These sources consist of legitimate science or are evidence based through the use of credible scientific sourcing. Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased, and does not use emotional words. These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer-reviewed science. Some sources in this category may have a slight political bias but adhere to scientific principles. See all Pro-Science sources.
- Overall, Vaxopedia is a pro-science source that properly sources and adheres to the consensus of science regarding vaccines.
Bias Rating: PRO-SCIENCE
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
Funded by / Ownership
The website is owned by Dr. Iannelli and does not appear to seek revenue, as there is no advertising or a donation link.
Analysis / Bias
In review, Dr. Iannelli’s main purpose is to debunk anti-vax myths and provide parents and people, in general, with sound scientific knowledge about vaccines. The website features the Vaxopedia – A to Z Index, which lists, in order, facts, myths, and scientific answers such as this: Aborted baby parts in vaccines? This report indicates that baby parts are not in vaccines and uses proper sources such as the CDC for evidence. The website also features a blog that publishes articles such as Remembering the Measles Epidemics of the 1990s, which shows the correlation between a lack of vaccinations and measles outbreaks.
Failed Fact Checks
- None in the Last 5 years
Overall, Vaxopedia is a pro-science source that properly sources and adheres to the consensus of science regarding vaccines. (D. Van Zandt 5/3/2019) Updated (11/07/2022)
Last Updated on November 7, 2022 by Media Bias Fact Check