IAT's have been under scrutiny for some time.They are commonly skewed towards perspectives gained from specific demographics and can be manipulated quite easily to reflect personal pejoratives that align with an agency's codes of ethics. this suggestion should be given with caveats.

concerning the context and the manner of which the inserted "personal" perspectives about vaccination occurs detracts from the overall, implicit statement that truth is different than data. all information, both relevant socially and scientifically should be merged into a cohesive yet not overwhelming piece that could be explored further and not manipulated for poignancy but rather assessed by an educated and aware scholastic community. the presence of a biased example even if scientifically proven and aknowledged by the medical community still represent the hypocrisy of placing and opinionatedly presenting an "idea" within a subtopic about relevant information! these should not be inquiries or questions but rather standards ind instruction!