How we assess health evidence.
ANTIVAX.co.uk is an editorial information publication. It does not provide diagnosis, treatment, prescribing, individual vaccine recommendations or urgent medical triage. This policy describes the standards used when publishing evidence-related health content.
Policy version: 1.0 Reviewed: 22 August 2026
1. Evidence hierarchy
No hierarchy can replace critical appraisal, but as a general rule we give greater weight to stronger and more reproducible evidence.
Lower-ranked evidence can still be important, especially for identifying new safety signals, but it is not presented as equivalent to evidence capable of estimating risk or establishing causation.
2. Source selection
Where practical, articles link directly to primary studies, systematic reviews, official regulatory material and recognised public-health sources. Secondary reporting may be used for context but should not replace the underlying evidence when that evidence is available.
Sources are assessed for study design, sample size, relevance, risk of bias, confounding, consistency with other evidence, statistical uncertainty and whether the conclusion goes beyond what the data support.
3. Association, signals and causation
An event occurring after vaccination is not automatically caused by vaccination. A spontaneous safety report is treated as a suspected event and potential signal unless stronger evidence supports causation. Report counts are not described as incidence rates without an appropriate exposure denominator and context.
4. Conflicting evidence and uncertainty
Where credible evidence conflicts, we aim to describe the disagreement, relative strength of the studies and material uncertainty rather than selecting only evidence supporting one side. Absence of evidence and evidence of absence are not treated as interchangeable concepts.
5. Authors and reviewers
Pages should identify the publication, review date and evidence trail. We will not describe an article as medically or clinically reviewed unless a suitably qualified reviewer has actually reviewed it. Where no independent clinical reviewer has been used, the page should not imply otherwise.
6. Review and updating
Material evidence pages should carry a review date. Significant new regulatory decisions, high-quality systematic reviews, safety findings or changes in authoritative guidance should trigger review. Outdated conclusions should be amended rather than left live without qualification.
7. Corrections
Material factual errors should be corrected promptly once verified. Where a correction materially changes the meaning of an article, the change should be made transparently rather than silently rewriting the historical record. Correction requests can be submitted through the site's contact route.
8. Editorial and commercial separation
Sponsorship, membership revenue or licensing must not determine medical conclusions. Paid or sponsored material must be clearly identifiable. A commercial relationship does not entitle a sponsor to favourable coverage or control over evidence conclusions.
9. Personal medical information
The site is not intended to collect medical histories, vaccination records, diagnoses or other personal health information through ordinary contact forms. Visitors are asked not to submit personal medical information. If the service ever intentionally processes identifiable health information, its data-protection basis and safeguards must be reviewed before collection begins.