From: PeterB - Original on
On Dec 23, 2:42 am, "Peter B" <origin...(a)frag.com> wrote:
> > ==================================================
> > Amazing, he was correct, you disagreed but then proved his point, yet
> > again. lol
>
> Look it up in a dictionary, dipwit.  "Political" bias reflects
> ideology in the context of governance, not skepticism based on
> bureaucratic corruption.  My views on FDA reflect that agency's
> grossly unethical behavior.  I might add that neither of you have
> produced a shred of evidence showing FDA's actions against Caton to be
> based on medical science, so I have to assume you can't and that it
> isn't.
> ====================================================
> Problem is you are obviously biased and not skepticism as shown by your
> words and intentions.

No evidence then, just as I said. No Data + No Facts = No Proof of
Claim
From: Mark Probert on
On Dec 22, 4:35 pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 19, 10:58 am, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > On Dec 18, 1:39 pm, Jim <willcox...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Alternative Medicine Pioneer Kidnapped by US Government in Ecuador
> > > > > > > Medical News Comentaries
> > > > > > > 17 December 2009 9 Comments
>
> > > > > > > Dear IMVA,
>
> > > > > > > Yesterday I received a disturbing email from Greg Caton’s wife,
>
> > > > > > This the same Gregory James Caton previously convicted of a Felony
> > > > > > crime in 1990?
>
> > > > > Yes, for selling herbals, which is a crime depending on how carefully
> > > > > you step (and sometimes regardless) with regard to product labeling,
> > > > > lest the seller encroach upon FDA's own monopoly of lies, the most
> > > > > notable of which is that drugs prevent and cure disease.  Metagenics
> > > > > was once prosecuted for false claims about a calcium supplement, for
> > > > > example, but they later won the case when the *existing* science was
> > > > > produced to support their marketing claims.
>
> > > > > > The same Gregory James Caton charged with Felon in Possession of
> > > > > > firearms in 2003? (A lot of them.)
>
> > > > > WOW, a gun owner and herbal medicine advocate all in the same body.
> > > > > What's next, Bambi holding a Bowie?
>
> > > > > > Read the indictment yourself.http://www.meditopia.org/docs/04-20075-01.document1.pdf
>
> > > > > FDA's drug claims are the premise for charges against him, which means
> > > > > it's a pretty safe bet that none of this was based on any science
> > > > > whatsoever, but rather on the perceived risk of competitive threat by
> > > > > FDA's buddies in the drug business.
>
> > > > > > He agreed to the prosecution without indictment by the Grand Jury.http://www.meditopia.org/docs/04-20075-01.document2.pdf
>
> > > > > > He entered a plea of Guilty and accepted Judgmenthttp://www.meditopia.org/docs/04-20075-01.document3.pdf
>
> > > > > > He agreed to a fine of $250k and 5 years minimum.http://www.meditopia.org/docs/04-20075-01.document4.pdf
>
> > > > > > And then after he was let out he skipped on his probation, moved to
> > > > > > another country with lax laws to do the same thing all over again.
>
> > > > > > All of the case docs here:http://www.meditopia.org/docs
>
> > > > > What a busy penguin you are these days, Potemkin.  You might want to
> > > > > read the other side of the story on Caton's website, athttp://www..altcancer.com/h3o.htm.
>
> > > > > > No wonder Mikey Adams supports him.
>
> > > > > And you don't, because the rights of citizens in a free society mean
> > > > > nothing to you.
>
> > > > Au contraire. However, there is no question that his marketing tactics
> > > > violarted Federal law.
>
> > > Oh?  What proof do you have that his company's marketing violated
> > > Federal Law?
>
> > See here:
>
> >http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ICECI/EnforcementActions/EnforcementStor...
>
> > SInce you are too lazy to go to the website, I will cut an paste the
> > relevant part:
>
> > Unapproved New Drugs Sold as Treatment for Cancer
>
> > This investigation was initiated based on information regarding the
> > illegal activities of a food processing plant called Lumen Food
> > Corporation, located in Lake Charles, Louisiana. Lumen Food
> > Corporation advertised products via an Internet websitewww.altcancer.com
> > under the name of Alpha Omega Labs, located in Nassau, Bahamas. These
> > products were advertised as containing medicinal qualities for the
> > treatment of cancer and many other diseases.
>
> > From 1999 to 2003, Gregory Caton, President of Lumen Food Corporation,
> > and his employees utilized Alpha Omega Labs to take direct orders for
> > these unapproved new drugs. The chemical substances were not approved
> > for sale by FDA. As a result of the scheme, Caton received
> > approximately $950,000. In order to legally market a drug in
> > interstate commerce, the drug’s manufacturer is required to comply
> > with all applicable provisions of the Act in order to ensure that the
> > products sold are safe for humans and effective for their intended
> > uses.
>
> > On at least two occasions known to FDA, the items shipped by Caton’s
> > firm and used by consumers resulted in bodily injury and harm. The
> > products were Cansema Tonic III and H3O. Cansema Tonic III was
> > advertised for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of
> > cancer. H3O was advertised for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment,
> > or prevention of athlete’s foot, cuts and burns, eczema, fingernail
> > fungus, chronic gas, gastroenteritis, gingivitis and periodontal
> > disease, halitosis, herpes sores, ophthalmia, psoriasis, sore throat,
> > strep throat and wounds. Caton did not have an IND application on file
> > with FDA.....
>
> > On May 26, 2004, Caton was convicted of violating Title 18 U.S.C. 1341
> > - Mail Fraud; and Title 21 U.S.C. 331(d), 355(a) and 333(a)(2) -
> > Introduction into Interstate Commerce of Unapproved New Drugs. Caton
> > also forfeited 2 buildings and his residence in Lake Charles,
> > Louisiana.
>
> > On August 24, 2004, Caton was sentenced to 33 months incarceration to
> > be followed by 3 years supervised release.
>
> > Now, Petey, show us your skills as coming up with new meaning of
> > words, torturning logic, and whoing that you will defend anyone.
>
> I read this earlier, and it's meaningless.  

Translation: I cannot refute it, so I will dismiss it.

An "enforcement story"
> write up in FDA's archives is not evidence, but a charge by the very
> agency whose own corrupt relationship to industry is well known.  FDA
> protects its interests by protecting  its primary funding source, the
> drug makers, whom it purports to regulate.

I have never liked the idea that the FDA charges a fee for service on
drug approval applications. I would prefer that they are all at
taxpayer expense.

 I'm sure you will need a
> dictionary not written by your friends in industry to understand what
> the words "evidence" actually means.

Dumbass.

> > > > One does not get prosecuted without having
> > > > apmple opportunity to prove one's claims with some science.
>
> FDA has perverted medical science to such a degree that it cannot
> objectively review the available science.

It is not about the FDA. As best as I can determine, Caton never
submitted anyting to the FDA even though he was required to do so. He
ignored the law. Thus his predicament.

> > > Care to provide any documentation on those claims, and how
> > > they were false?
>
> > Wrong. I do not have to prove that they were false, Mr. Red
> > Herring.  Caton had the burden of proof that his claims were true.
>
> As I said, an agency as corrupt as FDA, whose drug approval process is
> based on science fabricated by the drug makers whom it purports to
> regulate, cannot be the arbiter of what is true.-

BTW, your dismissal of anything by the FDA is demonstrative of why I
say it is political, not medical/scientific.

Thanks for providing even more proof.

From: Peter B on

"PeterB - Original" <pkm(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:5b4e5702-936e-4e5d-84ea-1980c3da97bf(a)m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 23, 2:42 am, "Peter B" <origin...(a)frag.com> wrote:
> > ==================================================
> > Amazing, he was correct, you disagreed but then proved his point,
> > yet
> > again. lol
>
> Look it up in a dictionary, dipwit. "Political" bias reflects
> ideology in the context of governance, not skepticism based on
> bureaucratic corruption. My views on FDA reflect that agency's
> grossly unethical behavior. I might add that neither of you have
> produced a shred of evidence showing FDA's actions against Caton to be
> based on medical science, so I have to assume you can't and that it
> isn't.
> ====================================================
> Problem is you are obviously biased and not skepticism as shown by
> your
> words and intentions.

No evidence then, just as I said. No Data + No Facts = No Proof of
Claim
=====================================================
Well that is just what Mark, I, and others have been trying to tell you.
Your words mean nothing, your replies hold no water, they are nothing
*now* by your own definition directly above this.

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised, empty mind empty thoughts.


From: Stan de SD on
On Dec 18, 10:59 am, Tim Campbell <timc...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>  Do read Mark's Meditopia doc.

Why? Because he makes more sense than you do?
From: PeterB - Original on
On Dec 23, 3:03 pm, "Peter B" <origin...(a)frag.com> wrote:
> "PeterB - Original" <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:5b4e5702-936e-4e5d-84ea-1980c3da97bf(a)m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 23, 2:42 am, "Peter B" <origin...(a)frag.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > ==================================================
> > > Amazing, he was correct, you disagreed but then proved his point,
> > > yet
> > > again. lol
>
> > Look it up in a dictionary, dipwit. "Political" bias reflects
> > ideology in the context of governance, not skepticism based on
> > bureaucratic corruption. My views on FDA reflect that agency's
> > grossly unethical behavior. I might add that neither of you have
> > produced a shred of evidence showing FDA's actions against Caton to be
> > based on medical science, so I have to assume you can't and that it
> > isn't.
> > ====================================================
> > Problem is you are obviously biased and not skepticism as shown by
> > your
> > words and intentions.
>
> No evidence then, just as I said.  No Data + No Facts = No Proof of
> Claim
> =====================================================
> Well that is just what Mark, I, and others have been trying to tell you.

You agree that the lack of evidence against Caton calls his
prosecution into question? Good. That is all I've been saying.

<spook's alter ego stuff snipped>