TobiasTheCommie wrote: I have shown that we have a consensus on at least one cause of autism, and a proven causation in another, though the specifics are still unknown. If my proof is wrong, please show me how it is wrong.

Hah, you have *one* consensus cause ( the genetic component ), and yet, you want me to sign this statement??

TTC wrote:"We know some, but not all, of the causes of autism".

Your reach has exceeded your grasp yet again, hombre.

TobiasTheCommie wrote:Also, you never answered the enemy thing. Do you want us to be enemies? because i have no interest in that.

I don't particularly care, but if you try and restrict my free speech, then you're my enemy.

TobiasTheCommie wrote:What i do want is for you to provide evidence that i work, or have received money from, the pharm companies, or an apology for the claim.

Nope. I can't trust your claim to have no support from the pharm industry- I've caught you in too many lies.

clocker bob wrote:

TobiasTheCommie wrote: I have shown that we have a consensus on at least one cause of autism, and a proven causation in another, though the specifics are still unknown. If my proof is wrong, please show me how it is wrong.

Hah, you have *one* consensus cause ( the genetic component ), and yet, you want me to sign this statement??

TTC wrote:"We know some, but not all, of the causes of autism".

Your reach has exceeded your grasp yet again, hombre.

Ehm, one isn't part of some?

What about
"we know one cause of autism and are investigating more", i can go with that as well.

clocker bob wrote:

TobiasTheCommie wrote:Also, you never answered the enemy thing. Do you want us to be enemies? because i have no interest in that.

I don't particularly care, but if you try and restrict my free speech, then you're my enemy.

And have i tried to do that? Or insinuated that i want to?

All i want is a public apology for your slander, that or your prove it isn't slander.

clocker bob wrote:

TobiasTheCommie wrote:What i do want is for you to provide evidence that i work, or have received money from, the pharm companies, or an apology for the claim.

Nope. I can't trust your claim to have no support from the pharm industry- I've caught you in too many lies.

Ehm, even if you hadn't caught me in any lies(which lies anyways?) you shouldn't trust my claim. You have to provide evidence that your claim is true, not the other way around.

TobiasTheCommie wrote:Ehm, one isn't part of some?

What about
"we know one cause of autism and are investigating more", i can go with that as well.

'Some' is more than one.

I suspect that the cause will turn out to be partially genetic ( if you weren't so biased, you would also admit that some infants are genetically more likely to be damaged by mercury in vaccines, too ), but as it stands now, your claim of a 'consensus' on a genetic link is weak.

Here, from autism today:

Why Study Genes?

Past research hints at a link between autism and genes. For example: When autism occurs in identical twins, both members of the set have the condition 60 percent of the time. When autism occurs in fraternal
twins, both members of the set have the condition only 3-to-6 percent of the time.

TobiasTheCommie wrote:You have to provide evidence that your claim is true, not the other way around.

I'm no prosecuting you in a court of law. I can think whatever I want about you. I can say that you're from Mars, if I feel like it.

clocker bob wrote:

TobiasTheCommie wrote:Ehm, one isn't part of some?

What about
"we know one cause of autism and are investigating more", i can go with that as well.

'Some' is more than one.

I suspect that the cause will turn out to be partially genetic ( if you weren't so biased, you would also admit that some infants are genetically more likely to be damaged by mercury in vaccines, too ), but as it stands now, your claim of a 'consensus' on a genetic link is weak.

Here, from autism today:

Why Study Genes?

Past research hints at a link between autism and genes. For example: When autism occurs in identical twins, both members of the set have the condition 60 percent of the time. When autism occurs in fraternal
twins, both members of the set have the condition only 3-to-6 percent of the time.

How am i biased? I openly admit that genetics isn't the only factor.
There is a consensus on the genetic part. There is also a consensus that something is missing and that genetics isn't the only relevant thing. I have never stated anything else.

And the quote is also something i have stated on page 4(though not with the numbers as i didn't have the numbers when i wrote it) so again, you aren't saying something i haven't already said. Well, except that you are saying I'm biased.

TobiasTheCommie wrote:All i want is a public apology for your slander, that or your prove it isn't slander.

No. Your claim to be unaware of the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly before Friday is preposterous, and I do not withdraw my allegation that you lied when questioned about your knowledge of Eli Lilly.

Ever heard of Merck or Glaxo-Wellcome?