Every claim, URL, phone number, form code, fee, and legal citation on Immunization Record is independently verified before publication and re-verified on a recurring schedule. This page documents the specific standards, processes, and accountability our fact-checking team operates under.
Why Fact-Checking Matters Here
The cost of a single wrong phone number on a vaccine record guide is not theoretical. A reader who calls the wrong number wastes their time, may miss a school enrollment deadline, may delay a medical procedure, may fail to obtain proof for a job, or may give up entirely and assume the record cannot be retrieved. The cost of a wrong URL is the same — readers end up on broken pages, defunct portals, or worse, scam sites that mimic official .gov domains.
For these reasons, fact-checking on Immunization Record is not a final step performed quickly before publication. It is a structured, multi-stage, documented process that runs in parallel with research and writing. Every published guide carries an internal fact-check log that records who verified what, when, and from which source. We can — and do — re-trace any claim back to its verification date and source on demand.
What We Fact-Check
The following categories of content are subject to mandatory verification before publication and on every scheduled re-review:
| Claim Type | Verification Method | Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| Official URLs (state portals, agency pages) | Live HTTP load + content match | Every publication + quarterly |
| Phone numbers | Cross-check against official source listing | Every publication + quarterly |
| Email addresses | Cross-check against agency contact page | Every publication + quarterly |
| Physical addresses | Verify on agency website + Google Maps | Every publication + annually |
| Hours of operation | Agency website at time of verification | Every publication + quarterly |
| Form names & code numbers | Match against official PDF on agency .gov | Every publication + when forms revised |
| Processing times & fees | Agency-published service standard | Every publication + quarterly |
| Legal citations (statutes, codes) | Match against official statutory text | Every publication + when laws amended |
| Medical claims (vaccines, schedules) | CDC ACIP recommendation text | Every publication + when CDC updates |
| Corporate facts (pharmacy chains) | Company official corporate page | Every publication + quarterly |
| Statistical claims | Primary government data source | Every publication + when data updated |
| Historical claims (when systems launched) | Primary agency documentation | Every publication only (rarely change) |
Verification Standards by Claim Type
URLs and digital portals
An official URL is verified by loading the page in a browser, confirming the page returns HTTP 200, confirming the page belongs to the agency or organization we claim it does (matching the institution name, the .gov / .org domain, and the page subject), and confirming the page actually performs the function we describe. A URL that loads but has been redirected to a different topic or returns a “page not found” landing layout is treated as broken and replaced.
Phone numbers
A phone number is verified against the listing on the agency’s own official website at the time of verification. Where the agency publishes the same number in multiple places (a contacts page, a help page, a PDF instruction), all listings must agree. Where they disagree, we use the listing on the most recently updated page and note the discrepancy in our internal log.
Form codes and document names
When we cite an official form by code or name (CDPH 286, ImmTrac2 Authorization to Release, Form HC-3 etc.), we verify the form is the current published version on the agency website, not a deprecated previous version. We verify both the form’s official code and its commonly-used colloquial name (for example, CDPH 286 is widely called the “Blue Card” — both names are valid and both must match the agency’s terminology).
Legal citations
When we cite a statute (federal: 18 USC §1017; state: Cal. Health & Safety Code §120335; etc.), we verify the citation against the official codified text on the relevant government’s official law repository. We do not rely on secondary legal databases. We do not rely on news summaries of statutes. We do not paraphrase legal language as a fact unless we have read the actual statutory text.
Medical claims
When we describe vaccine schedules, dose counts, or clinical guidance, we cite the relevant CDC ACIP recommendation directly. We do not paraphrase medical authority. We do not synthesize medical claims from multiple sources. Where there is genuine clinical nuance (e.g., live-virus vaccine contraindications), we describe the nuance and direct readers to consult their physician — we do not condense it into a rule.
Fact-Check Process Workflow
Every guide goes through three rounds of verification before publication, each performed by a different person where possible. The three rounds are:
Round 1 · Inline verification during drafting
The lead writer is responsible for verifying every claim as they draft. They do not write a single sentence about a phone number, URL, fee, or form code without simultaneously verifying it from a primary source and recording that source in an internal note. The first round is therefore not a separate stage — it is built into how we write.
Round 2 · Independent fact-check pass
After the draft is complete, a fact-checker who was not the lead writer independently re-verifies every claim. They open every URL again, re-confirm every phone number against the official source, re-check every form code, and re-read every legal citation. Where Round 1 and Round 2 disagree, both checkers reconvene to identify the source of the discrepancy and resolve it.
Round 3 · Final editor approval
Before publication, the editor-in-chief reviews the fact-check log and the final draft side by side. Any unresolved discrepancy or any claim that lacks a documented source is held until resolved. The editor-in-chief signs off on publication when the fact-check log is complete.
Source Tier Hierarchy
Not all sources are equal. When verifying a claim, our fact-checkers work from the highest available tier downward. A claim that can be verified from a Tier 1 source is verified from Tier 1, full stop. We do not use a lower tier when a higher tier is available.
| Tier | Source Type | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | Primary government source on .gov / .us domain | cdc.gov, cdph.ca.gov, dshs.texas.gov, statutes published by Office of Legislative Counsel |
| Tier 2 | Authoritative organization on official domain | cvs.com (for CVS facts), kp.org (for Kaiser facts), aap.org (for AAP guidance) |
| Tier 3 | Established healthcare publication or peer-reviewed journal | NEJM, JAMA, MMWR, peer-reviewed epidemiology journals |
| Tier 4 | Established mainstream news with primary-source citation | Major newspapers and broadcast outlets when they cite Tier 1 sources we can independently verify |
| Not used | Unsourced web content, forums, social media, AI output, content marketing | Reddit threads, generic health blogs, chatbot responses, marketing copy from any commercial entity |
Handling Disputed or Unclear Claims
Sometimes our research surfaces conflicting information from different sources. For example: a state agency’s main page lists one phone number, but a PDF on the same agency’s website lists a different number; or a state website says one processing time while a county page says another. Our standard practice for these cases:
- Identify the most authoritative source. Generally the agency’s main contact page outranks a PDF, and a recent page outranks an older one.
- Attempt direct verification. Where possible, our fact-checker calls the agency to confirm which version is current.
- Default to the more conservative claim. If two sources agree on processing time being “3-10 business days” versus “5 business days,” we publish the longer range to set realistic reader expectations.
- Note the disagreement when material. When the conflict could affect a reader’s planning (e.g., two different fees), we mention the conflict in the guide and tell readers to confirm with the agency directly before submitting.
- Wait when unsure. Where we cannot resolve a conflict and the answer matters, we hold publication until we can.
Corrections & Retractions
When fact-checking after publication identifies an error in a published guide, our standard correction practice applies (see our Editorial Policy on Corrections). For fact-check-driven corrections specifically:
- Trivial errors (typos, broken anchor links) are corrected silently.
- Material errors (wrong phone number, wrong URL, wrong fee, wrong form code, wrong legal citation, wrong factual claim) are corrected with a dated correction note appended to the guide.
- Severe errors that could have caused readers material harm (for example, recommending an action that turns out to be illegal under state law) trigger a full retraction notice, a re-published replacement guide, and a top-of-page banner remaining in place for at least 90 days.
- Every correction is logged internally with the fact-check evidence that triggered it, the date of correction, and the editor who approved the correction.
Tools & Documentation
Our fact-check process is supported by:
- An internal source-tracking spreadsheet that maps every claim in every guide to its verification source.
- A URL monitoring tool that alerts the editorial team when previously-verified URLs return non-200 responses or significant content changes.
- A scheduled re-verification calendar that surfaces every guide for review at least quarterly.
- A fact-check log file kept for every guide, recording who verified what, when, and from which source.
These records are not public, but they are available on request to journalists, researchers, or public health agencies investigating our coverage. Email editor@immunizationrecord.org with a specific guide URL and a research purpose to request fact-check documentation.
Reader-Initiated Fact Checks
Reader corrections are one of the most valuable inputs to our fact-checking process. State immunization systems change in ways our quarterly review may not catch immediately, and the people most likely to notice are readers actively trying to use our guides for real situations. We treat every reader correction email as a priority intake into the fact-check process.
When you submit a correction:
- The email is read by the editorial team within 2 business days.
- An independent fact-checker re-verifies the claim against the official source you cited (or, if you didn’t cite one, against the most authoritative source we can identify).
- If your correction is confirmed, the guide is updated within 7 business days and a dated correction note is added.
- If our research disagrees with your correction, we reply to explain our reasoning and cite the sources we relied on. You are welcome to provide additional evidence.
- Your correction is logged internally as part of the affected guide’s fact-check history. We do not publish your name or email address.
Independence from Advertising
Our fact-checking process is identical regardless of whether the subject of a guide is a current advertiser, a potential advertiser, or no commercial relationship at all. Pharmacy chains that advertise on this site are fact-checked exactly the same way as pharmacy chains that do not. State agencies that we link to extensively are fact-checked exactly the same way as agencies that we cite once. There are no exceptions to verification standards based on commercial relationships.
If an advertiser disputes a claim in a guide that mentions them, our fact-checking team will re-review the claim against original sources — but only the same way we would re-review it for any other reader. We will not change a claim that our fact-check confirms is correct simply because an advertiser objects. If an advertiser-vs-fact-check conflict cannot be resolved through verification, our policy is to keep the editorial and end the advertising relationship — we do not change verified facts to keep an advertiser.