Maybe that needs clarifying then. A source that comes up with information that can&#x27;t be verified isn&#x27;t terribly reliable, and thus not really verifiable.<p>Every single anti-vaccination site does this. Here&#x27;s an example:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.vaccinationcouncil.org&#x2F;2012&#x2F;02&#x2F;18&#x2F;the-deadly-impossibility-of-herd-immunity-through-vaccination-by-dr-russell-blaylock&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.vaccinationcouncil.org&#x2F;2012&#x2F;02&#x2F;18&#x2F;the-deadly-impo...</a><p>&quot;The Deadly Impossibility of Herd Immunity&quot;. There are claims in there such as &quot;as the literature shows&quot; with no reference to the literature itself. It makes a lot of claims and refers to some sort of group that it doesn&#x27;t even identify to characterise claims by vaccination specialists, and gets a lot of facts wrong about herd immunity.<p>Thus, as a source it is unreliable in that it doesn&#x27;t clearly state its own sources, so I&#x27;d have to call it unverifiable.