not hoaxes, but bad sites for students to develop for critiques annotations from ILI, links removed so as not to give the automatic link-checking algorithms a boost:
http://www.know-vaccines.org/
member of Medical Veritas, which was a “journal” from 2004 to 2008 whose sole purpose seemed to be to provide “medical” research showing the dangers of vaccines. On its list of Purposes, Medical Veritas says it “values the experiences of laypersons as a means of encouraging physicians and scientists to consider medical evidence instead of medical theories.” [there is also http://www.vaccines.gov/ ] – Jennifer Farquhar
DrDay.com is not a hoax website. I talk about it to my students because this is a woman who has a medical degree but not in oncology (cancer) and her website is really just for getting money from people who don’t know better than to buy her DVDs and other merchandise that promises to cure them of all cancers if they watch the videos. If you look at all the information about herself and look at the publicity that she includes about how great she is and how her critics are unjustly attacking her, you should see that she is a scam artist and a con woman. Compare her site to actual websites owned by medical programs at universities such as this one: www.oncolink.upenn.edu you will see that Dr. Day is taking money from people and she is not going to help them cure their cancer. – Miriam Laskin
Here is a biased website that has a professional appearance, and is hosted by an organization that at first glance seems reputable and authored by people with strong credentials. Students might have to do some digging on the web to discover that there is skepticism of the research (and especially the funding) of this organization. http://www.nipccreport.org/ – Oliver Zeff
http://www.globalissues.org. At first glance it looks good, but I point out the About section. Most of the articles (at least as of 2008) have been written by one person–who is not an expert on these global issues. Most students trust .org to be a “good” domain name so I like having a negative example. – Kelly Frost
http://www.smokingaloud.com/corrupt.html – Candice Benjes-Small
How about a site like The Daily Currant http://dailycurrant.com/ which is the source of so many articles shared casually on Facebook. – Amy Burger
One of my favorite bad websites is “About” because they never date their sites or give good background on the authors.
* I also “like” http://www.herbwisdom.com/herb-st-johns-wort.html — I love the way they source their information and establish their authority. (not at all)
*Dr. Clark is interesting: http://www.drclark.net/
*“Face your back pain” is good for advertising sites disguised as advice.https://www.faceyourbackpain.com/ – Rochelle Gridley
http://vixra.org/why – A scary arXiv “alternative” found by Mattew Marsteller
Dr. Oz has plenty of dubious science. http://www.doctoroz.com
The top 3 results are usually: wikipedia, Mayo Clinic and WebMD. How reliable are they?
some matched pairs:
Source A: http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2016/01/cancer_treatment_is_personal_f.html
Source B: http://www.realfarmacy.com/body-acidic/
A: http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/health-issues/new-concerns-about-the-human-papillomavirus-vaccine
B: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/129/3/602