[Anderson, T. 2017. Communicating science-based messages on vaccines. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 95, 670-671.10.2471/BLT.17.021017]Search in Google Scholar
[Black, S., Rappuoli R. 2010. A Crisis of Public Confidence in Vaccines. Science Translational Medicine 2(61), 61mr1.10.1126/scitranslmed.3001738]Search in Google Scholar
[Ceccarelli, L. 2011. Manufactured Scientific Controversy: Science, Rhetoric, and Public Debate. Rhetoric & Public Affairs 14(2), 195-228.10.1353/rap.2010.0222]Search in Google Scholar
[Collins, H. 2010. Tacit and explicit knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226113821.001.0001]Search in Google Scholar
[Collins, H., Evans, R. 2008. Rethinking expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226113623.001.0001]Search in Google Scholar
[Daemmrich, A. 2002. A tale of two experts: thalidomide and political engagement in the United States and West Germany. Social History of Medicine 15(1), 137-158.10.1093/shm/15.1.137]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Davies, P., Chapman, S., Leask, J. 2002. Antivaccination activists on the world wide web. Archives of disease in childhood 87(1), 22-25.10.1136/adc.87.1.22]Search in Google Scholar
[Derkatch, C. 2016. Bounding Biomedicine. Evidence and Rhetoric in the New Science of Alternative Medicine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226345987.001.0001]Search in Google Scholar
[Dubé, E., Laberge, C., Guay, M., Bramadat, P., Roy, R., Bettinger, J.A. 2013. Vaccine hesitancy. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics 9(8), 1763-1773.10.4161/hv.24657]Search in Google Scholar
[Flaherty, D.K. 2011. The vaccine-autism connection: a public health crisis caused by unethical medical practices and fraudulent science. Annals of Pharmacotherapy 45(10), 1302-1304.10.1345/aph.1Q318]Search in Google Scholar
[Freudenburg, W.R., Gramling R., Davidson, D.J. 2008. Scientific certainty argumentation methods (SCAMs): science and the politics of doubt. Sociological Inquiry 78(1), 2-38.10.1111/j.1475-682X.2008.00219.x]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Galilei, G. 1638 [2010] Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences. Henry Crew (translation). Cosimo Classics.]Search in Google Scholar
[Goldman, A. 2001. Experts: Which ones should you trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63, 85-110.10.1111/j.1933-1592.2001.tb00093.x]Search in Google Scholar
[Goodwin, J., Honeycutt, L. 2009. When Science Goes Public: from Technical Arguments to Appeals to Authority. Studies in Communication Sciences 9(2), 19-30.]Search in Google Scholar
[Greene, J.A. 2007. Pharmaceutical marketing research and the prescribing physician. Annals of Internal Medicine 146(10), 742-748.10.7326/0003-4819-146-10-200705150-00008]Search in Google Scholar
[Jacobs, S. 2000. Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics. Argumentation 14(3), 261-286.10.1023/A:1007853013191]Search in Google Scholar
[Jackson, S. 2008. Predicaments of politicization in the debate over abstinenceonly sex education. In van Eemeren, F. H. & Garssen B. (Eds.) Controversy, confrontation: Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 215-230.10.1075/cvs.6.14jac]Search in Google Scholar
[Kazan, O. 2017. The Shadow Network of Anti-Vax Doctors. The Atlantic, January 18, 2017. URL: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/01/when-the-doctor-is-a-vaccine-skeptic/513383/ (Accessed 27 July 2018).]Search in Google Scholar
[Martini, C. 2015. Expertise and institutional design in economic committees. Journal of Economic Methodology 22:3, 391-409.10.1080/1350178X.2015.1071509]Search in Google Scholar
[Okuhara, T., Ishikawa, H., Okada, M., Kato, M., Kiuchi, T. 2017. Readability comparison of pro-and anti-HPV-vaccination online messages in Japan. Patient Education and Counseling 100(10), 1859-1866.10.1016/j.pec.2017.04.013]Search in Google Scholar
[Oreskes, N. 2004. The scientific consensus on climate change. Science 306(5702), 1686-1686.10.1126/science.1103618]Search in Google Scholar
[Oreskes, N., Conway, E. M. 2010. Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.]Search in Google Scholar
[Reiss, J. 2007. Error in Economics: Towards a More Evidence-Based Methodology. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203086797.ch1]Search in Google Scholar
[Russell, N. 2009. Communicating Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Settle, T.B. 1983. Galileo and early experimentation. In Aris, R., Davis, H. T., Stuewer, R. H. (Eds.) Springs of Scientific Creativity. Essays on Founders of Modern Science. University of Minnesota Press, 3-20.]Search in Google Scholar
[Shanteau, J. 1992. The psychology of experts an alternative view. In Wright, G., Bolger F. (Eds.) Expertise and Decision Support. New York: Plenum Press, 11-23.10.1007/978-0-585-34290-0_2]Search in Google Scholar
[Shanteau, J., Weiss, D. J., Thomas, R. P., Pounds, J. C. 2002. Performance-Based Assessment of Expertise: How to Decide If Someone Is an Expert or Not. European Journal of Operational Research 136(2), 253-263.10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00113-8]Search in Google Scholar
[Taylor, L.E., Swerdfeger, A.L., Eslick, G.D. 2014. Vaccines are not associated with autism: an evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies. Vaccine 32(29), 3623-3629.10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.04.085]Search in Google Scholar
[Tomljenovic L., Christopher A.S. 2015. Answers to common misconceptions regarding the toxicity of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines. In Shoenfeld Y., Agmon-Levin N., Tomljenovic L. (Eds.). Vaccines and autoimmunity. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, 43-56.10.1002/9781118663721.ch4]Search in Google Scholar
[Walton, D. 1989. Reasoned use of expertise in argumentation. Argumentation 3, 59-73.10.1007/BF00116417]Search in Google Scholar
[Walton, D. 1997. Appeal to Expert Opinion. Arguments from Authority. University Park: Penn State University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Walton, D. 2002. Informal Logic. A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511808630]Search in Google Scholar
[Walton, D., Godden, D.M. 2005. The Nature and Status of Critical Questions in Argumentation Schemes. OSSA Conference Archive, 56 URL: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA6/papers/56 (Accessed 27 July 2018).]Search in Google Scholar