Sei sulla pagina 1di 5

Aluminum in vaccines: Does it create a safety problem? (2018, August 20).

Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X18311654?via=ihub

This article was available on August 20, 2018. It was received December 10, 2017,
received in revised form on August 3, 2018, and accepted August 15, 2018. Older sources could
be used as well since aluminum has been used in vaccines for a long time, so research on earlier
cases could be useful. The links are functional as well. The audience is people who have
concerns or questions about whether or not aluminum in vaccines is safe. The information is at
an appropriate level. I have looked at other sources before this one and would feel comfortable
citing this source in my paper. The authors are Nicola Principi and Susanna Esposito. ​The
publisher is Elsevier Ltd. ​Their credentials are at ​Emeritus of Pediatrics, Università degli Studi di
Milano, Milan, Italy and Pediatric Clinic, Department of Surgical and Biomedical Sciences,
Università degli Studi di Perugia, Perugia, Italy. There is contact information.The authors are
qualified because they have medical background. The URL is .com but converted to PDF. The
information is from Italy. There is evidence supporting the information and it has been reviewed.
This can be verified in the sourced referenced at the end of the article. The language is unbiased
and there are very few grammatical errors. The purpose is to inform and the purpose is clear.
There are no biases in the source.

Jiménez, Á V., Stubbersfield, J. M., & Tehrani, J. J. (2018). An experimental investigation into
the transmission of antivax attitudes using a fictional health controversy. ​Social Science &
Medicine,215​, 23-27. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.08.032

This article was accepted August 26, 2018. It was received November 30, 2017, received
in revision on August 17, 2018, and available online on August 30, 2018. Older sources could be
used for the history of vaccines. The links are functional for this article. This information relates
to my topic. The intended audience is people interested in the controversy over vaccines. The
information is at an appropriate level. I have looked at other sources before this one and would
feel comfortable citing this in my paper. The authors are Ángel V. Jiménez, Joseph M.
Stubbersfield, and Jamshid J. Tehrani. The publisher is Elsevier Ltd. These authors are credible
because they have scientific background. Their credentials are Durham University, Centre for the
Coevolution of Biology and Culture, Department of Anthropology, UK, Durham University,
Conspiracy Theories in Health Special Interest Group, Wolfson Research Institute for Health and
Wellbeing, UK, and Human Behaviour and Cultural Evolution Group, Department of
Biosciences, University of Exeter, UK. There is contact information. The url is .com in PDF
form. The information comes from the UK. The information is supported by evidence and has
been reviewed. I can verify their information in the sources cited. The participants were biased
but the article is not. There are very few grammatical errors. The purpose is to see if the anti vs
pro vaccination was better transmitted. The information is an experiment based on opinion. The
authors do not use personal bias.

Bianco, A., Mascaro, V., Zucco, R., & Pavia, M. (2019). Parent perspectives on childhood
vaccination: How to deal with vaccine hesitancy and refusal? ​Vaccine,37​(7), 984-990.
doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.12.062

This article accepted December 21, 2018 and available online January 14, 2019. It was
received August 4, 2018 and received in revised form on December 12, 2018. Older
sources could work for the history of vaccines. The links are functional. The information
relates closely to my topic and the intended audience is people who want to know both
sides of vaccinations. The information is at an appropriate level. I looked at other sources
before this one and would be comfortable citing it in my paper. The authors are Aida
Bianco, Valentina Mascaro, Rossella Zucco, and Maria Pavia. The publisher is Elsevier
Ltd. These authors are credible because they have health sciences background. Their
credentials are at the Department of Health Sciences, University of Catanzaro ‘‘Magna
Græcia”, Catanzaro, Italy. There is contact information. The url is .com in PDF form.
This information comes from Italy and is supported by evidence. The information is
reviewed and can be verified in their sources. The language is unbiased and there are few
grammatical errors. To purpose is to inform about the opinions of the two sides. They
make the purpose clear and the information is statistical. There is no bias from the
authors.

Immunogenicity and safety of measles-mumps-rubella vaccine at two different potency levels


administered to healthy children aged 12–15 months: A phase III, randomized,
non-inferiority trial. (2018, August 10). Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X1831096X?via=ihub

This article was accepted July 30, 2018 and available online August 10, 2018. It was
received 21 February 2018 and received in revised form 23 July 2018. Older sources could be
used for the history of vaccines and background about measles, mumps, and rubella. The links
are functional. It relates t o my topic by giving an example. The intended audience is parents or
people who want to know more about the vaccine. The author is the MMR-161 Study Group.
The publisher is Elsevier Ltd. They are credible because they specialize in the MMR research.
There is no contact info and the url is .com or .org. The information comes from the MMR study
group and is supported by evidence. Information can be verified in their sources. The language is
unbiased and factual. There are few grammatical errors. The purpose is to inform about the
potency and immune response between the two vaccines. The purpose is clear and unbiased.

Incidence of outcomes relevant to vaccine safety monitoring in a US commercially-insured


population. (2018, November 15). Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X1831418X?via=ihub

This article was accepted 15 October 2018 and available online 15 November 2018. It
was received 2 August 2018 and received in revised form 14 October 2018. The topic does not
require older sources and the links are functional. This information barely relates to my topic but
could be a solution to the issue. The intended audience is people who want to know more about
vaccine safety monitoring. The information is appropriate and other sources were looked at prior.
I would be comfortable citing this if I can find information to support my purpose. The authors
are Daina Esposito, Lina Titievsky, Daniel C. Beachler, Jennifer C.L.Hawes, Raul Isturiz, Daniel
A. Scott, Kelsey Gangemi, Robert Maroko, Cassandra K. Hall-Murray, and Stephan Lanes. They
are credible because they have a health background. Their credentials are HealthCore Inc.,
Andover MA 01810, USAbPfizer Inc., and USAcHealthCore Inc. This information comes from
the USA. The publisher is Elsevier Ltd. There is contact information and the url is .com in PDF
form. The information comes from the US and is supported by evidence. You can verify the
information with the sources listed at the bottom. The tone is unbiased and has few grammatical
errors. The purpose is to inform about vaccine safety monitoring. The purpose is not extremely
clear, but is based on facts.

Marti, M., de Cola, M., MacDonald, N. E., Dumolard, L., & Duclos, P. (2017). Assessments of
global drivers of vaccine hesitancy in 2014—Looking beyond safety concerns. ​PLoS
ONE​, ​12​(3), 1–12. https://doi-org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.1371/journal.pone.0172310

This article was published March 1, 2017. It was received July 19, 2016 and accepted
February 2, 2017. It was not revised. The article is based on 2014 statistics, so older sources can
be relevant. The links are functional, but you much be signed in to ebscohost for it to work. It
can be downloaded as a pdf. The information relates to my topic by giving a different side of the
anti-vaccines besides just the safety concerns. The intended audience is people who want to
know the reasons why some choose not to receive vaccines. The information is at appropriate
level and other sources were looked at prior. I would feel pretty comfortable citing this in my
paper. The authors are Melanie Marti, Monica de Cola, Noni E. MacDonald, Laure Dumolard,
and Philippe Duclos. Their credentials are at the Department of Immunization, Vaccines and
Biologicals, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, and the Department of
Paediatrics, Dalhousie University, IWK Health Centre and Canadian Center for Vaccinology,
Halifax, Canada. The article is copyrighted. They are qualified to write about this because they
work in the vaccine and health industry. There is contact information and the url is .edu. The
information comes from Switzerland and Canada and is supported by evidence. The information
can be verified in the sources cited. The language is unbiased and factual and there are few
grammatical errors. The purpose is to explain the anti vaccine argument not relating to just safety
reasons. The purpose is clear.

McCollum ED, Nambiar B, Deula R, Zadutsa B, Bondo A, et al. (2017) Impact of the 13-Valent
Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine on Clinical and Hypoxemic Childhood Pneumonia
over Three Years in Central Malawi: An Observational Study. PLOS ONE 12(1):
e0168209. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168209

This article was received on 14 June 2015 and accepted on 6 January 2016. It was
published online 12 January, 2016. It was not revised. Current information is needed for this
study so only older sources could be used for background on the vaccine. The links are
functional if you are logged into ebscohost. The information relates to my topic by giving a
specific example of a childhood vaccine. The intended audience is parents with kids who have
asthma or people who are interested on the topic. The information is appropriate but a little
advanced. I looked at other sources before this and would feel comfortable citing it in my paper.
The authors are the Italian Pneumococcal Study Group on Asthma. They all have the right
credentials and are reliable because they work with the medical field. The publisher is Esposito
et al. BMC Infectious Diseases. The url is .edu. The information comes from Italy and is
supported by evidence. The information can be verified in the cited sources and the language is
very slightly biased. There are few grammatical errors. The purpose was to inform about the
effects of a specific vaccine for children. The purpose is clear and based on facts.

Parasidis, E., & Opel, D. J. (2017). Parental Refusal of Childhood Vaccines and Medical Neglect
Laws. ​American Journal of Public Health​, ​107​(1), 68–71.
https://doi-org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303500

This article was published on January 1, 2017 and was peer reviewed. The topic relies on
current sources. The links are functional when signed into ebscohost. The information barely
relates to my topic. The intended audience is child protective services, parents, and health care
professionals. The information is at an appropriate level and other sources were looked at prior. I
don’t know if I would be 100% comfortable citing this in my paper. The authors are Efthimios
Parasidis, JD, MBioethics, and Douglas J. Opel, MD, MPH. Their credentials are Efthimios
Parasidis is with the Moritz College of Law and the College of Public Health, The Ohio State
University, Columbus. Douglas J. Opel is with the Department of Pediatrics, University of
Washington School of Medicine, and Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle
Children’s Hospital, Seattle. They are reliable because of their medical background. There is
little contact information and the url is .edu. The information comes from the US and is slightly
biased, but has evidence as well. The information can be confirmed with the cited sources and
there are few grammatical errors. The purpose is to explain the correlation of vaccine refusal and
child neglect. The purpose is clear and factual for the most part.

Pottinger HL, Jacobs ET, Haenchen SD, Ernst KC (2018) Parental attitudes and perceptions
associated with childhood vaccine exemptions in high-exemption schools. PLoS ONE
13(6): e0198655. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. Pone.0198655

This article was received on December 14, 2016, accepted on May 21, 2018, and
published on June 14, 2018. It is copyrighted. It can require older sources for background
information. The links are functional. The information relates to my topic. The intended
audience is people who want to know why or why not parents decide to vaccinate their children.
The information is at an appropriate level and other sources were looked at prior. I would feel
comfortable citing this in my paper. The authors are Mel and Enid Zuckerman. Their credentials
are at the College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States of
America, and at the University of Arizona Cancer Center, University of Arizona, Tucson,
Arizona, United States of America. They are reliable because they have health and medical
backgrounds. The language is unbiased and there are few grammatical errors. The purpose is to
inform why parent choose to or choose not to vaccinate their children. The purpose is clear and
factual.
Wang, E., Baras, Y., & Buttenheim, A. M. (2015). “Everybody Just Wants to do What’s Best for
Their Child”: Understanding how pro-vaccine parents can support a culture of vaccine
hesitancy. ​Vaccine,33​(48), 6703-6709. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.10.090

This article was received on 13 August 2015, received in revised form on 7 October
2015, accepted on 16 October 2015, and available online on 27 October 2015. It required current
information on parent’s beliefs today but could include older sources for background or past
experiences. The links are functional. The intended audience is people who want to learn more
on why or why not parents decide to vaccinate their children. The information is appropriate and
other sources were looked at prior. I would feel comfortable citing this in my paper. The authors
are Eileen Wanga,, Yelena Baras, and Alison M. Buttenheim. Their credentials are at the
Department of History and Sociology of Science, University of Pennsylvania and the School of
Nursing, University of Pennsylvania. They are reliable because they have health backgrounds.
They are published by Elsevier Ltd. There is contact information and the url is .org or .com in
pdf form. The information comes from the US and is supported by evidence. The information
can be supported by the sources cited. The language is slightly biased and there are few
grammatical errors. The purpose is to explain the two sides and why parents are anti vaccines.
The purpose is kind of clear and is factual.

Potrebbero piacerti anche