From: Mark Probert on
On Dec 24, 1:49 pm, "Peter B" <origin...(a)frag.com> wrote:
> "PeterB - Original" <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews: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.-

Wrong.Yet more astounding ILLOGIC. Petey's specialty.
From: PeterB - Original on
On Dec 24, 1:49 pm, "Peter B" <origin...(a)frag.com> wrote:
> "PeterB - Original" <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews: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.

The facts are indeed logical. Your trust in FDA is touching, but
dumb. You're a dummy.

> > 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.

From: Mark Probert on
On Dec 24, 3:10 pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 24, 1:49 pm, "Peter B" <origin...(a)frag.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "PeterB - Original" <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews: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.
>
> The facts are indeed logical.  Your trust in FDA is touching, but
> dumb.  You're a dummy.

I assume that the FDA and CDC are making an effort to get it right.
You knee-jerk reject them ab initio, without giving a thought. Your
"mind" (for want of a better term) is closed.



From: PeterB - Original on
On Dec 24, 7:28 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 24, 3:10 pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 24, 1:49 pm, "Peter B" <origin...(a)frag.com> wrote:
>
> > > "PeterB - Original" <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews: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.
>
> > The facts are indeed logical.  Your trust in FDA is touching, but
> > dumb.  You're a dummy.
>
> I assume that the FDA and CDC are making an effort to get it right.

I'm sure your assumption is a matter of record at FDA and CDC.

> You knee-jerk reject them ab initio, without giving a thought.

Wrong. The history of their actions and lack of accountability is why
prosecutions based on their edicts should not be taken at face
value. You are one who accepts the charges without question or
thought.

> Your "mind" (for want of a better term) is closed.

It's closed to folly, which is why your "arguments" do not sway me.
From: Stan de SD on
On Dec 24, 7:01 pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 24, 7:28 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 24, 3:10 pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 24, 1:49 pm, "Peter B" <origin...(a)frag.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "PeterB - Original" <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews: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.
>
> > > The facts are indeed logical.  Your trust in FDA is touching, but
> > > dumb.  You're a dummy.
>
> > I assume that the FDA and CDC are making an effort to get it right.
>
> I'm sure your assumption is a matter of record at FDA and CDC.
>
> > You knee-jerk reject them ab initio, without giving a thought.
>
> Wrong.  The history of their actions and lack of accountability is why
> prosecutions based on their edicts should not be taken at face
> value.   You are one who accepts the charges without question or
> thought.
>
> > Your "mind" (for want of a better term) is closed.
>
> It's closed to folly, which is why your "arguments" do not sway me.

So this kook Greg Caton marketed "H3O" and a cure for cancer? What
type of idiot would fall for a huckster and fraud like this anyway?