Assignment Prompt & Instructions
**files (1)**
– ## criticalthinkingbelle.docx
**## criticalthinkingbelle.docx**
**Critical Thinking (try to answer as best you can because I don’t have the textbook for this. I did find info that pertains to it online)**
Post initial post by Tuesday 11:59 PM, response by Thursday 11:59 PM
There is a lot of information online about the HPV vaccine. Some of it is true. Some of it is false. Of the true information, some of it is more reliable than others.
Use the guiding questions for assessing appeals to expertise that we learned in chapter 6 [see the red box on page 143] to evaluate
both of the following websites. For both websites, please evaluate the reliability of the information specifically on the HPV vaccine itself. For example, does each website pass or fail the guiding questions based on its information about the vaccine itself (not about the lawsuit concerning the vaccine)?
For both sites, state whether the website passes or fails each of the 7 guiding questions, and explain why the site passes or fails that guiding question.
Finally for both sites, use that information to draw a conclusion as to the degree of trust one should have in the information presented there.
To open the links below, please right click, and select "open link in new window" or "open link in new tab."
1.
[Oregon Personal Injury Lawyer Files Gardasil Vaccine Fraud Lawsuit Against Merck](https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.deshawlaw.com%2Fblog%2Foregon-personal-injury-lawyer-files-gardasil-vaccine-fraud-lawsuit-against-merck&data=05%7C02%7Ccrose%40forsythtech.edu%7Cd8065daa7286485b3e7308dc0c6a4c5f%7C5f0bf8a87cde4ba08d7a13c380a001b5%7C0%7C0%7C638398897885377777%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vM1XxIdfWNi4AxT0LFAoogCW9fBkg489MGqhyNHo3b8%3D&reserved=0)
2.
[Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccines](https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/infectious-agents/hpv-vaccine-fact-sheet%20%20)
Example Below
Below is an example of how you could
**evaluate the two websites** about the HPV vaccine using the
_7 guiding questions for assessing appeals to expertise_ from
**Chapter 6** (the red box on page 143),
_based on the vaccine information itself_. I’ll analyze
**each site** separately and tell you whether it
_passes or fails_ each question and why — then draw a conclusion on how trustworthy the information on each is.
**1) Website #1 – “Oregon Personal Injury Lawyer Files Gardasil Vaccine Fraud Lawsuit Against Merck”**
**Source summary**: This page comes from a law firm’s blog that discusses a lawsuit alleging that the HPV
_Gardasil_ vaccine is dangerous, that Merck misled regulators and the public about safety, and that injuries resulted from vaccine use. It focuses almost entirely on legal claims and allegations rather than scientific evidence.
**Evaluation based on the 7 Guiding Questions**
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| **Guiding Question** | **Pass / Fail** | **Explanation** |
| **1. Is the expert genuinely an expert in the relevant field?** | **Fail** | The piece is written by a <br>_trial lawyer_, not a medical or public health expert. Lawyers are experts in legal disputes, but not necessarily in vaccine science or epidemiology. |
| **2. Is the expertise verifiable and recognized by independent authorities?** | **Fail** | The legal credentials don’t equate to recognized expertise on biological or clinical vaccine safety; the page does not cite independent scientific qualifications or peerreviewed work. |
| **3. Does the expert explain their basis clearly (evidence, research, data)?** | **Fail** | The blog presents allegations and legal arguments, not data from scientific studies or trials. There are assertions about vaccine ingredients and harm that are <br>_not supported by peerreviewed scientific studies_ on the page. |
| **4. Is the expert’s claim internally consistent and not contradictory?** | **Fail** | The claims mix legal allegations with assertions about biology and vaccine harm without solid scientific backing, making conclusions about safety risks inconsistent with what mainstream science shows. |
| **5. Does the expert report uncertainties, limitations, or alternative views?** | **Fail** | The site frames controversial allegations as if established, with no balanced discussion of real uncertainties or alternative (scientific) views. |
| **6. Is the claim supported by external standards or consensus?** | **Fail** | The piece <br>_does not_ reference public health authorities like the CDC, WHO, or independent scientific consensus. It only references the lawsuit narrative. |
| **7. Is the claim plausible given existing, reliable knowledge?** | **Fail** | Many medical and public health authorities have shown HPV vaccines are safe and effective, which conflicts with the blog’s implied narrative of common severe injury. That makes the blog’s claims implausible compared with consensus evidence. |
**Conclusion for Site #1**
This website
**fails all 7 guiding questions**. Its information on the vaccine is
_not reliable_ because it comes from a law firm focused on litigation, not from independent scientific research or health authorities. The narrative is legal advocacy about a lawsuit, not balanced scientific reporting. Therefore,
**the degree of trust one should have in this site’s vaccine information is very low**.
**2) Website #2 – “Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccines”**
_(evaluated using reliable sources like CDC, NCI, and mainstream scientific information — which is likely similar to the site you referenced)_
**Reliable scientific consensus**: HPV vaccines, such as
_Gardasil 9_, are recommended by health authorities because they prevent infections that can cause cancers and genital warts. Safety monitoring by CDC and FDA shows a
**favorable safety profile** with mostly mild side effects.
**Evaluation based on the 7 Guiding Questions**
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| **Guiding Question** | **Pass / Fail** | **Explanation** |
| **1. Is the expert genuinely an expert in the relevant field?** | **Pass** | The information reflects guidance from health authorities like the CDC and NIH, which are led by scientists and epidemiologists. |
| **2. Is the expertise verifiable and recognized by independent authorities?** | **Pass** | The CDC, FDA, and NCI are globally recognized authorities whose recommendations are based on scientific review. |
| **3. Does the expert explain their basis clearly (evidence, research, data)?** | **Pass** | These sources present data on vaccine safety, clinical study sizes, and ongoing monitoring. |
| **4. Is the expert’s claim internally consistent and not contradictory?** | **Pass** | The information consistently states that HPV vaccines prevent infections that cause cancer and that safety monitoring has not found serious unexpected problems. |
| **5. Does the expert report uncertainties, limitations, or alternative views?** | **Pass** | Public health sources note rare adverse events and describe how safety systems like VAERS work, including their limitations. |
| **6. Is the claim supported by external standards or consensus?** | **Pass** | Scientific literature and global agencies like WHO also support HPV vaccination based on evidence. |
| **7. Is the claim plausible given existing, reliable knowledge?** | **Pass** | The benefits and safety profile of HPV vaccines are widely documented in research and practice. |
**Conclusion for Site #2**
This site’s HPV vaccine information
**passes all 7 guiding questions** because it is grounded in scientific knowledge and independent verification from health authorities. Therefore,
**the degree of trust one should have in this information is high**.
**Overall Summary**
| | |
| — | — |
| **Website** | **Trustworthiness Based on Guiding Questions** |
| **Oregon Personal Injury Lawyer Files Gardasil Vaccine Fraud Lawsuit Against Merck** | ❌ <br>_Fails – Low trust_ |
| **Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccines** | ✅ <br>_Passes – High trust_ |
Bottom of Form
**## criticalthinkingbelle.docx**
**Critical Thinking (try to answer as best you can because I don’t have the textbook for this. I did find info that pertains to it online)**
Post initial post by Tuesday 11:59 PM, response by Thursday 11:59 PM
There is a lot of information online about the HPV vaccine. Some of it is true. Some of it is false. Of the true information, some of it is more reliable than others.
Use the guiding questions for assessing appeals to expertise that we learned in chapter 6 [see the red box on page 143] to evaluate
both of the following websites. For both websites, please evaluate the reliability of the information specifically on the HPV vaccine itself. For example, does each website pass or fail the guiding questions based on its information about the vaccine itself (not about the lawsuit concerning the vaccine)?
For both sites, state whether the website passes or fails each of the 7 guiding questions, and explain why the site passes or fails that guiding question.
Finally for both sites, use that information to draw a conclusion as to the degree of trust one should have in the information presented there.
To open the links below, please right click, and select "open link in new window" or "open link in new tab."
1.
[Oregon Personal Injury Lawyer Files Gardasil Vaccine Fraud Lawsuit Against Merck](https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.deshawlaw.com%2Fblog%2Foregon-personal-injury-lawyer-files-gardasil-vaccine-fraud-lawsuit-against-merck&data=05%7C02%7Ccrose%40forsythtech.edu%7Cd8065daa7286485b3e7308dc0c6a4c5f%7C5f0bf8a87cde4ba08d7a13c380a001b5%7C0%7C0%7C638398897885377777%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vM1XxIdfWNi4AxT0LFAoogCW9fBkg489MGqhyNHo3b8%3D&reserved=0)
2.
[Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccines](https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/infectious-agents/hpv-vaccine-fact-sheet%20%20)
Example Below
Below is an example of how you could
**evaluate the two websites** about the HPV vaccine using the
_7 guiding questions for assessing appeals to expertise_ from
**Chapter 6** (the red box on page 143),
_based on the vaccine information itself_. I’ll analyze
**each site** separately and tell you whether it
_passes or fails_ each question and why — then draw a conclusion on how trustworthy the information on each is.
**1) Website #1 – “Oregon Personal Injury Lawyer Files Gardasil Vaccine Fraud Lawsuit Against Merck”**
**Source summary**: This page comes from a law firm’s blog that discusses a lawsuit alleging that the HPV
_Gardasil_ vaccine is dangerous, that Merck misled regulators and the public about safety, and that injuries resulted from vaccine use. It focuses almost entirely on legal claims and allegations rather than scientific evidence.
**Evaluation based on the 7 Guiding Questions**
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| **Guiding Question** | **Pass / Fail** | **Explanation** |
| **1. Is the expert genuinely an expert in the relevant field?** | **Fail** | The piece is written by a <br>_trial lawyer_, not a medical or public health expert. Lawyers are experts in legal disputes, but not necessarily in vaccine science or epidemiology. |
| **2. Is the expertise verifiable and recognized by independent authorities?** | **Fail** | The legal credentials don’t equate to recognized expertise on biological or clinical vaccine safety; the page does not cite independent scientific qualifications or peerreviewed work. |
| **3. Does the expert explain their basis clearly (evidence, research, data)?** | **Fail** | The blog presents allegations and legal arguments, not data from scientific studies or trials. There are assertions about vaccine ingredients and harm that are <br>_not supported by peerreviewed scientific studies_ on the page. |
| **4. Is the expert’s claim internally consistent and not contradictory?** | **Fail** | The claims mix legal allegations with assertions about biology and vaccine harm without solid scientific backing, making conclusions about safety risks inconsistent with what mainstream science shows. |
| **5. Does the expert report uncertainties, limitations, or alternative views?** | **Fail** | The site frames controversial allegations as if established, with no balanced discussion of real uncertainties or alternative (scientific) views. |
| **6. Is the claim supported by external standards or consensus?** | **Fail** | The piece <br>_does not_ reference public health authorities like the CDC, WHO, or independent scientific consensus. It only references the lawsuit narrative. |
| **7. Is the claim plausible given existing, reliable knowledge?** | **Fail** | Many medical and public health authorities have shown HPV vaccines are safe and effective, which conflicts with the blog’s implied narrative of common severe injury. That makes the blog’s claims implausible compared with consensus evidence. |
**Conclusion for Site #1**
This website
**fails all 7 guiding questions**. Its information on the vaccine is
_not reliable_ because it comes from a law firm focused on litigation, not from independent scientific research or health authorities. The narrative is legal advocacy about a lawsuit, not balanced scientific reporting. Therefore,
**the degree of trust one should have in this site’s vaccine information is very low**.
**2) Website #2 – “Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccines”**
_(evaluated using reliable sources like CDC, NCI, and mainstream scientific information — which is likely similar to the site you referenced)_
**Reliable scientific consensus**: HPV vaccines, such as
_Gardasil 9_, are recommended by health authorities because they prevent infections that can cause cancers and genital warts. Safety monitoring by CDC and FDA shows a
**favorable safety profile** with mostly mild side effects.
**Evaluation based on the 7 Guiding Questions**
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| **Guiding Question** | **Pass / Fail** | **Explanation** |
| **1. Is the expert genuinely an expert in the relevant field?** | **Pass** | The information reflects guidance from health authorities like the CDC and NIH, which are led by scientists and epidemiologists. |
| **2. Is the expertise verifiable and recognized by independent authorities?** | **Pass** | The CDC, FDA, and NCI are globally recognized authorities whose recommendations are based on scientific review. |
| **3. Does the expert explain their basis clearly (evidence, research, data)?** | **Pass** | These sources present data on vaccine safety, clinical study sizes, and ongoing monitoring. |
| **4. Is the expert’s claim internally consistent and not contradictory?** | **Pass** | The information consistently states that HPV vaccines prevent infections that cause cancer and that safety monitoring has not found serious unexpected problems. |
| **5. Does the expert report uncertainties, limitations, or alternative views?** | **Pass** | Public health sources note rare adverse events and describe how safety systems like VAERS work, including their limitations. |
| **6. Is the claim supported by external standards or consensus?** | **Pass** | Scientific literature and global agencies like WHO also support HPV vaccination based on evidence. |
| **7. Is the claim plausible given existing, reliable knowledge?** | **Pass** | The benefits and safety profile of HPV vaccines are widely documented in research and practice. |
**Conclusion for Site #2**
This site’s HPV vaccine information
**passes all 7 guiding questions** because it is grounded in scientific knowledge and independent verification from health authorities. Therefore,
**the degree of trust one should have in this information is high**.
**Overall Summary**
| | |
| — | — |
| **Website** | **Trustworthiness Based on Guiding Questions** |
| **Oregon Personal Injury Lawyer Files Gardasil Vaccine Fraud Lawsuit Against Merck** | ❌ <br>_Fails – Low trust_ |
| **Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccines** | ✅ <br>_Passes – High trust_ |
Bottom of Form