How do you decide whether a website is credible?

"You would believe that, it fits your view, I do not.

This website is a barely veiled attempt to portray an anti-vaccination site as credible. It has obviously fooled you.

IMO the website is full of misinformation, I'm sure others can make up their own minds.

spud"



Regarding this website:

http://www.novaccine.com/


Obvious? What is obvious? And to who and why does it matter?

"It has obviously fooled you."

This is your opinion and I'm open to looking at any rationale for your belief that this website is not credible. I frequently re-evaluate my opinions on the basis of new info. (But I also get suspicious when opinions are stated as if they're facts, with no evidence). And I often wonder who will believe opinions that are given without any detailed rationale as to how this opinion was formed and with no evidence that this opinion is correct.

Of course we all make up our own minds as to who and what we believe.
I may think that you've been fooled when you read info from pro-medical websites and believe what they say. I won't say so because frankly, I think it's kind of arrogant. It seems that you think that you have a better system for figuring out what's true and credible than I do. And that may not be so ...

You'll have to give me more information than just your opinion for me to take such statements seriously. If you present a detailed explanation with examples of lies on this site, I'll be more than open to re-evaluating my opinion.

What I do is look at the content of an article and the credentials of the person who wrote it and I'll also look at whether they receive financial benefits from pharmaceutical and vaccine-making companies.

If you take a look at the credentials of the people running the WAVE website and the way it's laid out, you may change your mind about its credibility. Either way, it's a moot point because it doesn't matter if you think I've been fooled or if I think you have been.

I think that this site is a credible source which is transparent in stating that it's giving the other side of the story (in a professional way and from extremely well-qualified people) that we won't hear from our doctors and the vaccine-makers.

Instead of just saying that I think the site is a valuable source of info, I'm going to give a detailed explanation of why I think so.

I don't want my post to get "lost" in this long thread, so I'm posting it as a new post here:

//www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1826103#i

Tweet