Methodology

This page explains how we decide what to publish about each herpes vaccine candidate, where our information comes from, and how we keep it current. The short version: every status claim is traceable to a named source and carries a visible date.

What we track, and what we don't

We track the development status of herpes-simplex-virus (HSV) vaccine candidates — what stage each is at, who is developing it, and what the evidence does and doesn't show. We do not give medical advice, predict approval dates, rank candidates by promise, or recommend any product.

Our sourcing hierarchy

For any factual claim we use the highest-quality source available, and we cite the tier we used:

1. ClinicalTrials.gov — the registry of record for whether a trial exists, its phase, and its recruitment status. This is the backbone of every status claim, cited by its NCT identifier.
2. Peer-reviewed literature (PubMed / Europe PMC) — for the underlying science and any published results.
3. Official primary announcements — sponsor press releases, regulatory (FDA/EMA) communications, and securities filings, for developments not yet in a registry or journal.
4. Reputable science journalism — for context and framing only, never as the sole source for a factual status claim.

We do not source from forums, supplement or "natural cure" sites, affiliate pages, social media, or any site selling a treatment. If a claim appears only in those places, we don't report it.

How we label phase and status

A candidate's phase uses the standard clinical-trial ladder (preclinical, phase 1, phase 1/2, phase 2, phase 3, approved), plus discontinued for programs that have stopped and unknown when the record is unclear. We take phase from the trial registry wherever possible. When a field can't be verified, we mark it unknown rather than guess.

Distinctions we preserve

Collapsing these is the most common way this topic gets reported wrong, so we keep them explicit on every candidate:

• HSV-1 vs HSV-2 — different epidemiology, often different candidates.
• Prophylactic vs therapeutic — preventing infection is a different goal from reducing outbreaks in someone already infected; a candidate can do one and not the other.
• Preclinical vs in-human — animal or laboratory results are not clinical results.
• A trial existing vs a trial succeeding — a phase 1 start is not evidence of efficacy.

Language we avoid

We don't use "cure," "breakthrough," "miracle," "game-changer," or any phrase promising a launch date. We state what the evidence shows and stop. Where something is unknown, we say so.

Keeping status current

Trial status drifts. We periodically re-query ClinicalTrials.gov for the candidates we track and compare the registry's current phase and status against what's on the page. Any difference is reviewed by a person before the page changes — no script silently rewrites a health claim — and the page's "last updated" date moves only when the content actually changes.

Corrections

If you believe something here is out of date or wrong, please tell us — see the About page for how to reach us. We'd rather fix an error than defend it.