharmacist and lawyer, MD of Pharma Natura)
Druginfo: 21st January 2002
Dear Andy and list members
Thanks for posting the Phyto Nova statement(s).
A few observations and comments are in order.
The statement relies heavily on "pseudo-credibility status
by association" with the educational institutions from which
some of the members are acting in their private capacity, and also
State institutions and authorities with which Phyto Nova is now
involved at this late stage (very much a matter of closing the stable
door long after the horse has bolted), also under questionable allegiance
connections to the Tramed group (very much a matter of the fox being
in charge of the henhouse).
As I pointed out in my report, Gericke, Mayeng and Matsabisa (and
also Albrecht) are colleagues from the bad old Tramed days, and
Mayeng and Matsabisa now wield unacceptable influence within the
MCC/DOH and MRC, allegiances which seriously compromise any outcome
from the deliberations by these institutions. Prof Eagles, furthermore,
now MCC Chair, was also part of the Tramed group and in fact all
parties are still allied through the same project, now merely renamed
the SA Traditional Medicines Research Unit, so as to break with
the bad reputation carried by the Tramed Project following our earlier
investigations and exposé of genocide and ethnopiracy.
I certainly find nothing reassuring in these associations/alliances/allegiances,
indeed, the back-scratching and financially vested interests should
give rise to concern rather than confidence. I am even more concerned
than before, given the mere repetition of the assurance of safety
by way of a single statement: "has enjoyed a long history of
safe and widespread use in southern Africa". Compare this empty
statement with my 10-page report to the contrary. Qualify his with
the statement: "Phyto Nova (Pty) Ltd is awaiting the evaluation
by the Medicines Control Council of a submitted clinical trial protocol
designed to further research the safety and efficacy of this plant"
and the criminality becomes clearly evident, considering the number
of unsuspecting patients and consumers who have been already been
subjected to the product as guinea pigs in an illegal experiment
by Phyto Nova. I have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that 10-20
thousand South African's die unnecessarily every year due to traditional
African medicines (Poppat A, et al,
Clin Biochem, 34 (3) (2001))
The natural implication
is that of this is that several hundred thousand, if not millions,
of ignorant consumer's of these products, are spared death, but
not untold protracted suffering as a result of using such products.
Without any pharmacovigilance studies and adverse drug reaction
monitoring, how can anyone claim a poisonous substance to be safe
and effective. Quite simply, most drugs become unsafe at therapeutic
doses, which is why these studies precede market entry and control
post approval dosage (in theory at least). Should the illegal marketing
of this toxic agent continue, I will consider initiating a class
action suite to claim damages for each and every person harmed by
the pre- and any post-approval damage to consumer's health, not
only Phyto Nova and their distributors, but also the MRC and MCC
for allowing these injuries to occur.
Director, Gaia Research Institute
Sutherlandia Status: Stuart Thomson Responds to Carl Albrecht
Druginfo: 9th June 2003
Let me dissect and reply to Albrecht’s piece titled
“Sutherlandia Status” (Druginfo: 8 June 2003).
CA: "It is remarkable that there is not a single publication
concerning the South African medicinal plant Sutherlandia on Pubmed."
ST: Remarkable indeed. This means that Sutherlandia has never been
the subject of an original paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific
journal, and so it should be. No science, no paper, no publication,
period! For an example of hits on Pubmed for a true "hot plant",
which is what Albrecht would have us believe Sutherlandia is, try
a real wonder herb such as the green tea (which incidentally, I
pioneered educationally as a healthy beverage in this country).
CA: "Nevertheless, the MRC safety study with vervet monkeys
was published on the Internet last year at http://www.sahealthinfo.org/tradionalmeds/firststudy.htm"
ST: I dealt more than successfully
with this bogus science in my piece: "Sutherlandia Fails the
Safety Test" which was posted on Druginfo and published on
the Internet at: http://www.gaiaresearch.co.za/sutherlandia.html
A summary is appended below this
CA: "This is an ‘official’ 35-page document of the MRC".
ST: And hence an ‘official’ fraud perpetrated by the MRC!
CA:"................ showing clearly that up to 9-times the
daily dose of dried Sutherlandia leaves consumption for 3 months
was not associated with toxic or other side effects in a cohort
of vervet monkeys. Indeed Sutherlandia appeared to stabilise 6 of
the 50 parameters studied, i.e. haematocrit, haemoglobin, mean corpuscular
volume, creatine kinase, alkaline phosphatase and urea."
ST: Let me make a point clearly one more time, exposing the fraud
inherent in this bogus "safety" study.
L-canavanine is accumulatively toxic at much lower doses over time
in several susceptible individuals, particularly those who are malnourished
or otherwise deficient in protein / L-arginine and those who are
ill (especially with prolonged illness or infections), using medications
and or subjected to chemical exposures, under which circumstances,
so widely prevalent in South Africa and especially in AIDS patients,
even relatively low doses of L-canavanine are readily substituted
for arginine, with resultant canavanine toxicity. A high arginine
content is found only in high protein foods, with little in cereals
Arginine-rich protein, rather than mere canavanine concentration,
is the arbiter of toxicity in this equation, having as it does,
by its availability, the ability to prevent canavanine from being
erroneously incorporated in the place of arginine. The degree to
which arginine is deficient is the degree to which canavanine is
likely to exert both beneficial drug effects, as well as toxic effects,
the latter merely following the former, insidiously at first, some
time later, depending on the other variables. In the absence of
other susceptibility factors, arginine is required in a ratio of
5:1 to canavanine to prevent canavanine uptake and toxicity
B, Pharmazie, 17, 621, 1962). Even
conservative clinical supplemental suggestions are as high as 25g
L-arginine per day for immune function and host resistance to infection
(B Thomas, Manual of Dietetic
Science, Blackwell Science, 1994).
Albrecht conceded this when pinned down previously, stating that:
"The giving of any drug or tonic to malnourished AIDS patients
is a big problem. Most AIDS drugs were tested in developed countries
where malnutrition is not rife. I agree that the nutritional status
of AIDS patients, especially in South Africa, is of cardinal importance
in terms of drug side-effects and efficacy. Nevertheless, the appropriate
circumstances to measure safety and efficacy in malnourished AIDS
patients is indeed with AIDS patients and not with vervet monkeys.
The mere conceptualisation of the experimental details of creating
a cohort of malnourished vervet monkeys representative of malnourished
AIDS patients is exceedingly problematical." No animals in
the MRC study were malnourished and so in no way resembled most
likely malnourished AIDS target users. In fact, unspecified micro-
and macronutrients were supplemented, most likely negating any likelihood
of acute toxicity. How then can this study be claimed to prove the
safety of Sutherlandia? It's a farce.
CA: "There are now at least 4 companies selling Sutherlandia
in South Africa and abroad and I estimate that at least 400 000
monthly units (600 mg dried leaf powder per day) have been sold
over the past 3 years."
ST: That's nothing on MacDonald's and we all know how unhealthy
their products are.
CA: "Surely if this plant were poisonous, someone, somewhere
would have complained by now. Surely there should have been at least
one proven case of lupus erythematosus if Stuart Thomson et al's
theories of L-canavanine-induced toxicity are correct?"
ST: If they were ill, why would they suspect, let alone why would
they know that it was the wonderful natural remedy Sutherlandia
that was responsible for their deterioration? If not ill and were
merely using it prophylactically, why would they suspect, let alone
how would they know that the Sutherlandia was responsible for their
subtle insidiously developing symptoms. I notice that I have independent
support for my position.
CA: "The plant has now been used as a tonic at least since
1895 (108 years) as reported by Andrew Smith at the time."
ST: So has tobacco, and a host of other inappropriate substances,
in spite of killing millions annually.
CA: "I know that the plant is being studied intensively at
RAU, UWC, UP, UPE, MEDUNSA, UV, UND and the MRC with collaborators
in Korea, India, UK and US".
ST: So what? So has the mating-habits of dung beetles and even child
pornography. It is not the studies, but the results and their ultimate
application that count. Even then, science requires independent
review and replication.
CA: "I also know that certain manuscripts and clinical studies
are in the pipeline".
ST: If and when these were finalised and gave Sutherlandia a clean
bill of health, would be the appropriate time to test the substance
on innocent unsuspecting human guinea pigs, so that the real problems,
as attendant to all medicines, rear their ugly heads epidemiologically,
if indeed anyone is watching, rather than counting profits.
CA: "I therefore wish to suggest that the current lack of peer-reviewed
publications on Sutherlandia should not be seen as any indication
that it is either unsafe or lacking efficacy but rather a legacy
of decades of neglect"
ST: Oh please. What melodramatic nonsense obscuring the scientific
fraud at hand here!
CA: "The jury on this plant has not even left the room and
I believe that a number of peer-reviewed publications are on the
ST: Yes the jury is out and when it comes in, it may be a number
of medical malpractice suits and assault charges on the way for
CA: "From a research and development point of view, this would
seem to me to be one of the "hottest" plant in South Africa."
ST: History has shown that most of the hottest plants have turned
out to be total flops when the hype wears off. (For an example of
validating hits on Pubmed, try the keyword "green tea"
(1220 papers). For hits on Medline, "green tea" will yield
11,000 papers. Even a simple cup of Ceylon tea will put Sutherlandia
to shame. Hot without the hype.)
Here ends my commentary, followed by a summary of my critique of
Albrecht's "safety" study:
ST: A PERFECT BOGUS STUDY, DESIGNED AND INTERPRETED TO WHITEWASH
ANY TOXICITY ISSUES.
- No animals were reportedly ill,
in fact all were characterised as healthy, so in no way resembled
animals were reportedly receiving medication, in particular,
auto-immunity disease risk-increasing drugs. The MRC report
in fact acknowledges that: "The results in a study such
as this do not preclude response to the consumption of herbal
medicines or any other medicinal compound".
animals were reportedly exposed to chemicals, in particular
to auto-immunity disease risk-increasing ones.
animals were females, so in no way resembled the most frequently
susceptible target users. The report fails to note this, but
acknowledges that: "Sutherlandia was not tested in pregnant
and young animals and the results cannot be extrapolated to
animals were malnourished, so in no way resembled most likely
malnourished AIDS target users. In fact, unspecified micro-
and macronutrients were supplemented, most likely negating any
likelihood of acute toxicity.
animals were monitored beyond 12 weeks, whereas 24 weeks is
the point at which well-fed healthy animals on high doses significantly
(10%) develop auto-antibodies (Prete
P, Can J Physiol Pharmacol, 63(7), 1985).
animals received 3X and 9X the recommended human dose as claimed,
since the doses were adjusted to body-weight (30kg monkey =
60kg human) and as shown previously, X2 and X6 tablets daily
are commonly recommended doses, with no maximum dose set anywhere,
but left to the discretion (supervision) of a health care professional,
particularly in cancer and AIDS patients (those most likely
to be on higher risk medications).
the time frame, the number of animals and frequency of monitoring
variables were grossly inadequate. Previous criticisms aside,
on this basis alone the study is rejected, since the information
generated is for all intents and purposes, useless. Assessing
the results of the variables, as well as the subsequent meaningless
interpretations and conclusions, amply validates this position.
The report admits as much, stating: "Results and observations
are reported mainly in terms of possible treatment effects and
not biological variation". Treatment effects in healthy
animals? Statistically significant fluctuations only in the
control? What curious nonsense!
position is confirmed by assessing the report's appendiced charts,
where in virtually every variable, the baseline values reflect greater
significant differences than both quarter and the end-points and
where the control group, which should reflect the greatest consistency
over time from the start, is the most erratic of all. In fact, the
control group appears to have received constant dietary manipulation,
so that even were no other criticisms valid, this fact alone would
serve to invalidate the entire study. Note eg the charts for Calcium,
Magnesium and Total Protein (figs 15, 16 & 22). Clearly, no
real comfort at all is provided by this MRC report.
Whilst no toxicity indications were apparent, none would be expected
under current conditions so suited to the bland result planned for,
but then again, with no apparent assimilation of canavanine, nor
would any beneficial effects be possible either, so what is the
point, other than pretence at safety via a pseudo toxicological
study? Phyto Nova's Dr Carl Albrecht, in a recent newspaper article
cited the MRC report, but when pressed for a response to my report,
"Canavanine Toxicity: Is Sutherlandia a Healthy Herb or Potential
Poison", admitted to the reporter that: "long term trials
are essential to establish safety beyond doubt, but that, well,
took time. In the meantime they were free to market the product"
(Ingrid Shevlin, Sunday Tribune,
Sunday Magazine, 21 April 2002). Clearly
a case of "profit before people".
Director, Gaia Research
Mon, 9 June 2003
Dear Andy and List Members
Reading Albrecht's second missive in this series compels me to comment
further as follows and I trust that you will bear with me, since
it ought to put the debate to rest:
CA: "Stuart Thompson's numerous attacks on Sutherlandia and
those associated with it, on this website, are not standing up very
well to the test of time."
ST: What test of time? Phyto Nova have never embarked on a formal
pharmaco-vigilance program to net an indication of possible toxicities
and hence are unlikely to record any. I believe that at least a
package-insert reporting-form listing possible / likely symptoms
would have generated some useful data in the absence of side-effects
/ contra-indication package insert listing same and in the absence
of said program. I cannot believe the sloppiness with which these
guys have launched into this purely commercial venture.
CA: "I hypothesize that it is most likely the very low concentration
of L-canavanine in the daily dose of Sutherlandia (+- 2.5mg) is
safe and 'inconsequential'".
ST: There you have it. The previously "high" concentrations
of canavanine have now become "very low" concentrations.
Isn't it remarkable how my critique served to miraculously invert
the relative concentrations of canavanine in Sutherlandia? Furthermore,
as Albrecht has stated, the concentrations are 'safe' and "inconsequential".
This has been my point all along. As I said in my main argument,
a dose of Sutherlandia is likely to be either too high for safety,
or too low for sustained beneficial effect, either too risky or
useless. The concentrations are likely to be either consequential
or inconsequential in terms of both safety/toxicity and uselessness/efficacy.
They cannot have it both ways. Eventually however, even at minimal
therapeutic doses, cumulative delayed immunotoxicity will predominate
over any early (extremely limited) antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory
effects, potentially leading to serious disease states, as the arginine
analog increasingly enfolds into the victims protein and their immune
systems eventually turn on themselves.
If the user and prescriber cannot distinguish between the symptoms
of their illness and that of the side-effects, they might not stop,
but rather increase the doage, with disastrous consequences likely
to be attributed to an underlying progressive illness, whereas they
might actually be suffering from Sutherlandia induced iatrogenesis.
I am unaware of any cautionary information being distributed to
doctors, patients and consumers by the distributors of Sutherlandia.
Rather "safety" and lack of side-effects are repeatedly
claimed. How are doctors patients and consumers, let alone Phyto
Nova, to guage the existence or likely extent of any toxicity outcomes.
My work on the subject, the most comprehensive on the subject of
canavanine toxicity to date, has been deliberately avoided, smeared,
suppressed, even censored, to what end?
"The anti-cachexia pharmacological properties suggest a role
for this plant in those afflicted with HIV ....................
Surely this possibility should be receiving high priority attention?"
ST: I have previously shown in a massively referenced document circulated
to this, that the use of Sutherlandia or any other canavanine-containing
substance at pharmacological doses would lead to a situation where
two conditions with diametrically opposite treatment rationales
would be superimposed, one upon the other, with the treatment of
one or both leading tragically to the exacerbation of the other,
a catch-20 situation rendering the patient essentially untreatable.
Again I ask, to what end?
If Albrecht cuts the crap, we can leave it at that.
Director, Gaia Research
Druginfo: 10th June 2003
I respond (further) briefly to Albrecht's repetition of his empty
As I said before, canavanine poisoning from alfalfa is rare, simply
because it is rich in arginine, which reduces the assimilation and
incorporation of canavanine into the host's proteins. I am amazed
that the eminent professor cannot put forward even one good point
in Sutherlandia's defence that will stand up to critique.
I believe that it is criminal to sell poison to sick persons based
on such a weak hypothesis. At least in the case of registered drugs,
some data has been established in meaningful animal studies and
later, with informed consent from human subjects, properly monitored.
Phyto Nova have put the cart before the horse at the expense of
the innocent gullible public, which is criminal. Had we had an ethical
and efficient regulatory authority in place, Phyto Nova would never
get away with such flaunting of several laws currently on the statute
books, including doctors promoting medicines, and in particular
poisons as safe. Russell Coote is on this list and one can only
speculate as to the reasons for not having acted against this open
disregard for the law. Fraud and corruption are the order of the
day. I pity the innocent seeking health and healing.
Druginfo: 1st August 2003
to Coen van Wyk's recent probing of Carl Albrecht's follow up of
Rene Doms' reference to at least one physician observed side-effect
from Sutherlandia, I wish to know of Albrecht, who claims "lack
of any reported evidence of serious human toxicity after commercialisation",
precisely what the only non-serious reported human toxicity side
effects are, that he has become aware of. Considering Albrecht's
confidence in the safety of Sutherlandia, the list ought to be short
enough to post here in sufficient detail to enable public scrutiny
and independent evaluation of the claimed non-serious nature of
the side-effects and whether or not they in fact relate to auto-immune
reactions. I would also enquire as to what internationally acceptable
measures have been instituted to collect the relevant data and when
instituted. I cannot help but think of the three monkeys, hear,
speak and see no evil, when thinking of the three main Sutherlandia
I would furthermore enquire as to how Albrecht anticipates distinguishing
between the progressive symptoms of AIDS and the symptoms of canavanine
toxicity, given the unprecedented diversity and complexity of the
AIDS defining conditions and the equally diverse and complex mimicking
and overlapping symptoms of canavanine related auto-immuno toxicity.
I, for one, do not believe that it is within the means, let alone
the will of Albrecht, Phyto Nova and their associates and agents
to make the necessary distinctions. If it were relatively affordable
and simple, I would long ago have recruited the necessary medical
and legal expertise to take Phyto Nova to task by way of a class
action for civil damages and criminal prosecution. This is not to
say that it is not still my intention to do so. This very line of
public questioning is preliminary consumer activist testing of Phyto
Nova's sense of public responsibility or lack of same. The MCC are
to be co-defendants.
Back to the crossover of symptoms attributable to both AIDS and
canavanine and the question as to how Albrecht proposes to distinguish
between the two. Given that NOS inhibitors, of which canavanine
is one, have exacerbated infection by (at least) 80 species of viruses,
bacteria, fungi, and protozoa
(M DeGroote & F Fang, in: Nitric Oxide and Infection, F Fang
(Ed), Kluwer/Plenum, pp. 231-264, 1999),
Albrecht logically is compelled at the outset, to include all new
and worsening infection cases into the data net as possible serious
side effects, irrespective of whether the subjects are defined as
having AIDS or not. This would, for starters, have to include all
cases of tuberculosis and pneumonia, which are both directly impacted
by canavanine induced auto-immuno toxicity. Clearly the pharmaco-vigilant
surveillance needs to be extended far beyond the phenomenon of SLE,
which Albrecht seems to wish to believe might be the only concern.
I would volunteer to compile a list of possible / likely side-effects
and complications, were Albrecht man enough to undertake to incorporate
the effort into a package insert to accompany the product along
with an adverse drug-reaction reporting form, which would be the
only means of merely starting to study the issue, let alone declaring
the product to be safe. The lack of any precautionaries, combined
with constant statements claiming safety, is hardly conducive to
the honest collection of objective data. The vast majority of role-players,
health care professionals? included, have no idea of what they are
dealing with, so how are they to participate meaningfully in any
process necessary to decide either way, the safety / toxicity and
risk/benefit ratio attributable to Sutherlandia. Given the immediate
out-of-hand rejection of my hypothesis (actually a thesis) by those
responsible, how can we trust them to get anywhere near the truth
in this matter.
I await Albrecht's carefully considered response and I thank Druginfo
for their sense of public responsibility in continuing to facilitate
I dedicate the above effort to Coen van Wyk, whose own recent considerable
effort was banned from this forum.
Director, Gaia Research
Andy Gray, Senior Lecturer, Dept of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology,
Nelson R Mandela School of Medicine, University of Natal, Moderator
of the Druginfo List, constructively (destructively?) joined (closed?)
the Sutherlandia debate as follows:)
I was reluctant to allow the "Sutherlandia" debate to
re-open on this list, for reasons I've already stated. However,
having allowed a question, and elicited a reply (and then an attempt
to re-post a re-worked version of the initial mails rejected), nothing
has happening - until this morning. It is clear that substantive
exchange of details is not happening on this list - I am therefore
posting Stuart's mail from this morning (see below), but as the
final word on this specific topic. As Stuart notes, this might be
viewed as "the debate .... declared closed in favour of
Thomson et al". This list cannot substitute for the Medicines
Control Council - as I see it, the ball is in their court, if they
wish to remain true to the claim on their web site: "All medicines
for human use are subject to this law, including complementary and
complementary biological medicines".
Druginfo: Thursday, 14th August 2003
Dear Andy, Carl, Coen and
I recently enquired of Phyto Nova's Carl Albrecht on this forum
precisely what the only non-serious reported human toxicity side
effects from Sutherlandia are, that he has become aware of, seeing
as he claims lack of any reported evidence of serious human toxicity
I further enquired of Albrecht how he anticipates distinguishing
between the the progressive symptoms of AIDS and the symptoms of
canavanine toxicity, given the unprecedented diversity and complexity
of the AIDS defining conditions and the equally diverse and complex
mimicking and overlapping symptoms of canavanine related auto-immuno
I notice in Albrecht's reply to van Wyk that (following the latters
probing of Albrecht's follow up of Rene Doms' reference to at least
one physician observed side-effect from Sutherlandia and Albrecht's
admittal that he had not followed up on the report - the implication
is that he has in fact technically lied to this forum in claiming
not a single serious toxicity, if in reality he and Phyto Nova are
so apathetic with follow-ups of reported toxicities.
Albrecht furthermore seizes my vexing question to him, repeated
immediately hereabove, and cowardly attempts to hide behind the
mentioned complexity in a futile effort to disassociate Sutherlandia
from any possible serious toxicity. If any aspect of Albrecht's
replies to date (including simply ignoring the questions) is illustrative
of Phyto Nova being intellectually and morally out on a limb, then
this is surely it.
It is however, my contention that Albrecht cannot legitimately use
my complexity challenge to in one breath claim lack of serious side
effects from Sutherlandia and in the next, to question how these
aspects were differentiated from the effects of HIV-infection in
the possible incrimination of Sutherlandia. If the matter of toxicity
cannot be answered by a firm set of acceptable criteria and circumstances,
then logically, neither can the matter of safety be answered by
that same criteria and circumstances. What curious nonsense! This
is assuredly our indigenous version of "Alice in Wonderland",
which I will aptly retitle as "Albrecht in Sutherland".
The onus of the burden of proof of the safety of Sutherlandia is
furthermore legally clearly the responsibility of Albrecht and Phyto
Nova. We are talking here about a registerable marketed drug illegally
offered for open sale, without any of a host of necessary contra-indication
precautionaries, in spite of it containing a potentially highly
toxic substance, using their on description, of two "particular
abundant elements" at "significant levels".
As things currently stand, there is no reasonable and realistic
safety status for Sutherlandia, just a highly likely toxicity status,
based on the preponderance of available scientific facts and corroborative
data and the negative probabilities accruing from these against
Albrecht's relative lack of meaningful data, not to mention my substantial
concerns against Albrecht's empty assurances, nor my lack of vested
interest vs Albrecht's considerable vested interests in ignoring
anything but the substantial profits to be made at another's risk
of injury and probably, premature death.
Albrecht claims to be not adverse (sic) to the truth. This is easy
enough to test. Can he concede the truths raised above? I think
A new and not unreasonable question to Albrecht is: "given
that he claims to recommend Sutherlandia for use for cachexia in
AIDS" with a view to "possibly help to maintain health
longer", would he kindly provide a reasonably detailed scientific
description as to exactly how he envisages Sutherlandia achieving
I for one, await a reply with deep interest. In closing, might I
just point out that Albrecht and Phyto Nova are falling so far behind
in their replies to pertinent questions made by Coen van Wyk and
I in the public interest, that the debate could be declared closed
in favour of Thomson et al, but for our desire to pursue a socially
just solution outside of the courts as first option, failing which,
the fall from grace will be very hard indeed, including charges
of murder or genocide.
Director, Gaia Research Institute