The central claim made in the pamphlet is that vaccinations to children put them at risk of harm from the bacteria. The idea behind this claim is that inserting bacteria into a child is not natural …show more content…
The abstract discusses how the authors examined the effects “of vaccination for diphtheria; polio; pertussis and tetanus; or measles, mumps, and rubella on the incidence of physician-diagnosed asthma and eczema.” (McKeever, T. M., Lewis, S. A., Smith, C., & Hubbard, R., 2004) In their findings, they stated that the “association between vaccination and the development of allergic disease...was present only among children with the fewest physician visits.” (McKeever, T. M., Lewis, S. A., Smith, C., & Hubbard, R., 2004) This statement counteracts with what is stated in the pamphlet. When I searched the article, I was redirected to Google Scholar and shown the scholarly article written by McKeever, Lewis, Smith, & Hubbard. The article was cited 65 times after publication, which shows that there is credit to the citation. While the citation seems to be credible, the context of the citation was taken out of place to fit Koren’s meaning of the impacts of …show more content…
They are vaccinations for outbreaks, for maternal needs, travel needs, and population needs. The CDC has the most up-to-date schedule on their websites on which vaccinations the public should be receiving in order to live a healthy lifestyle. The CDC believes that vaccines prevent dangerous illnesses that can be fatal. On their website, they include standard pricing and how the vaccines work in your body. They have ingredients and all the health risks laid out for parents that are skeptical of the vaccination for the child. They also provide videos for convenience that explains more about vaccinations and the benefits of being vaccinated in this