Site Methodology
How we research, write, and maintain our content
Introduction
This page explains how VaccinationFacts.com researches, writes, structures, and maintains its content. Evaluating complex scientific and historical information requires understanding exactly how that information was selected, analyzed, and presented. Methodological transparency allows readers to review our sources, understand our process, and judge the strength of the evidence for themselves.
VaccinationFacts.com is built on three guiding principles: accuracy, independence, and editorial transparency. We prioritize primary source documentation and use clear editorial rules to reduce narrative bias. By publishing our complete methodology, we provide the standard against which all content on this site can be measured and verified.
The Council of Three (C3) Editorial Process
Every page of substantive content on VaccinationFacts.com passes through a systematic verification workflow known as the Council of Three (C3) editorial process. This process uses three separate AI review passes, followed by human editorial review before publication.
- 1Pass 1 uses Gemini to audit content structure, verify research completeness, and generate the initial draft.
- 2Pass 2 uses Claude to review logic, scientific rigor, and factual accuracy.
- 3Pass 3 uses ChatGPT to review the text for accessibility, tone alignment, and jargon reduction.
Throughout this workflow, AI systems function strictly as analytical tools, not as final authorities. Each pass reviews the previous draft to identify gaps, inconsistencies, or possible errors. Any corrections identified during a review pass must be applied before the content proceeds to the next stage. A human editor, who is the site owner, oversees this entire process and makes all final editorial decisions. This process is designed to catch factual, logical, and wording problems before publication.
Tiered Evidentiary System
VaccinationFacts.com evaluates and categorizes information using a strict, five-tier evidentiary system. This structure ensures that readers understand the relative weight and scientific backing of any given claim. The site explicitly rejects false balance, meaning it does not present two positions as equally supported when the underlying evidence is not equal.
The evidentiary tiers are defined as follows:
Established Consensus
Data and conclusions supported by multiple independent, high-quality peer-reviewed studies and universally reflected in official guidance from major health institutions.
Documented Official Data
Verifiable statistics, reports, and records originating directly from named government agencies, recognized institutions, or regulatory bodies.
Genuine Scientific Debate
Specific areas where the current peer-reviewed literature contains conflicting findings from credible researchers, indicating an unresolved scientific question.
Contested Claims
Assertions that are actively disputed by official regulatory bodies or clearly contradicted by the prevailing weight of peer-reviewed scientific evidence.
Personal Testimony
Individual, anecdotal accounts. These are presented strictly as personal experiences and are not framed or utilized as scientific evidence.
Source Standards
The reliability of the information presented depends heavily on the quality of its underlying documentation. Primary sources are original records, such as regulatory filings, trial reports, court records, and agency documents. Secondary sources summarize or interpret that material. VaccinationFacts.com prioritizes primary sources above all other forms of evidence.
- Every factual claim presented on the site requires direct attribution to a specific, named source.
- We do not use anonymous sources or broad, unreferenced assertions.
- When primary sources conflict, the disagreement is shown directly to the reader rather than being smoothed over by the site's own narrative.
- Secondary sources, such as Wikipedia entries or mainstream news articles, are limited in scope; they are used strictly to provide general historical or cultural context and are never cited as primary scientific evidence.
How evidence is selected is only part of the methodology; how that evidence is described also matters.
Neutral Editorial Voice
To reduce narrative bias, VaccinationFacts.com uses neutral wording across all pages, especially in verbs that could push readers toward a conclusion. Our editorial guidelines prohibit the use of loaded language that tells the reader how to interpret a fact.
Prohibited terms include, but are not limited to: "debunked," "discredited," "removed," "terminated," "controversial," "prominent," and "frequent."
When compiling biographical narratives, the site follows an attribution-only rule: statements are tied to named sources rather than presented as unexplained editorial judgments. For example, instead of writing that a person "misled the public," the page would describe the documented statement, identify the source, and let readers evaluate it. Editorial narratives within Registry entries are strictly capped at a 150-word maximum.
The site does not automatically cross-link individual vaccine pages in ways that could imply that separate scientific issues are interchangeable. When referring to established historical events that possess recognizable names (such as the "Lubeck Disaster" or the "Cutter Incident"), those historically established names are retained, but they are preceded by an introductory disclaimer clarifying the context.
Timeline Methodology
VaccinationFacts.com currently publishes two historical timelines with source citations:
- The General Vaccine History Timeline — features 396 entries spanning from 430 BC to the present
- The Vaccine Safety Historical Timeline — contains 61 entries spanning from 1798 to the present
The methodology for these timelines centers on strict chronological reporting without narrative framing. Every event documented in the timelines is sourced directly from named primary documents. Our editorial standards dictate that timelines never characterize historical events as "successes" or "failures." Instead, they present what happened and what followed, as documented in the primary sources.
To keep the format consistent, each timeline entry includes the same core fields:
- Year
- Event title
- Category
- Descriptive narrative
- Key figures
- Geographic region
- Primary source citation
Every entry includes a direct "Report an inaccuracy" link for user-submitted corrections.
Physician & Scientist Credibility Registry
The Physician & Scientist Credibility Registry is structured to reduce editorial bias in the presentation of biographical and professional data. To achieve this, the Registry uses a locked, 21-field biographical template organized into five distinct sections:
Identity & Credentials
Influence & Authority
Financial Transparency
Public Record
Engagement & Metadata
This template is applied identically to every single entry. No fields are added, hidden, or removed based on the specific individual being profiled.
- Financial disclosures are presented uniformly regardless of an individual's public position on vaccine policy.
- Credential accuracy is treated as a basic reporting requirement; all degrees and certifications are reported exactly as they were earned (for example, a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine is listed as a DVM, not generalized as a "Virologist").
- The Registry never assigns subjective editorial labels, such as "pro-vaccine" or "anti-vaccine," allowing the individual's documented statements and public record to stand alone.
Corrections and Version Control
Maintaining accuracy is a continuous process. Every substantive content page, timeline entry, and Registry profile on VaccinationFacts.com includes a visible "Report an inaccuracy" mechanism to facilitate reader feedback.
When a correction is submitted and verified, it is not silently edited into the text. Instead, the site keeps a tracked revision history so documented corrections are logged rather than silently inserted. All verified corrections go back through the C3 review process to ensure that the adjustment does not introduce new logical or formatting errors.
Correction — fixes an error in existing content
Update — adds new information or reflects developments in an ongoing topic
Readers can review the history of site changes by visiting the dedicated corrections page at /about/corrections.
What This Site Is Not
To ensure our methodology is clearly understood, it is necessary to establish the boundaries of this project. VaccinationFacts.com is an independent public health education website.
This site is not:
- A substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment provided by qualified healthcare professionals.
- A peer-reviewed medical journal.
VaccinationFacts.com is independent and is not funded by, or affiliated with, any pharmaceutical company, government agency, public health institution, or advocacy organization. We do not accept advertising revenue or industry sponsorship.
The site's purpose is to organize and present verifiable evidence in a consistent format so readers can evaluate it for themselves. We do not tell our readers what to think.