From: Stan de SD on
On Dec 23, 5:48 pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

If I'm reading the US Attorney's affadavit correctly
http://www.meditopia.org/docs/04-20075-01.document1.pdf, it mentions
that this clown Caton was selling something called "H3O" which was a
supposed cure for athlete's foot and herpes sores, as well as "Cansema
Tonic III" which was a cure for CANCER? Sure looks like PT Barnum was
correct - there's a sucker born every minute...

From: Peter B on

"PeterB - Original" <pkm(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:eae4864a-707a-404d-9fce-5107d0a86cff(a)d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
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.
======================================================
No, I agreed with you and everyone else that you are biased, totally
biased. You haven't read anything on the trial from the courts
perspective and you aren't about to since you are smarter than they.


From: PeterB - Original on
On Dec 23, 9:07 pm, Stan de SD <stand...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 23, 5:48 pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> If I'm reading the US Attorney's affadavit correctlyhttp://www.meditopia.org/docs/04-20075-01.document1.pdf, it mentions
> that this clown Caton was selling something called "H3O" which was a
> supposed cure for athlete's foot and herpes sores, as well as "Cansema
> Tonic III" which was a cure for CANCER? Sure looks like PT Barnum was
> correct - there's a sucker born every minute...

Do you have a source document to show Caton's product labeling used
the word "cure?" I don't see it anywhere on FDA's website, do you?
From: PeterB - Original on
On Dec 23, 9:47 pm, "Peter B" <origin...(a)frag.com> wrote:
> "PeterB - Original" <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:eae4864a-707a-404d-9fce-5107d0a86cff(a)d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> 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.
> ======================================================
> No, I agreed with you and everyone else that you are biased, totally
> biased.

One cannot be biased against an agency as corrupt as FDA, that would
be like saying you are biased against a serial killer. In fact, the
FDA is exactly that.

> You haven't read anything on the trial from the courts
> perspective and you aren't about to since you are smarter than they.

Even a space rock is smarter than FDA. Not you though.

From: Peter B on

"PeterB - Original" <pkm(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:e6ffc32a-4e0d-40bf-849b-6b5fcd5afe38(a)h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 23, 9:47 pm, "Peter B" <origin...(a)frag.com> wrote:
> "PeterB - Original" <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote in
> messagenews:eae4864a-707a-404d-9fce-5107d0a86cff(a)d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> 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.
> ======================================================
> No, I agreed with you and everyone else that you are biased, totally
> biased.

One cannot be biased against an agency as corrupt as FDA, that would
be like saying you are biased against a serial killer. In fact, the
FDA is exactly that.
==================================================
and you claim to use logic, snicker.

> You haven't read anything on the trial from the courts
> perspective and you aren't about to since you are smarter than they.

Even a space rock is smarter than FDA. Not you though.
==========================================
Yet more astounding logic.