KLAUS WIEGAND was thinking about Re: FDA Acts and keyed into cyberspace:
KW>hello mark.
KW>MU>>-> dead in the L-tryptophan fiasco and that there have been
KW>MU>>-> 18 deaths and
KW>MU>>Fiasco is a good description:  it was a one-time event.  The
KW>MU>>batch of tryptophan that caused damage and death was
KW>MU>>manufactured in a facility (in Japan) whose machinery was
KW>MU>>contaminated during the manufacture of that batch.  The
KW>MU>>people harmed by taking it (my sister was one of them) who
KW>MU>>survived, and some of the survivors of the dead, wrote to
KW>MU>>the FDA to protest the removal of tryptophan from the open
KW>MU>>market.  It wasn't tryptophan that did the damage:  it was
KW>MU>>contamination.
KW>MP>It wasn't contamination. It was blind faith in an "oriental"
KW>MP>product where there was little, if any, quality control.
KW>whether you are the "voice of reason", might still be discussed (per
KW>net   mail. may others discuss it, certainly not me. the fact, that 7
KW>of your   last 10 mails were nothing but insults to others, does'nt
KW>support your   assumption at all. maybe you looked up the word
KW>"reason" in another   dictionary than me), but certainly you are not
KW>the "voice of knowledge". 
KW>it was !! a contamination with a toxic metabolite. In 1989 the
KW>japanese   company showa denko k.k. marketed tryptophan as a
KW>nutritional supplement   in your country. It had been produced in
KW>genetically engineered bacteria   (does medical mystery threaten
KW>biotech? science, page 619, 2. Nov 1990).   thousands of people fell
KW>ill - 1500 being permanently disabled and 37 (not   18!!) died. hplc
KW>showed this product was more than 99.6% pure tryptophan   ("an
KW>investigation of the cause of the eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome
KW>associated with tryptophan use", new england journal of medicine, 
323: 3
KW>57-  365, 1990). however, they also contained traces of a highly
KW>toxic   contaminant (a stereometric isomere, read nejm and science !)
KW>which   accounted for less than 0.01% of the total mass of the
KW>product (ems and   tryptophan production: a cautionary tale,
KW>tibtech,12:346-352, 1994). the   process of production made the key
KW>difference as previously synthesised   tryptophan by another batch of
KW>bacteria of the same species had been safe.   a small genetic
KW>abberation made the difference. 
KW>in this case of the genetically minimal different bacteria for
KW>producing   tryptophan, many patients are still in a chronic phase of
KW>eosinophilia-  myalgia syndrome today. afaik your national EMS
KW>newsletter still mails to   approximately 800 survivors, which is
KW>about half the initial EMS victims   identified.  The total number of
KW>victims is estimated in the thousands.   (you can find information on
KW>EMS and tryptophan on the EMS home page
KW>http://www.nemsn.org/ems/html/, or refer to the scientific article:
KW>"eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome and tryptophan production: a
KW>cautionary tale", trends in biotechnology, Sept., 1994, pp. 346-352.)
KW>now you still might say, that science, neym and trends in biotech are
KW>no   "grave" journals.....
KW>and stop crying for ms. moderator for name-spelling, as long as YOU
KW>name   duesberg a swine !! i do not at all agree with his theories
KW>(there are   some quite weak parts in his theses), but since the
KW>galileo-case i have   never, never read, that the scientific
KW>community has been sooo agressive,   ignorant, rejective and in a
KW>hurry for censorship against someone with a   theory, which does not
KW>fit in the usual way of research/thinking. 
KW>fact is:
KW>an issue of nature (362:103-104, 1993) contained a commentary in
KW>which   ascher et al. concluded that hiv infection, but not drug use,
KW>is   significantly correlated with the risk of developing aids. Their
KW>article   was based on epidemiological data gathered by the sf men's
KW>health study, and written *expressly* to refute duesberg's drug-aids
KW>hypothesis.   despite this, and the fact that the article mentioned
KW>him by name 19   times, nature *refused* to publish duesberg's reply.
KW>instead, the 13 May   issue carried an unusually long editorial with
KW>the title "has duesberg the   right of reply?," in which the editor
KW>attempted to justify this (by   himself acknowledged) censorship.
KW>the conduits for scientific debate should be open and the free
KW>exchange of   ideas never be censored, but instead openly critisized.
KW>consequently that   gives me enough doubts about his fellow
KW>researchers and their "honorable"   motives. they might find
KW>themselfes some day to bark up the wrong viral   tree.
I won't argue with you about it as we are really both correct. When the 
first deaths were linked to L-tryptophan there were people who whined 
that the nasty old government was just trying to control one more thing 
(Continued next message...)
                ===>The Voice of Reason<===
                     mark.probert@juno.com
---
 * CMPQwk #1.4 * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
---------------