A source can make or break your paper, and often times you’re presented with the decision to use a particular source or not. Most students these days rely heavily on the accounts of others and articles of a stranger. They shed more light on a subject you may not feel too confident in, allowing some breathing room, and generally improving the overall quality of your paper. There are two sides to every coin though. In some cases, a website may be misinformed and factually incorrect. It can act as a venom seeking to infect the vitals of your assignment, under the guise of a helping hand. If we analyze this website: www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/, we start at the home screen. It presents itself as a wall of text with some guided tabs around the top of the page. There’s an overabundance of information presented to you, which can be good. The subjects vary as you proceed through the website, but most of it in favor of natural healthcare. It seemed heavily biased towards this ideal. In many cases, it condemns modern medicine. It boldly states that vaccines cause Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Despite these outlandish claims, the website still takes the time provide actual statistics and quotes from ‘professionals’. On this page: http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/UT/Urine.aspx, it claims: “Urotherapy is one of the time honored, medically proven, highly efficacious natural cures for many of the diseases that ail us today.” I found this interesting, since I had no solid prior knowledge on the subject. Upon further research it came to light that this was not a common practice, and there was no scientific evidence to support the claims of its usefulness against cancer. The aforementioned statement was promptly discredited by other, more reliable sources. Another website: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/, seems a more reliable. It ends in .gov, indicating that is indeed a lot more credible and trustworthy. Unlike the other webs