or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › I'm Not Vaccinating › Pharma shills
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pharma shills  

Poll Results: Do you think there are pharma shills on the vaccine forum?

 
  • 28% (12)
    yes - definitely!
  • 21% (9)
    maybe
  • 50% (21)
    no
  • 0% (0)
    other (ok, this one might require an explanation - be careful!)
42 Total Votes  
post #1 of 58
Thread Starter 

Poll.

 

Just answer the poll - no response required (indeed it is probably better if you do not answer - we could get into UAV territory).

 

Do you think there are pharma shills on the vax forum?

post #2 of 58
For the sake of clarification, a pharma shill is someone who is paid by pharmacuetical companies (or others) with financial interest in encouraging sales of vaccines or western prescription or OTC medicine, right?

I'm guessing that would fall under the definition of spam, and I have definitely banned a fair share of viagra sales people. Also, I am fairly certain that none of our advertisers or insiders are associated with pharmaceutical companies.
post #3 of 58
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosaic View Post

For the sake of clarification, a pharma shill is someone who is paid by pharmacuetical companies (or others) with financial interest in encouraging sales of vaccines or western prescription or OTC medicine, right?
 

Yes - correct.  

 

From wikipedia:

 

 

"Shill" typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that he is an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) for whom he is secretly working. The person or group who hires the shill is using crowd psychology, to encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services (or accept the ideas being marketed)."

post #4 of 58
So this thread is about pharma shills and their potential actions on this board and not at all about any pro-vax members or specific posts or posting habits, because that would of course be against the user agreement. smile.gif

I guess a poll about whether or not folks think pharmaceutical representatives are lurking on MDC is within the UA; but it's a fine, fragile line, ladies, so proceed with caution!!
post #5 of 58
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosaic View Post

So this thread is about pharma shills and their potential actions on this board and not at all about any pro-vax members or specific posts or posting habits, because that would of course be against the user agreement. smile.gif
I guess a poll about whether or not folks think pharmaceutical representatives are lurking on MDC is within the UA; but it's a fine, fragile line, ladies, so proceed with caution!!

Bolding mine.  You got it!  That is the intent of the poll. 

post #6 of 58
And I'm sure this poll will be completely accurate and unbiased, considering what section it's in.
post #7 of 58
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

And I'm sure this poll will be completely accurate and unbiased, considering what section it's in.

I am not conducting a study, Rachel.  I am interested in the opinion of other non-vaxxers.  

 

I also do not want a shrill debate or finger pointing on the topic, hence why it is not in vaccine debate.  It is not an issue for debate - it is pretty much a yes/no/maybe question.

post #8 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

And I'm sure this poll will be completely accurate and unbiased, considering what section it's in.

ROTFLMAO.gifseriously? 

 

ANYWAY. I know there have been in the past. A couple years ago I had one admit she was one to me via PM -  she was banned after a few posts anyway. They usually are and the shills/trolls are fairly easy to spot IMO and never last for more than a few posts because they cannot or will not follow the UA. 

post #9 of 58
Maybe.

I'm trying to proceed on forums with the same level of caution that I use offline, assuming neither the inherent goodness nor the inherent nefariousness of anybody and trying to walk that fine line between naive Pollyanna and cynical Scrooge. Some cases make me raise my eyebrow more than others, but I keep all possibilities about all people open. Since it's impossible to deny that the Internet has shills, why wouldn't they be here? MDC would be such fertile ground, such an obvious choice..
post #10 of 58

If the post is only about pharma reps lurking, as per Mosaic's guidelines, then they would not be shills because they would not be trying to "encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services (or accept the ideas being marketed)".  If it is about people who are participating in the forum, then it is about current posters and is against the rules.  I respectfully request that the mods re-evaluate this thread.

post #11 of 58
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

ROTFLMAO.gifseriously? 

 

They usually are and the shills/trolls are fairly easy to spot IMO and never last for more than a few posts because they cannot or will not follow the UA. 

Huh.  I think trolls (and not the kind from TWWS) are pretty easy to spot. They just want to make trouble.

 

Shills might be more invested in bringing people over to the dark side (or light side, depending on your POV smile.gif) and a little more subtle.

post #12 of 58
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

If the post is only about pharma reps lurking, as per Mosaic's guidelines, then they would not be shills because they would not be trying to "encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services (or accept the ideas being marketed)".  If it is about people who are participating in the forum, then it is about current posters and is against the rules.  I respectfully request that the mods re-evaluate this thread.

 

Mosaic did not say lurking.  She said "Pharma shills and their potential actions on this board."

post #13 of 58
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

Maybe.
I'm trying to proceed on forums with the same level of caution that I use offline, assuming neither the inherent goodness nor the inherent nefariousness of anybody and trying to walk that fine line between naive Pollyanna and cynical Scrooge. Some cases make me raise my eyebrow more than others, but I keep all possibilities about all people open.

 

"Maybe" was my vote as well.

 

A year ago I would have voted no.

 

It can be really hard to figure out what's what on the internet.

post #14 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

Mosaic did not say lurking.  She said "Pharma shills and their potential actions on this board."

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosaic View Post

So this thread is about pharma shills and their potential actions on this board and not at all about any pro-vax members or specific posts or posting habits, because that would of course be against the user agreement. smile.gif
I guess a poll about whether or not folks think pharmaceutical representatives are lurking on MDC is within the UA; but it's a fine, fragile line, ladies, so proceed with caution!!
post #15 of 58
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

 

I missed that part.  None-the-less lurking can mean lurking (as in reading and not posting) or it could just mean "are here."

 

Mosaic?

post #16 of 58

I think the best way to make an informed decision about this is to give an example in the OP.  I don't think I've come across anything as of late that I would considered a pharmaceutical representative but maybe I have and I just haven't been paying attention. 

post #17 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

If the post is only about pharma reps lurking, as per Mosaic's guidelines, then they would not be shills because they would not be trying to "encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services (or accept the ideas being marketed)".  If it is about people who are participating in the forum, then it is about current posters and is against the rules.  I respectfully request that the mods re-evaluate this thread.

If you read their posts on other sites, ie commenting on anti-vax blogs, facebook etc, they aren't spamming or trying to sell a product. They are very easy to spot because of the inflammatory content of their posts, no real arugements just insults. No one has said regular posters are pharma shills.

post #18 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Poll.

 

Just answer the poll - no response required (indeed it is probably better if you do not answer - we could get into UAV territory).

 

Do you think there are pharma shills on the vax forum?

Why would pharma shills hang out a board that is incredibly anti vax?  If they were looking to boost profits they'd go hang out on baby center or just work on new ad campaigns.  It would be a huge waste of money for them to pay people to hang out here.

post #19 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Honey693 View Post

Why would pharma shills hang out a board that is incredibly anti vax?  If they were looking to boost profits they'd go hang out on baby center or just work on new ad campaigns.  It would be a huge waste of money for them to pay people to hang out here.

 

That is exactly my first thought.  I makes no logical sense that they'd come here because it would be an incredible uphill battle.  Instead, they would seek out more mainstream "on the fence" people.

post #20 of 58
Dear pharma shills: if you're here, trust me, you're wasting your time.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: I'm Not Vaccinating
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › I'm Not Vaccinating › Pharma shills