Home > People > Methodology
Our methodology, standards, and the principles behind every entry.
The Physician & Scientist Credibility Registry is designed to give the public a consistent, source-documented way to evaluate the professional backgrounds of individuals who shape vaccine discourse. Rather than asking readers to take credentials on faith, we present the verifiable record and let the evidence speak.
An individual is included in the registry if they meet at least two of the following four criteria:
At least one of the criteria met must relate directly to vaccines, immunology, or a field with direct bearing on vaccine safety, efficacy, or policy — including disciplines such as toxicology, neurology, cardiology, and epidemiology.
These criteria are applied equally regardless of whether the individual supports or challenges current vaccine policy.
Every factual claim in a registry entry is sourced from a named, verifiable primary document. We do not rely on secondary characterizations, social media posts, or unattributed claims. Primary sources include:
Medical credentials and board certifications
American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS), NPI Registry, institutional faculty pages
Publications
PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, publisher records
Retracted publications
Retraction Watch database, journal retraction notices
Government advisory roles
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) database, official committee rosters
Legislative testimony
Congressional records, C-SPAN archives, state legislature records
Court testimony
PACER (the federal courts' online records system), published VICP decisions
Industry financial relationships
CMS Open Payments database (Sunshine Act data)
Licensing and disciplinary history
FSMB DocInfo, state medical board records, OIG exclusion database
Patents
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Research funding
NIH Reporter, publicly disclosed conflict-of-interest statements
Books
Publisher records, Library of Congress catalog
Stated positions
Published interviews, sworn testimony, peer-reviewed papers, authored books
Each biography page follows the same structure, organized into five sections:
Degrees, board certifications, current and former institutional affiliations, and research focus areas.
Government advisory roles, legislative testimony, expert witness record, peer-reviewed publications (including any retractions), books authored, patents held, and professional honors.
Industry financial relationships (from public CMS Open Payments data), private business interests and media affiliations, and research funding sources.
Licensing and disciplinary history (from state medical boards and FSMB), stated positions on vaccine policy (in the individual's own sourced words), and media engagement.
The individual's Right to Reply statement (if submitted), and the date the page was last verified against primary sources.
You can browse the full directory, filter by credentials or area of expertise, or search for a specific individual by name.
This registry does not classify anyone as "pro-vaccine," "anti-vaccine," "mainstream," or "dissenting." These labels are reductive, often inaccurate, and impose an editorial judgment that this site is not in a position to make.
Many physicians and scientists hold nuanced positions — supporting some vaccines while questioning others, endorsing the concept of immunization while challenging specific elements of the recommended schedule, or defending the regulatory process while identifying areas where they believe it falls short.
Instead of labels, each entry presents the individual's stated positions in their own sourced words, drawn from formal settings such as testimony, published research, and authored books. Readers can evaluate those positions directly rather than through an editorial filter.
Financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry are a legitimate factor in evaluating potential conflicts of interest. But financial transparency must apply equally to all voices in the debate, not selectively to one side.
For physicians, CMS Open Payments data (sometimes called Sunshine Act data) documents payments from pharmaceutical and medical device companies. This includes consulting fees, speaking engagements, advisory board compensation, and research funding.
For individuals who are not physicians (such as PhD researchers), CMS does not track this data, and the entry notes that with an explanation of why.
The registry also documents private business interests — ownership of supplement companies, subscription media platforms, diagnostic labs, or speaking tour enterprises — because financial incentives exist across the entire spectrum of vaccine discourse, not only within the pharmaceutical industry.
Empty fields are never hidden. If a piece of information is missing from an entry, the field remains visible with one of three explanations:
"Not applicable"
This category does not apply to this person. For example, a PhD researcher does not hold a medical license, so the Licensing & Disciplinary Record field is marked as not applicable with an explanation.
"None identified"
No relevant record was found in the sources reviewed for this page. This does not necessarily mean nothing exists — only that the sources we checked did not contain a match.
"Not yet verified"
Source review for this field is still in progress. The information may exist but has not yet been independently confirmed against primary sources.
Each entry includes a "Stated Positions on Vaccine Policy" field containing two components:
Drawn from formal settings — congressional testimony, peer-reviewed publications, published books, or sworn depositions. Not from social media, casual interviews, or out-of-context clips.
Written by our editorial team. Every sentence in this summary directly attributes a position to a named source. The summary describes what the individual has stated and where — it never evaluates whether those statements are correct. That kind of analysis belongs in the Research and Science sections of this site, not in a biographical profile.
Before publishing any biography page, we send a courtesy notification to the individual or their office with a link to the draft, at least 72 hours before the page goes live.
Every person documented in this registry is invited to submit a Right to Reply — a statement of up to 250 words that is published alongside their biography page. If submitted, the statement appears exactly as provided, accompanied by the following note:
"This statement was submitted by the individual and is published here as provided. It has not been independently verified by VaccinationFacts.com."
Every biography page includes a persistent link that reads:
"If you have a verifiable primary source that adds context or corrects a factual detail on this page, you may submit it for editorial review."
Submitted corrections enter an internal editorial review queue. No correction is published without independent verification against primary sources. If a correction is verified and applied, the Last Verified date on the page is updated to reflect the change.
Some entries include an h-index figure, which measures how many of a researcher's publications have been cited by other researchers. It is important to understand what this number does and does not tell you.
H-index is influenced by the size of the research field, access to institutional funding, the number of collaborators in a research group, and the length of a career. A researcher at a large university with decades of government funding will typically have a higher h-index than an independent clinician, regardless of the quality or correctness of either person's work.
We include h-index as one measure of academic output and institutional engagement. It is not presented as a measure of scientific accuracy or personal credibility.
VaccinationFacts.com participates in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program and other affiliate programs. A small commission may be earned from qualifying purchases made through links on this site. These links are applied in the same way across registry entries and do not influence editorial content, inclusion decisions, or how an individual's information is presented.
Registry entries are reviewed against primary sources on a six-month cycle. This review covers stated positions, licensing and disciplinary records, financial disclosures, publication counts, and the integrity of all hyperlinks. The Last Verified date on each page reflects the most recent review.