Shill(slang)

      Noun
   

 1. a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house.

 2. a person whose praises, endorsements, etc., are motivated by self-interest.

--Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd.

Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

***

AUTHOR'S NOTE: The following is a true account of events in the satirical reality of 2016. All the quotes

are genuine, and were copied from the UNICEF promotion pictured above on May 9, 2016.

UNICEF USA ran a campaign on Facebook last weekend to pledge vaccines for the needy. Judging from the reactions and comments, the Vaccine Church is in serious trouble.

One of the UNICEF promotions found its way to my Facebook wall. It was posted on April 28, and as of the morning of May 9, had garnered 157 "reactions"--and an amazing 42% of them were negative. There were 187 comments, and hundreds of replies to the comments. With the exception of a few very prolific pro-vax commenters, they were almost overwhelmingly negative.

Some comments and replies were only a few telling words; for example, "Vaccines kill.” Others were longer and detailed, with links to supporting articles and studies. The award for dark humor goes to this one:

• “Can we just send them a letter and ask them to shoot themselves in the head? It seems it would be a more honest way of going about depopulation than giving them poison and pretending that it's medicine.”
  

Here are a few more examples of the anti-vaccine comments:

• “Let’s sign a pledge to increase access to clean running water and sanitation, vaccines are not as safe and effective and although they are very profitable they also harm many children.”
  

• “We've heard the manipulated lies before, UNICEF. The fact remains, nations with the highest infant mortality rates also have the highest vaccination rates. They also have the highest rates of autoimmunity as well.”
  

• “Go see 'VAXXED', then we'll talk. Pediatricians are leaving the theaters in tears. They've been lied to for 60+ years.”
  

• “…I chose to do my own research and follow the money there are over 225,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes from western allopathic doctors…”
  

• “Is this a joke? Vaccines don't make you healthy. Nutritious food and clean water does. I'm really glad people are waking up and seeing this sham for what it really is.”
  

• “I know too many children NOT leading healthy or productive lives because of vaccine injuries. Let's be honest here and state truth. Vaccines are not safe or very effective and TOO MANY are harmed by them but because of big money, greed, ignorance, the inability of many to actually open their eyes and SEE the evidence of harm, more and more INNOCENT children with no voice will continue to be harmed…”
  

Naturally, the UNICEF promotion was infested with a few pro-vax trolls. A few commenters stood out as likely soldiers of fortune, with a mission to destroy vaccine heretics with insults, derision, ad hominem, and other tactics to minimize the possibility of civil and rational debate. Between them they logged 851 comments and replies, with one troll, I'll call her the Head Troll, logging an astounding 384 alone. Their comments included gems such as:

• “… You my friends, are IDIOTS.”
  

• “…your posts are nothing more than hysterical screeching…”
  

• “…You on the other hand should grow up and understand you lack the intellectual capacity to understand this issue. You should leave the thinking to those who can…”
  

• “Haha the idea that you can skip all the biology and chemistry classes and just read mommy blogs for a couple of hours to be well-educated in medicine.”
  

• “…As you have been told and shown many times there is no causal link between vaccines and autism. Any claim there is, is an outright lie that validates derision and ridicule…”
  

• “…Seriously, that has to be the dumbest thing i've read today. And I can assure you, i've read a lot of anti vax stupid today...”
  

You get the idea. “Hysterical” and “hysteria” were the most popular epithets against anti-vaccine commenters, used 64 times, often followed by "screeching." “Stupid” was used as a descriptor 44 times, and 35 were deemed to be either an “idiot” or “dumb.” The ever-popular “debunked” was used 44 times as an excuse to avoid debating the evidence; but surprisingly, the classic “conspiracy” was only projected 20 times. Last but not least, 59 anti-vaccine commenters were accused of being a “liar” or “lying."

In other words, a typical conversation in the land of pro-vax Internet trolls.

***

There were, however, also a few civil and apparently rational pro-vaccine commenters on the UNICEF promotion. Among them was a woman named Dorit Rubenstein Reiss. She appeared to be just an ordinary concerned citizen, a polite, well-spoken advocate of vaccination. Nothing Dorit said would seem to indicate otherwise, except…

If you know who Dorit Reiss is, it is very unlikely she was just another ordinary citizen commenter. In fact, given her history, it is quite likely Dorit was instrumental in orchestrating the UNICEF vaccine campaign.

Dorit Rubinstein Reiss has an impressive history as a valuable asset of the vaccine industry. A Professor of Law at University of California Hastings College of the Law, Dorit graduated from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Isreal, in 1999, with a combined degree law and political science. She went on to earn a Ph.D. in 2007 from the University of California, Berkeley, in the Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program. She’s a member of the Board of Directors of the San Francisco Immunization Coalition, and a member of the Parents Advisory Board for Voices for Vaccines. Her CV is fully loaded with a pungent heap of conference presentations and publications extolling the virtues of vaccination.

A young mother herself, Dorit can often be seen in vaccine promotion campaigns cradling her apparently healthy and happy and fully vaccinated baby. Is she a true believer of the Vaccine Church, or do her motivations emanate from a much darker place? Only her pediatrician knows for sure.  

Last year, Dorit put her impressive credentials to work by drafting a new law that had the entire oligarchy salivating. If passed, it would declare the unvaccinated a “public nuisance,” and hold them personally liable for the government’s expenses for meddling in any “outbreak” of disease. Minor details, such as whether or not the outbreak actually posed a real danger to anyone, would naturally be irrelevant—because when it comes to inspiring bone-chilling fear of authority, no law is too draconian. The New World Order Reporter covered the story, and you can read all about it here.

***

As the biting comments against vaccination continued to pile up, UNICEF, with an air of desperation, posted a comment of its own on May 5:

• “To anyone here questioning the value of immunization, there is no argument: vaccines work. Today, vaccines protect more children than ever before — up to 3 million children's lives are saved every year, according to the World Health Organization…”
  

There was more—but if you are reading this, you probably already know the drill.

UNICEF posted its comment at 3:42PM, and the first reply was almost immediate—in fact, so immediate, it was also posted at 3:42PM:

• “Wonderfully said. Thank you.”
  

That reply came from Dorit Rubinstein Reiss. It was as if Dorit was waiting by her keyboard for that comment. Is it usual to thank someone for posting a comment? I suppose it would be, if you asked them to post it.

***

Dorit logged 43 comments and replies on the UNIFCEF promotion. Some of her comments were quite illuminating—that is, if you want lessons in the covert manipulation of public opinion. 

Dorit seemed taken aback by the number of anti-vaccination comments, and gently but firmly chastised the nonbelievers:

• "It is a little strange to see anti vaccine activists attack UNICEF for providing vaccines to children. The organization knows vaccines save lives; its members see this up close. It knows better than to buy into anti vaccine myths. [Link omitted] They're not going to be affected by anti vaccine claims; they know they're not true. All people are doing by attacking and arguing against protecting children from diseases that kill millions in the developing world is paint themselves in a bad light."
  

For shame! There are absolutely, positively no conceivable objections any knowledgeable person could have to vaccination...right?

Concerns about the revelations of research fraud at the Centers for Disease Control by whistleblower Dr. William W. Thompson were raised several times. But according to Dorit, there is nothing to worry about—it’s just a crazy conspiracy theory, and he didn’t actually blow the whistle on anything at all:

• “The Thompson documents don't support the claims made here. And since I read the transcript, they don't support most of what anti vaccine activists claim, though Thompson was clearly bitter.” [Her Link]
  

As to Sharyl Attkisson’s story about the CDC whistleblower, Dorit assured us:

• “This conspiracy theory too is not true. [Her Link]
  

And in response to Ben Swann’s report about the CDC whistleblower, Dorit assured us:

• “As pointed out, Swann's reiteration of the claims of the cdcwhistleblower really does not change vaccine science. First, the claims are against the evidence. Even if they weren't, it wouldn't change the basics. The evidence that vaccines are safe and effective comes from all around the world and doesn't depend on the CDC or big pharma.” [Her Link]
  

Concerns about vaccine manufacturers having immunity from liability for damages caused by vaccines were also raised in the UNICEF promotion. But Dorit assured us it’s a wonderful thing:

• “It's protected by Congress, that decided to limit liability to prevent manufacturers being driven out of producing vaccines because of frivolous lawsuits. The court simply interpreted the congressional act. In return, claimants got a no fault, easier to win process with lawyer fees covered.”
  

Strange there would be any greater number of "frivolous" lawsuits for vaccine damages than there are for damages from any other product, but Dorit didn't find it necessary to explain.

And, of course, Dorit assured us there is absolutely no evidence that vaccines can cause autism. You’d think a legal expert like Dorit would be aware that injuries that include autism have actually been compensated dozens of times in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, especially after I brought it to her attention. But apparently she didn’t consider it important.

• “The fact that a minority of parents still believe, agains [sic] the evidence, that vaccines caused their child's autism is very sad, but doesn't negate the science that shows vaccines don't cause autism.”
  

• “I'm sorry, but vaccines do not cause autism. Here is an excellent analysis of the literature: [Link Omitted]. As sad as it is that a minority of parents stick to their belief in the face of the evidence, their belief doesn't change the evidence - even if they put it on YouTube.”
  

As for the Bought movie? Pay no attention, said Dorit:

• “I've watched the movie. It is a conspiracy theory movie narrated and populated by known anti vaccine activists. It didn't really provide good evidence of its claims.”
  

Apparently, known pro-vaccine activists like Dorit Reiss are far more trustworthy than known anti-vaccine activists—especially when they are pretending to be just an average citizen on Facebook.

Dorit was apparently not aware of the difference between ingestion and injection. Perhaps she injects her eggs for breakfast each morning?

• “If you let your child drink a vaccine vial - which is a tenth of a teaspoon, 0.5 ml - they won't be harmed. The dose makes the poison, and these are tiny doses. In contrast, if the tetanus bacteria gets into your kid because the kid isn't vaccinate, it will emit poison that will seriously harm the child.”
  

Ahem, well…that is, if the tetanus bacteria enters through a puncture wound rather than the mouth. But why quibble over details when there are vaccines to sell?

Dorit was understanding of the concerns about vaccine ingredients, and offered her reassurance: 

• "I realize that a list of chemical ingredients can appear scary, if you are not familiar with the different chemical formulations, what they mean, the fact that most of these ingredients are already part of our environment, and the fact that in the tiny amounts in vaccines they are safe."
  

Sure, Dorit. The sucrose in the apple juice you drink for breakfast in the morning is found in the environment, and so is the aluminum can it comes in. And there is glycerine and formaldahyde in the lotion you slather on after your morning shower. Why not just melt it all down to a slurry for a wholesome breakfast injection? 

***

When it comes to famous researcher and fugitive fraudster Poul Thorsen, Dorit assured us there is no reason at all for concern. This particular interaction between Dorit and the mother of an autistic child is worth taking a closer look at. This was the mother’s comment:

• “Hear this well... CDC paid for Dr. Thorsen for fraudulent study to prove there is not risk the MMR Vaccines.”
  

Attached to her comment was a link to search results for Thorsen’s name at the Office of Inspector General. Clicking on the link to the OIG’s list of Most Wanted Fugitives and scrolling down to Thorsen’s name reveals:

• “From approximately February 2004 until February 2010, Poul Thorsen executed a scheme to steal grant money awarded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) … CDC awarded the grant to fund studies of the relationship between autism and the exposure to vaccines … Thorsen allegedly diverted over $1 million of the CDC grant money to his own personal bank account. …  In April 2011, Thorsen was indicted on 22 counts of Wire Fraud and Money Laundering. … “
  

Now, while this mother’s comment was not perfectly worded, it seems hard to believe any person of ordinary intelligence could fail to grasp its meaning, particularly when it included a link to the particulars, and especially for someone who was already fully aware of those particulars. And yet Dorit seemed befuddled:  

• “No, there's no evidence of fraud in the Thorsen studies. You may be confusing with Wakefield.”
  

Oh, really?

Attached to Dorit’s reply was a link to a story from Forbes Magazine flippantly entitled “Hey, Interpol, I Found Your Autism Researcher Fugitive!” The story graphic shows a James Bond photo compilation, and if you click on the story, it seems as though a casual viewer who didn’t read past the first paragraph might easily get the impression that the whole Thorsen story is silly fearmongering. But maybe I’m just a crazy conspiracy theorist, so see what you think:

• “People who enjoy a good conspiracy like to have villains to trot out when managing the cognitive dissonance of their beliefs versus the evidence. Adherents to vaccine-autism causation conspiracies have a little cast of such antagonists, some of whom are doctors, researchers, members of the news media, and nonprofit and government employees whose goal is to promote human health and go where evidence takes them.”
  

Soon the Head Troll chimed in to back up Dorit:

• “Nope, long debunked opinion pieces by well known anti vaxers do not fulfill his requirement for evidence.”
  

And yet, the mother of the autistic child persisted, replying with a link to a YouTube video of Congressman Posey submitting evidence that the fugitive Poul Thorsen was involved in 21 out of 24 autism studies.

To which the Head Troll replied:

• “If you have to rely on anti vax blogs, then even you know you are lying.”
  

There were no more replies from Dorit on this particular comment--apparently she figured she and the Head Troll had put a lid on all that Thorsen nonsense, which this mother was “confusing with Wakefield.”

***

Nevertheless, the mother of the autistic child still persisted, posting another comment about Thorsen, to which she attached several autism studies in which his name appeared among the authors. She was aggressively attacked by the Head Troll with a slew of vitriol, such as:  "She is very immature .. it's like listening to the kids in the back of the car;" and "It's all about beliefs and feelpinions to anti vaxers."

The mother finally asked who was paying the Head Troll to attack people. Dorit quickly swooped in to the Head Troll's defense:

• "A. You have pointed to no actual problems with the studies you posted. [and] B. The shill gambit - trying to claim people who disagree with you are paid to do so - really isn't a substitute to having facts and evidence on your side."
  

Well, I guess if anyone could be considered an expert on the "shill gambit," it's Dorit Rubinstein Reiss.

***

I made several comments to Dorit Reiss in the UNICEF vaccine promotion, questioning her role in the campaign. Some of those comments seem to have been deleted—not by me. I received a response from Dorit only once, when I wrote:  

• “Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, you are a paid consultant for the vaccine industry, and presumably you are receiving compensation for your involvement in this campaign. Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken. You appear to be the same Dorit Reiss who is the subject of this satire, involving another vaccine promotion campaign. [Link]
  

Dorit’s answer was brief and vague:  

• “No, not really. I work in a law school and am not paid by the vaccine industry.”
  

What does “No, not really” apply to? Not really a paid consultant for the vaccine industry? Or not really receiving compensation for involvement in the UNICEF campaign?

And what does "No, not really" mean? Because it sounds very much like "No, not exactly."

Regular people work in law schools, as administrators and secretaries and maintenance staff and such. They comment on UNICEF vaccine fundraisers on Facebook because they believe in vaccination and think it’s important. Professors of Law, on the other hand, whose professional specialty is finding more and better ways to sell vaccination, are generally compensated for things like orchestrating profitable vaccine fundraisers on Facebook. 

In any case, according to Dorit Reiss, she is not paid by the vaccine industry. She is a law professor, whose research and activities promote vaccination. She receives a salary as a law professor. Who pays for her extracurricular activities promoting vaccination? For example, drafting draconian vaccine legislation, orchestrating vaccine campaigns for UNICEF, or promoting vaccination on Facebook under the guise of an ordinary concerned citizen? 

  
Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, if you are reading this, I am asking you those questions.

***

Comments: