Editorial Standards

ANTIVAX.co.uk is designed around a simple proposition: readers should be able to see not only our conclusions, but how we reached them.

1. Evidence before ideology

We do not begin with a requirement that an article reach a pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine conclusion. We begin with a clearly framed question and assess the best available evidence relevant to it.

2. Source hierarchy

Where possible, we prioritise systematic reviews, high-quality large studies, primary regulatory documents, national public-health bodies and recognised international health organisations. Individual studies are presented in the context of the wider evidence base rather than treated as decisive simply because they support an eye-catching claim.

3. Claims, evidence and opinion are labelled

Articles distinguish between what a person or organisation claims, what published evidence shows, what remains uncertain, and what is editorial interpretation.

4. Adverse-event reports are described accurately

A report submitted after vaccination does not by itself prove causation. When discussing safety databases, we explain what the database can establish and what it cannot.

5. Corrections are visible

Material factual errors should be corrected promptly. Significant corrections should include a note explaining what changed and why.

6. Dates matter

Health evidence changes. Articles display publication and review dates, and older pages should be rechecked when important new evidence or official guidance appears.

7. Conflicts and commercial relationships

Relevant sponsorships, affiliate relationships and material conflicts should be disclosed. Sponsored material should never be disguised as independent editorial analysis.

8. No individual diagnosis or treatment

ANTIVAX.co.uk provides general information and analysis, not personal medical advice. Questions about an individual's health, vaccination schedule, contraindications or treatment should be discussed with an appropriately qualified healthcare professional.