clocker bob wrote:

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.

Well, I'm sorry to say that you still appear very childish.

clocker bob wrote:

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?

You haven't shown that i knew who it was. True there is one article where I've made a reply, but i can't remember everything I've read verbatim, and I, personally, never talked about Eli Lilly.

I won't rule out having come past those names in a thread somewhere, but i don't remember doing it. I might have heard it, but i don't know anything about it.

I fail to see the relevance.

TobiasTheCommie wrote:How am i biased?

You are biased because you can't admit that genetics might also be a factor in the vulnerability of certain infants to the mercury in vaccines ( or the mercury from any source ).

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.

Right, you have a consensus that genetics is a likely factor, but exactly *which* genes are still in question, so it is a broad consensus, not a pinpoint consensus about certain genes being the trigger.

clocker bob wrote:

TobiasTheCommie wrote:How am i biased?

You are biased because you can't admit that genetics might also be a factor in the vulnerability of certain infants to the mercury in vaccines ( or the mercury from any source ).

Where have i claimed that? Why do you keep putting words and positions into my mouth?

clocker bob wrote:

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.

Right, you have a consensus that genetics is a likely factor, but exactly *which* genes are still in question, so it is a broad consensus, not a pinpoint consensus about certain genes being the trigger.

Where have i claimed otherwise? Why do you keep putting words and positions into my mouth?

TobiasTheCommie wrote:

clocker bob wrote:

TobiasTheCommie wrote:How am i biased?

You are biased because you can't admit that genetics might also be a factor in the vulnerability of certain infants to the mercury in vaccines ( or the mercury from any source ).

Where have i claimed that? Why do you keep putting words and positions into my mouth?

You have discarded the vaccine link entirely. You called it 'fairy dust'. Therefore, you have discarded the possibility that genetics make some infants more vulnerable to mercury, because without an acknowledgement by you that mercury in vaccines mught be dangerous, there is no cause to pursue a genetic link to mercury vulnerability.

clocker bob wrote:you claim a consensus that genetics is a likely factor, but exactly *which* genes are still in question, so it is a broad consensus, not a pinpoint consensus about certain genes being the trigger.

TTC wrote:Where have i claimed otherwise? Why do you keep putting words and positions into my mouth?

You are overstating the consensus opinion that genetics is a factor. Until science specifies which genes and proves that these specific genes produce autism in every case, it does not belong on a list of 'causes' of autism. It belongs on a list of 'potential contributing factors'. You are exaggerating when you say that one cause of autism has been determined. Name the genes, if that is the case.

Going to get dinner and then to see a show. Enjoy your brief status as the 'last word'

clocker bob wrote:

TobiasTheCommie wrote:

clocker bob wrote:

TobiasTheCommie wrote:How am i biased?

You are biased because you can't admit that genetics might also be a factor in the vulnerability of certain infants to the mercury in vaccines ( or the mercury from any source ).

Where have i claimed that? Why do you keep putting words and positions into my mouth?

You have discarded the vaccine link entirely. You called it 'fairy dust'.

No i didn't. As i have said repeatedly that was an example. I just want you to provide some evidence.

clocker bob wrote: Therefore, you have discarded the possibility that genetics make some infants more vulnerable to mercury, because without an acknowledgement by you that mercury in vaccines mught be dangerous, there is no cause to pursue a genetic link to mercury vulnerability.

I think it is, right now, irrelevant to look into mercury disposition in genes, but i wouldn't object to anyone doing that. I would think it was relevant if a correlation could be shown, it can't.

clocker bob wrote:

clocker bob wrote:you claim a consensus that genetics is a likely factor, but exactly *which* genes are still in question, so it is a broad consensus, not a pinpoint consensus about certain genes being the trigger.

TTC wrote:Where have i claimed otherwise? Why do you keep putting words and positions into my mouth?

You are overstating the consensus opinion that genetics is a factor. Until science specifies which genes and proves that these specific genes produce autism in every case, it does not belong on a list of 'causes' of autism. It belongs on a list of 'potential contributing factors'. You are exaggerating when you say that one cause of autism has been determined. Name the genes, if that is the case.

Some genes have been named. On page 4. And it is possible to see that it is genetic without knowing specifically which gene(s) it is. The genes are "FOXP2, WNT2, RELN, HOXA1, and HOXB1", though the specifics aren't known there is evidence that they have an influence(far more evidence than there has ever been for mercury). And more genes are coming as chromosone 2 have shown to have some influence as well.

clocker bob wrote: Going to get dinner and then to see a show. Enjoy your brief status as the 'last word'

I don't care about getting the "last word". But thanks for a nice tone in this post. It was a lot more enjoyable.

TobiasTheCommie wrote:

clocker bob wrote: You have discarded the vaccine link entirely. You called it 'fairy dust'.

No i didn't.

You've got a major problem with taking cheap shots and then trying to hide from them. Here's your earlier response, where you sneered at the vaccine link. If this 'fairy dust' analogy isn't an example of you discarding the vaccine link entirely, I don't know what is. Again, please stop lying.

clocker bob wrote:I argue for the vaccine link to remain part of the debate, and I also clearly state that it is an open question; the vaccine has not been proven to be the cause or proven not to be the cause.

TTC wrote:I argue for the fairy dust link to remain part of the debate, and I also clearly state that it is an open question; fairy dust has not been proven to be the cause or proven not to be the cause.

TTC wrote: As i have said repeatedly that was an example.

Yes, an example of your complete disregard for the concerns of those who want the vaccine link completely and honestly investigated.

clocker bob wrote:

TobiasTheCommie wrote:

clocker bob wrote: You have discarded the vaccine link entirely. You called it 'fairy dust'.

No i didn't.

You've got a major problem with taking cheap shots and then trying to hide from them. Here's your earlier response, where you sneered at the vaccine link. If this 'fairy dust' analogy isn't an example of you discarding the vaccine link entirely, I don't know what is. Again, please stop lying.

clocker bob wrote:I argue for the vaccine link to remain part of the debate, and I also clearly state that it is an open question; the vaccine has not been proven to be the cause or proven not to be the cause.

TTC wrote:I argue for the fairy dust link to remain part of the debate, and I also clearly state that it is an open question; fairy dust has not been proven to be the cause or proven not to be the cause.

TTC wrote: As i have said repeatedly that was an example.

Yes, an example of your complete disregard for the concerns of those who want the vaccine link completely and honestly investigated.

Wait, I'm taking cheap shots?

And you saying this about me isn't cheap shots?

- That i am a liar.
- That i work for Eli Lilly
- That i have received money from pharm companies.
- That i am part of a rapid response team.
- That i am a salesman(though you didn't say what i sold)
- That i am a slimeball
- That i am insane
- That i gloat

clocker bob wrote: You have discarded the vaccine link entirely. You called it 'fairy dust'.

TobiasTheCommie wrote:No i didn't.

TTC wrote:Wait, I'm taking cheap shots?

And you saying this about me isn't cheap shots?

- That i am a liar.

How is calling you a liar a cheap shot? I have boldfaced and enlarged your latest lie, in the paste above. I don't care what you think about my method of debate. You look silly bitching about it, because it's an obvious diversion by a biased salesman of lies, half-truths and distortions.

clocker bob wrote:

clocker bob wrote: You have discarded the vaccine link entirely. You called it 'fairy dust'.

TobiasTheCommie wrote:No i didn't.

TTC wrote:Wait, I'm taking cheap shots?

And you saying this about me isn't cheap shots?

- That i am a liar.

How is calling you a liar a cheap shot? I have boldfaced and enlarged your latest lie, in the paste above. I don't care what you think about my method of debate. You look silly bitching about it, because it's an obvious diversion by a biased salesman of lies, half-truths and distortions.

And if we ignore that one, what about the rest of them?