Talk:Greg Caton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A Few Words to Those Posting to This Page and Article[edit]

This page (and article) contained a lot of false, misleading, and outright hostile misinformation.

A few examples:


"Greg Caton has become an internet Cause Celebre due to his extradition from Ecuador and a host of 'conspiracists' promoting his illegal arrest. Caton is a convicted felon who was the subject of at least one book on fraud in the $21bn supplement industry and a subject of a 2007 BusinessWeek article. Mr. Caton represents a class of individual who seeks to circumvent US law through working in an unregulated foreign country."

Reality Check

He was illegally arrested. An Ecuadoran judge went to the airport and ordered the American Airlines plane not to take off. They did it anyway. (And how does one "promote" an arrest?)
Caton was not the "subject of at least one book on fraud in the $21bn supplement industry"--he was the author, as the article indicates.
"A class of individual"? Sweeping generalizations aside, how does that compare to a "class of individual" who makes false and defamatory statements about other people in anonymous internet postings?

I have personal knowledge of Greg Caton's situation. Although I've never met him or his wife, I've had cancer and used his products (starting about ten years ago) and can tell you they do work. Evidently the 400 people who sent favorable letters to the judge for Caton's latest hearing (May 2010) thought so too.

I've spoken to and corresponded with Caton and his wife extensively, and I've found them to be honest, honorable, and sincerely interested in helping others. As I point out in a long article I wrote about him in 2004:

Very few people can do what Caton and others like him have done. It takes tremendous initiative to come up with a product that works, make it available commercially, and assume the risks of being put out of business and perhaps imprisoned by the FDA.
Perhaps most important, Caton resisted the temptation to get rich on other people's suffering, which can't be said of the pharmaceutical industry. He could have made much more money and put enough away to cover his eventual ruinous legal expenses—but he didn't. Shouldn't we be encouraging and rewarding people like this rather than persecuting them and destroying their lives?

If you know nothing about how the FDA--the enforcement arm of the medical / pharmaceutical industry--persecutes anyone who dares challenge the entrenched orthodoxy of surgery, chemo, and radiation for cancer, regardless of the merits of their ideas, you should read my article before offering your opinions. And if you know nothing about the revolving door between the agency and the industry, I suggest reading another article of mine. (talk) 08:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Your contributions, although interesting, are largely unsourced, opinion based and generally in violation of the NPOV of Wikipedia. You seem to have a conflict of interest in regards to Mr. Caton. Thus I reverted your edits. Jettparmer (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
My contributions are not unsourced and opinion based--they're reporting, based on extensive communications with Caton and review of documents in the case. Many people forget that there are two sides to every story. As far as a conflict of interest, your profile page on indicates that your most frequently used tag (11 times) is "new age crap with a pretty package" and that, as here, you are unremittingly hostile toward holistic healthcare. Under the circumstances, I don't think you can be considered objective enough to apply NPOV to articles on this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks WP:cool Jettparmer (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Untitled thread[edit]

Greg Caton has become an internet Cause Celebre due to his extradition from Ecuador and a host of "conspiracists" promoting his illegal arrest. Caton is a convicted felon who was the subject of at least one book on fraud in the $21bn supplement industry and a subject of a 2007 BusinessWeek article. Mr. Caton represents a class of individual who seeks to circumvent US law through working in an unregulated foreign country. No doubt his case will become more relevant in the next few months.Jettparmer (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I've rejected the speedy on the grounds that there's claim to notability, but the article may still need to be deleted because there aren't reliable sources for this contentious info on a living person. The websites of competing businesses do not cut it. I'm going to remove the poorly sourced contentious info per WP:BLP now, but it can be added back in if better sources are found for it. I'll give a while for better sources to be found (e.g. newspaper and magazine articles) and then probably nominate it for deletion if they can't be provided. delldot ∇. 22:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Caton's history is admittedly poorly documented online. I cobbled together a host of elements which relate to his background. There is work to be done in regards to his claims for founding the businesses listed. Additionally, although an alternative source, Natural News is considered a viable source. I concur that the FDA OCI record is notable. I expect more to come forward in regard to his case given the interesting extradition. Caton is clearly one of those self-made individuals who has come to exemplify the "anti-establishment, alt-health" group.
The viral nature of his alleged arrest is certainly cause for investigation. I will continue to develop this article with more neutral sources. I consider competitor websites reasonable for context.Jettparmer (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is his conviction of 33 months in jail not mentioned? He has the sentencing transcript featured on his own web-site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Caton Update[edit]

Okay, I pumped this up with as much factual data, legal documents and other information available. It seems tha Mr. Caton is even more interesting than I imagined! The record would indicate that he may have filed a fraudulent patent, certainly skipped justice to Ecuador and was (apparently) legitimately taken into custody for violation of his terms of release. I could use some organizational help in this article. Jettparmer (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

My edit was undone for being unreferenced, but the gist of it - that he was convicted of selling fake cancer cures - was in the Parade magazine reference immediately before the edit. The trial sentencing transcript is posted on his own website ( He got 33 months it according to the transcript. This was not vandalism and should be reinstated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what the deal is[edit]

Don't really want to, but I removed some ridiculous walls of blockquotes. Article needs serious attention. Cheers, --Tom (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

COI Infoblock[edit]

I am trying to locate the close contributor for COI. Any comments? There is no data on this side. (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

References, citations, footnotes, external links[edit]

I added bare facts about Caton's arrest in Ecuador and extradition to the US, but I'm not comfortable with my own references. I verified the pertinent facts through the Interpol web site (which I can't include because of a critical broken link), but I prefer additional sources which aren't as blatantly slanted as the web site.

Like the FDA site? Quackwatch? The National Cancer Institute? They just tell the truth, right? (talk) 08:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I notice User:Threeafterthree deleted a number of sources under WP:EL. While he did get rid of junk, it seems like an act of overkill. The article would have been better served converting the external links to citation footnotes.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


Numerous spurious users have repeatedly dropped in to vandalize this page by attempting to change the functional definition of an escharotic. It should be clear that Cansema (black salve and escharotics) will attack and kill any tissue - cancerous or otherwise. Jettparmer (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This is simply false. Anyone who claims this has never tried it or is willfully or ignorantly misrepresenting it. I, among many others, have used it numerous times with no negative consequences. [Unreliable fringe source?] This page] includes a letter from Dr. Brian O'Leary, a former astronaut, to the judge in Caton's case, saying the same thing. (talk) 08:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
You reference provides no such validation. The chemical composition of escharotics wil destroy tissue, regardless of its condition. Natur news is nota reliable source Jettparmer (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Are you a chemist, to make this claim? And why is your claim about what constitutes a reliable source any more valid than mine? (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Uncited content[edit]

This content is uncited Off2riorob (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Cansema is a product which is classified as an escharotic. This material, which is essentially zinc chloride, attacks and kills human skin tissue, regardless of the presence of cancerous growth. This formulation is sold by many, although Caton claimed some exclusivity for his brand. The Independent, a UK newspaper, published a section on Cansema in an article on 18 November 1999.

    • How would you recommend improving this citation? Jettparmer (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete it. Cansema, as anyone can see from the list of ingredients on the Alpha Omega website, is not "essentially zinc chloride." The active ingredient is chaparral--the zinc chloride merely increases its effectiveness. As I say above, anyone who says it "attacks and kills human skin tissue, regardless of the presence of cancerous growth" has never tried it or is willfully or ignorantly misrepresenting it. (talk) 08:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Court documents revealed some of Caton's compounds contained up to 9.7% sulfuric acid. Jettparmer (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Please specify the court documents. I've seen many of them, and they say no such thing. Also, unless it's an analysis by a lab, it wouldn't be admissible for anyone to make this claim in court. Your fixation on "reliable sources" doesn't seem to extend to statements you make yourself. (talk) 09:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Cansema Citations[edit]

Citations defining and classifying Cansema

I believe it is relevant to Caton's biography to provide a reference to the product he claims to have developed and certainly offered for sale. Thoughts? Jettparmer (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts? Here are my thoughts:
Do you seriously believe these citations define and classify Cansema?
1. Quackwatch is run by Stephen Barrett, whom a California Appeals Court found "biased and unworthy of credibility."
2. This article in the Arts and Entertainment section of the Independent makes no attempt whatever at "defining and classifying Cansema." It merely mentions it (along with some other perfectly reputable alternative techniques) in a derogatory manner.
3. This is a 1915 article about skin damage to workers in the tanning industry from chromic acid. "Escharotic" (meaning caustic) is used twice in the 16-page article. The word "salve" appears once; "black salve" does not appear at all. If you're looking for a definition of "escharotic," it comes from "eschar" ("A dry scab or slough formed on the skin as a result of a burn or by the action of a corrosive or caustic substance," which is exactly how Cansema / Amazon Salve works.
Why would you say "the product he claims to have developed." You're so hostile to him that you can't even accept that he did develop it from old patent records? And if he didn't develop it, then evidently the FDA has the wrong man, right? (talk) 08:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks Jettparmer (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
But it's okay for you to engage in personal attacks? (talk) 09:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


Recent edits by an unsigned contributor revert several elements to non NPOV persepctives. This is consistent with repeated vandalism and unsourced information added to the site. Jettparmer (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Your articles on Greg Caton and Cansema do not constitute NPOV and have been reverted. Perhaps you can accept that not everyone shares your negative viewpoint about holistic remedies and manufacturers and would like to hear both sides. You are writing about Caton simply on the basis of web research; I have firsthand knowledge. If you want to discuss this, feel free. If the pages are simply reverted again, I will take it up with admin.
Incidentally, you yourself may wish to review the WP:VAN policy (and be careful whom you accuse of vandalism). The policy says this:
Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism, although reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW). (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Firsthand knowledge WP:OR is not applicable. If you want to add sections with detailed, verifiable information - please do. Do not delete information which has been vetted and sourced. Do not eliminate links or references, this does constitute bad faith practice and thus vandalism. Jettparmer (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm referencing an article I wrote, which is perfectly legitimate. Also, there is no prohibition on deleting information, sourced or not, especially if it's irrelevant. One user above says, "I removed some ridiculous walls of blockquotes," and another says, "I notice User:Threeafterthree deleted a number of sources under WP:EL. While he did get rid of junk, it seems like an act of overkill." (talk) 10:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment[edit]

To paraphrase another entry on the Biography RfC page, which fits this case perfectly: I'm attempting to bring NPOV to this article, because I find that nearly every paragraph has a criticism, veiled or stated outright, of the article's subject, and most of the article is written from a critical POV. I see poor writing, poor sources, and all-around bias. I revised the page, and the user responsible for most of the previous content accuses me of vandalism. I tried to discuss it with him on his user page, but his response is hostility and unsubstantiated claims. He admits to a bias against holistic healthcare, so probably cannot be considered objective enough to apply NPOV to articles on that subject. Since he has already assumed my quest for NPOV means that I have ulterior motives, I'd ask third parties to review this article as a whole and evaluate it. (talk) 10:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

User's added work does not meet WP:NPOV or WP:RS standards. Furthermore, characterizations of legal actions are unsupported - save from Mr. Caton's own website and editor's "firsthand knowledge". (talk has removed verified, sourced and vetted information. It would be helpful for input from uninvolved groups.Jettparmer (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I think Jettparmer's version has fewer NPOV problems, and so should be used as the starting point for discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
They actually seem pretty close to each other. The biggest difference seems to be in how the extradition from Ecuador is described.-- (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I pointed this out in a posting on the user's talk page: "If you look closely, you'll see that I kept most of your factual and even unfavorable text and added material to present the other side, particularly in the Caton article."
jettparmer: Are you willing to accept a third editor's suggestions for changes to the extradition from Ecuador as a compromise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the issues over his arrest and extradition from Ecuador merit a separate section. This is tricky as there is little to no verifiable information on this period. Until the hearing transcripts are released, we may not know anything about those events. It is clear from court documents that Caton was afraid to return to the US, knowing he violated his probation and who executed the extradition is unknown (private bounty hunters, Ecuadoran officials, etc.). I suggest returning to the original version and augmenting the Ecuadoran section. Jettparmer (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I am a minimalist/deletionist for the record. Is there ANY middle ground or maybe starting point, ie 1-2 sentences that both editors can agree upon and then go from there? Maybe somebody(either IP or Jettparmer) could post a "starting" version of the section/material here and then try to "work it" out? I tried to read the threads above, but I am so far from being a chemist, so its hard to tell whats what. Not being an expert, I always like to see citations that I can click on, open and read, and see that it supports what is being written in the article. Anyways, everybody stay calm (easy for me to say) and good luck. --Tom (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Format for this BLP[edit]

I propose the following format with clear chronological sections

  1. Early Life / Fmaily / Education (through marriage to Cathyrn)
  2. First Businesses (initial businesses through lawsuit with Kevin Trudeau)
  3. Lumen Foods / Alpha Omega Labs and Herbologics - 1999 - 2004 (include patents)
  4. Issues related to charges regarding Cansema and H30, including probation violations, felony weapons charges and conviction
  5. Reestablishment of AO Labs in Ecuador
  6. Probation Violations, Interpol listing, arrest, extradition and current incarceration
  7. Background on legal issues
  8. Overview of works, patents, books and web sites
  9. Additional Reading
  10. References

In each case the section should be focused upon a specific time period. Information must meet WP:RS, which will include his own websites, government reports, supporting alt-med sites, Quackwatch, statements attributable to his spouse. Avoided should be out of context claims (the Sue Guillart comments for example - cited in civil proceedings in Texas, unverified conjecture - the "rogue" FDA agent claim, etc.)

There are several very clear facts about Greg. He is a very intelligent individual who was successful in a number of areas. He also is a twice convicted felon and at present in prison for violation of probation stemming from his second set of felony charges. His notoriety should be easy to determine based upon his case, his clear intellignce and impact on the herbal / alt-med community.

Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jettparmer (talkcontribs) 02:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have the time to spend creating a draft of this, it's up to you, except:
  1. I can't agree to using Quackwatch, since Barrett has been condemned by a Calif. appeals court (see elaboration on my talk page). Also, according to WP:V, "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer." However, QW is primarily a commentary site, so it shouldn't be necessary to reference it for factual material about Caton.
  2. In the Overview of Works section, as one of the websites, I'd include Meditopia, since that explains Caton's side of it in his own words. I'd also include the last archived version of, along with the current one.
  3. I can't agree to an "Additional Reading" section, whose sole purpose is presumably to mention that book reviewed in Newsweek, unless it includes an equal number of books presenting the opposite view, such as the ones I mention on your user talk page. (If you need more than three, I'll supply them.)
  4. You say, "His notoriety should be easy to determine based upon his case, his clear intellignce and impact on the herbal / alt-med community." I assume you mean that from the article, readers will be able to draw their own conclusions about whether his notoriety is deserved, not that you're going to begin with that assumption and write the article to support it.

People assume that since he's been convicted, he must be a bad guy and have been out to rip people off. However, as I point out in the article on my site, "Can one seriously believe, looking at the depth of information on Caton's web site, the extent of the knowledge it reflects, the variety of products, the hundreds of testimonials, that he's out to defraud people--unless one were already predisposed to view any alternative treatment as a fraud?" Since you fit the description in the last clause, I assume you'll be meticulous about observing neutrality. (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This is my view on your comments -
  1. Quackwatch is a reliable source - this is established in Wikipedia. We can dilute your objection to some extent, by citing the collected sources.
  2. Including his Meditopia and Altcancer sites are definitely relevant. For better or worse, Caton includes verbatim copies of relevant court documents, depositions and filings.
  3. Additional reading which mentions Caton, as Hurley's work does is relevant. We can exclude the review, where it does not include relevant information. Books which debate the efficacy of alternative cancer cures are outside the scope of this article.
  4. Notoriety is neither good nor bad. Caton's motives are ultimately locked in his head, the record will simply lead people to draw their own conclusions. I make no attempt to cast Caton as a fraud. His inventions, actions, writings, civil filings and multiple criminal convictions will permit readers to make their own judgements. Only or exclusively referencing his website or writings is counter to the WP:NPOV and WP:BLP standards.
If you are ready, I will post a proposed template - as detailed above - and we can go forward from there. I woudl suggest that issues, sources or verbiage which appears controverisal, in violation of WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, be hashed out here. Jettparmer (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not "establish" Quackwatch as a reliable source, except in the opinion of those who wrote the article (who have the same beliefs you do about alternatives). Evidence indicates that it and other articles with a negative portrayal of alternative healthcare are a concerted effort with backing of the med/pharma industry. (A perfect example: I tried to create links, but Wiki blocks this site: http://bolenreport .com/feature_articles/feature_article077.htm and http://www.bolenreport .com/feature_articles/feature_article088.htm. Delete the space in the URLs.)

For now, I'll take you at your word that you're not part of that and are acting with the integrity one would expect of a former naval officer.

However, Wiki has no authority in the real world. People consult it for information, but since anyone can edit it, there's no way to assure its accuracy, and in fact, a lot of it is incomplete, biased, or just plain wrong. A court, on the other hand, is an institution of civil society that does have quite a bit of authority, and a California court says Barrett is "biased and unworthy of credibility." For a court to go out of its way to say that about a litigant is unusual and significant, and I'd assume a former military officer would be more likely to respect that judgment than a crowd-sourced opinion on Wikipedia.

Also, as I pointed out above, according to WP:V, "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer." Barrett is a self-published source and a well-known (relatively speaking) writer; consequently, QW is, according to Wiki's own standards, inadmissible.

Therefore, I can't agree to using QW as a source. But again, since it's primarily opinion rather than reporting, I don't see that it's necessary. My recollection is that you used it only once in the earlier version, so I'm sure you can find a way around it.

Caton's story is inextricably linked with Cansema (as are the two articles here), and Hurley's book apparently attempts to portray them both as dangerous frauds. Since many people don't believe that, a book representing the opposite viewpoint should be included. However, you can use a title specific to escharotics rather than alt-cancer treatments in general: The Value Of Escharotics, by Perry Nichols, MD. An article about him appears in the May 2004 issue of Dermatology Times (seems to be a problem accessing it; it's also available at http://www.whale .to/a/nichol6.html [another blocked site--delete the space]). Perry built a clinic where escharotics were used from 1911 to its closure in 1956, 31 years after his death.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by posting a proposed template. If you're going to do a draft of the new article, go ahead. If it's just going to be the outline you indicated above, I don't see any point--it would be easier to just reconcile the two versions we've already got. (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I will try to avoid Quackwatch, out of courtesy. I don't think Greg is that linked with Cansema as you claim. More interesting is his involvement with food technology, MLM and ultimately violation of federal law. Take a look. Jettparmer (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Stop removing permissable, verifiable information on this page. Your last edit was the same reversion of the article, containing the same unverified claims. His home of record is not a BLP violation - nor is his own claimed alias of John Carr. Your edits are approaching vandalism. I thought we had agreed upon a template from which to start. If you want to add relevant, WP:VER and WP:RS information, do so - but do not delete vetted data. Jettparmer (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Family Members[edit]

Recommend including comments about Greg's current wife and business partner, Cathyrn Caton, ND. She is featured in issues relating to his business and is still operating his business in Ecuador. In regards to his grandparents, parents or minor children - they should be referenced for completeness in a manner which adheres to WP:BLP. It is WP:REL to include immediate family members as they related to information about an individual's life. Jettparmer (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have a source that she is his business partner, or that she is still running the lab, then I agree she should be in the article. I still think the son and the grandparent should be left out. "Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons." from WP:BLPNAME --MelanieN (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Cathyrn in the primary operator of the lab in Ecuador at this time - verified on their website. The grandfather, who is deceased, was referenced in Caton's own self identified HAM operator's posting. Jettparmer (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Fine, go ahead and add the two of them if you like - definitely the wife. I don't really think the grandfather reference adds anything, but it doesn't hurt anything either since he is deceased. I do think the son should be omitted, per the privacy policy quoted above, unless he is also involved in the business. --MelanieN (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The son is still a minor and unrelated to the business. I will source a good reference for the quote. The grandfather, and his relationship to HAM radios, is relevant as it helps round out Caton's development as a scientific entrepeneur. He clearly has technical skills. Jettparmer (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

productive editing[edit]

Let's hope that edit wars over this article can be avoided in the future. Now the article seems more in line with Wiki standards. So it's just a little extra push now, such as rewriting the lead, and the disclaimers at the top can be removed? --Dyuku (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Updates on Caton's Status[edit]

Recent edits have indicated that Caton has completed his term in prison or been released on appeal. We need good citations on this, referencing the self published is unverifiable. Jettparmer (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I did a news archive search and web search and couldn't find a more reliable search saying he's been released. According to Wikipedia:V#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities" if "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties;" The fact that he has been released seems believable and should be included per WP:BLP.
The claim about the Peruvian govt extradition might be seen as self serving, though he does present a document which can be translated to verify his translation. Shall we go to WP:BLPN? CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 22:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
"Sep. 5, 2011 - Website has reported that Saturday, September 4th, naturalist healer Greg Caton returned to Ecuador hours after the U.S. State Department granted him a passport after a harrowing delay. Greg's trials and tribulations have taken five years of his life in prison as he battled with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and lost." I can't find anything at all to verify this. (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Updated with link showing intervieww with Greg Caton and Dr. Oz. Caton remains at large selling his bogus cancer curse. Jettparmer (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)