I don't think that using a deceptive headline to get people to click on and perhaps read a long string of attacks on writers and posters who believe a certain way is the best way address any issue. On the other hand, if there were suddenly a string of people calling you a schill, I'd be inclined to think those posters might be schills (my own personal opinion).
Anyone who wants to know more details about how schills really work should read the classic book, "Toxic Sludge Is Good For You," by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton.
Back in the 1990s, the head of Scientific Affairs for Monsanto was online and ocassionally debated about one of their toxic products (usually on USENET). He didn't stay online long because Monsanto is used to sharing convincing-sounding public relations along with research that they funded and reviews by scientists / organizations with conflicts of interest. But they are not used to people that can demonstrate scientific fraud in their pre-approval studies or other research they cite and also show how they design reseach to avoid finding adverse effects.
So instead of debating knowledgable individuals, Monsanto hired a PR company and held a conference with the American Dietetics Assn to try and come up with a public relations solution to their problem. Their standard way of operating in my opinion includes:
1) design numerous studies that will not find adverse effects.
2) get as many reviews written based on their flawed studies. Sometimes they hire scientists or organization to perform a review.
3) try to get biased reviews published by editors of journals that avoids discussion of toxicity findings.
4) corrupt government agencies with revolving door of their own employees.
5) bribe ( in the case of BGH and Health Canada) or get our government to threaten other countries for approval.
6) attack independent scientists.
7) lobby for laws to suit them without any concern for health issues, contamination or property rights.
Because of this, I am in favor of any person, community or state defending their citizens (should they vote to do so). If people feel like they or their community is being slowly poisoned or contaminated, then I believe they can defend themselves.
Also, for almost any scientific issue, I think it's crucial to go to independent experts and that is why links such as the following are useful in my opinion:
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: