Perhaps a better choice of words instead of "shill" would be "biased".  As the name implies, Sciencebasedmedicine is very much biased in favor of mainstream medicine.  I have read many articles and posts on their site, have posted there myself, and have seen how they react in favor of mainstream medicine when virtually anything negative is said about particular drugs and therapies or whenever anything positive is said in favor of alternative and natural healing, such as the false and scurrilous hit piece they published against the results from the NIH's NCAM studies thus far.

Of course they are going to be able to pick and choose plenty of "peer-reviewed" studies to back up their bias (though I would point out that the study quoted in the Natural News article was a peer-reviewed one). Positive studies about mainstream medicine and negative studies about alternatives are where the money is.  Hundreds of times more money than is available for truly independent studies (such as we both agree are needed in regards to vaccine safety).  The system is set up to favor mainstream medicine.   Researchers and entire institutions who don't play ball and produce the desired results often find themselves blackballed and excluded from future studies, which are the lifeblood of many institutions and researchers.

In years past, one could have conducted their own research into the safety of drugs like Vioxx, Avandia, Fosamax. Prozac, etc. and easily come away with the conclusion that they were relatively safe and effective.  After all, that is what the preponderance of "peer reviewed" studies said.  As has been the case with those and many other drugs, the studies proved to be wrong (and in many instances fraudulent).

Also as the name implies, Natural News is very much biased in favor of natural healing and against unnatural mainstream drugs.  And yes, they do tend to sensationalize - especially when it comes to the headlines chosen.  But the same is true when it comes to much of what we see in mainstream news.  And I would point out that Natural News had the same bias and the same kind of articles before they ever had a single sponsor.  They also have a pretty strict prohibition against their writers including product names in their articles.

Speaking of Natural News and peer-reviewed studies, I wrote the following article for Natural News which is germaine to the question of putting too much faith in peer-reviewed studies:

Top Researcher Finds Medical Studies to be Largely Wrong or Fraudulent

I am not arguing the validity of the study in question - it is easy to see that other factors likely play a part.  To paraphrase one comment posted beneath the article, perhaps if there were better health care and nutrition there would be less need for so many vaccines.  On the other hand, I can argue all day and night long about vaccine safety.  One simply has to look at the ingredients to know that they aren't completely safe.  If they were, then there would not be adverse reactions reported for virtually every vaccine out there.  As the former head of the National Institute of Health said, "the only safe vaccine is one which is not administered".