From: Mark Probert on
On Dec 25, 12:52 pm, Stan de SD <stand...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?-

Equally important, what sort of person would support him? Ask Petey.

From: PeterB - Original on
On Dec 25, 7:48 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 25, 12:52 pm, Stan de SD <stand...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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?-
>
> Equally important, what sort of person would support him? Ask Petey.

The sort of person who believes in real science and ethical
prosecutions, neither of which you believe in.
From: VFW on
In article <4b2bf527$1(a)news.x-privat.org>,
"Peter B" <original1(a)frag.com> wrote:

> BS snipped<
>
> Read 98% of this rant against the government of the USA. Yes, that was
> all it was about. The evil CDC & FDA of the Obama government. All at the
> expense of one sorry loser who ran from the US to avoid jail time.

and my $.02

You University has the ultimate Health Care Plan and if almost Free!
Basically it's ... Take Care of Yourself
You know. Eat right, avoid the toxins like tobacco, alcohol and Fear.
If you studied Louise Hay's work (HayHouse.com) you would know that a lot
of Dis-Ease is caused by not feeling Safe or Loving. So, we are
talking.....
Prevention ... worth a pound of cure. An Apple a day....etc/
So many "health" care plans are really expensive sickness programs.
They
want to feed your fears and treat your symptoms not the causes. They
hook you on drugs that treat the symptoms and never cure , so you have
to keep paying and paying to deal with the side effects. Not too mention
multiple drug interactions that cause a lot of suffering.
At You U. we set you free.
Want to know more?
Like Eyesight improvement
--
Hint; Enjoy the moment !