The two sources share oppsoing views on the subject of vaccines and autisim. The document had more hard evidence and justified their point of view (against vaccines causeing autisim). The video was an unrieliable source because the video was more biased and their facts less concrete.
Autism's link to vaccines is (apparently) thoroughly researched, however, the evidence is missing. Neither sources create control groups in which to rule out potential environmental, genetic, and societal factors that could contribute to each study's results. Is such a setup possible? Maybe, but ignoring their influence is a major flaw.
The two sources present opposing views on whether vaccines cause autism or not despite being from the same organization;CDC. None of the sources provide clear evidence regarding the argument. The article seems more reliable because of the way it's structured. That being said we cannot disregard the video until we have clear evidence. Due to no clear evidence it is challenging to conclude the argument, I suggest we wait so we can gain more evidence and knowledge.
The article states that there is no link between vaccines and autism and cites sources from the CDC and IOM to back up its argument. In contrast the video (not supported well) claims that the age at which children receive the MMR vaccine influences their chances of developing autism.
The video is a clear fake as it plays with emotions rather than facts. The CDC website is awful as it’s only a summarized statement like they’re purposely trying to sweep it under the rug. The appeal to emotion is far too involved, it should be kept out of the deliverance of fact.