The following post appeared on a public health campaign's social media page: 'New research confirms that vaccines are safe and effective. A study of 1.2 mil...

(a) One fact and one opinion in the post [2]

Fact [1]: "A study of 1.2 million children found no link between childhood vaccinations and developmental disorders." This is a verifiable claim based on reported research data that can be checked against the published study.

Opinion [1]: "Trust the science" or "Protect your family." These are instructions or recommendations that express a value judgement about what people should do, rather than verifiable statements of fact.

(b) Why the instruction to "share this message with everyone you know" might reduce credibility [3]

The call to share widely resembles a marketing or propaganda technique designed to maximise reach rather than encourage careful evaluation of the evidence [1]. It asks the reader to act as a distributor of the message without first verifying the claims independently, which prioritises persuasion over informed understanding [1]. This makes the post feel more like an advertisement or a viral campaign than a neutral information source, reducing its perceived objectivity and academic credibility [1].

(c) Two features of reliable scientific evidence [4]

Any two of the following, each worth [2]:

1. Peer review: The research should be published in a peer-reviewed journal, meaning independent experts have assessed the methodology, data analysis, and conclusions before publication. This quality control process reduces the risk of flawed or biased findings reaching the public [1+1].
2. Adequate sample size: The study should include enough participants to draw statistically meaningful conclusions. The post's reference to 1.2 million children is a strength in this regard, as large samples reduce the likelihood that results are due to chance [1+1].
3. Transparent methodology: The research methods should be clearly explained so that other scientists can replicate the study and verify the results. Without methodological transparency, readers cannot assess whether the conclusions are justified by the evidence [1+1].
4. Declared conflicts of interest: Researchers should disclose any financial or institutional relationships that could influence their findings. Undeclared conflicts undermine trust in the objectivity of the results [1+1].

(d) Arguments for and against the view that social media is not trustworthy for health information [3]

For [1-2]: Social media posts can be written by anyone regardless of qualifications, may not be fact-checked before publication, and are promoted by algorithms that prioritise engagement (likes, shares, comments) over accuracy. Misinformation spreads rapidly on these platforms, and users may struggle to distinguish verified health information from unsubstantiated claims.

Against [1-2]: Health organisations, scientists, and public health agencies increasingly use social media to share verified information quickly and reach large audiences. The post in question does reference a large-scale study of 1.2 million children, which is a legitimate scientific basis for its claims. The platform is not inherently untrustworthy; the reliability depends on who is posting and whether their claims are grounded in evidence.