Not exactly a great source unless you happen to have an archive of a WebMD page showing the same text of the left part the image you posted, which would then be showing that they have deleted a page entirely, not edited one (obviously not suggesting this is any better, just you claim they edited the page when that appears to not be the case). You also link to two Twitter searches, not really sure what I'm supposed to be seeing there?
Obviously it isnt good, but its also not what you were talking about with your post, you were saying they edited a page, which hasn't happened from what I can tell.
WebMD edited their page, and i know this because i took a screen shot of their page one day, and then later i went back to the same page, and it had been edited. i knows its the same page, because i have it pop up in my browser history. i suspect that webMD edited their page, because i was driving traffic to it every day, before they made their edit.
Dravet Syndrome is a good rabbit hole to go down,
and Dravet Syndrome is also an excellent model for explaining how vaccines cause other kinds of problems.
Hence why I am asking if you have an archive of the other page, a completely different article mind you then the one on the right. You can look at the archive and see the that the article on the right has been on their site for years and hasn't changed that entire time. That means the absolute best source you have is your word and screen shot, not exactly the greatest source on the planet. Dravet Syndrome being or not being a rabbit hole has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You say the page was edited but your screenshot is of two different articles, the one on the left I could only find on a different website entirely, the one on the right, well I've already pointed out that archive shows it hasn't been edited. If you mean to say they have deleted a page entirely, that is different than editing an article to say something different. It doesn't mean I would condone doing such a thing, but you are claiming the article was edited and other than your screenshot which is of two completely different articles, the only sources I can find suggest this is not the case.
Can't find anything on WebMD for the left part of your screenshot, however I do find this: https://wa.kaiserpermanente.org/kbase/topic.jhtml?docId=nord377 which appears to have the same text though formatted slightly different, the image on the right appears to be a completely different article that has an archive from 2017 with the same text https://web.archive.org/web/20170624163910/https://www.webmd.com/epilepsy/what-is-dravet-syndrome
Not exactly a great source unless you happen to have an archive of a WebMD page showing the same text of the left part the image you posted, which would then be showing that they have deleted a page entirely, not edited one (obviously not suggesting this is any better, just you claim they edited the page when that appears to not be the case). You also link to two Twitter searches, not really sure what I'm supposed to be seeing there?
WebMD lies about vaccines and autism
https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateVaccines/comments/116sbcj/webmd_lies_about_vaccines_and_autism/
Obviously it isnt good, but its also not what you were talking about with your post, you were saying they edited a page, which hasn't happened from what I can tell.
WebMD edited their page, and i know this because i took a screen shot of their page one day, and then later i went back to the same page, and it had been edited. i knows its the same page, because i have it pop up in my browser history. i suspect that webMD edited their page, because i was driving traffic to it every day, before they made their edit.
Dravet Syndrome is a good rabbit hole to go down,
and Dravet Syndrome is also an excellent model for explaining how vaccines cause other kinds of problems.
Hence why I am asking if you have an archive of the other page, a completely different article mind you then the one on the right. You can look at the archive and see the that the article on the right has been on their site for years and hasn't changed that entire time. That means the absolute best source you have is your word and screen shot, not exactly the greatest source on the planet. Dravet Syndrome being or not being a rabbit hole has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You say the page was edited but your screenshot is of two different articles, the one on the left I could only find on a different website entirely, the one on the right, well I've already pointed out that archive shows it hasn't been edited. If you mean to say they have deleted a page entirely, that is different than editing an article to say something different. It doesn't mean I would condone doing such a thing, but you are claiming the article was edited and other than your screenshot which is of two completely different articles, the only sources I can find suggest this is not the case.