Difference between revisions of "Talk:Vaccine"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
British cons (talk | contribs) |
(Blaylock Wellness Report) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I'm surprised. This is an acceptable article. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 13:37, 27 March 2007 (EDT) | I'm surprised. This is an acceptable article. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 13:37, 27 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
:Yes. it is. It actually tells me something.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:49, 5 April 2007 (EDT) | :Yes. it is. It actually tells me something.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:49, 5 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Blaylock Wellness Report == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Parts of the paragraph that used the Blaylock Wellness Report as a source is very questionable. The website itself is a promotion for subscribing to a paid newsletter; it has "points" that says why vaccine is bad - but no logical evidence to back it up. Discover "the truth behind Gulf War Syndrome"? A website like that shouldn't be trusted, let alone used as a source. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 15:12, 26 July 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 19:12, July 26, 2007
I'm surprised. This is an acceptable article. Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 13:37, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- Yes. it is. It actually tells me something.--British_cons (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Blaylock Wellness Report
Parts of the paragraph that used the Blaylock Wellness Report as a source is very questionable. The website itself is a promotion for subscribing to a paid newsletter; it has "points" that says why vaccine is bad - but no logical evidence to back it up. Discover "the truth behind Gulf War Syndrome"? A website like that shouldn't be trusted, let alone used as a source. ATang 15:12, 26 July 2007 (EDT)