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 re-query ClinicalTrials.gov for the candidates we track and compare the registry's current phase and status against what's on the page, and we search the registry and the biomedical literature (via Europe PMC) for new HSV vaccine trials and papers. 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. Registry facts are shown as a dated snapshot, kept separate from our editorial status.

How we use AI assistance

We use AI tools to help find new trials and papers, to draft neutral summaries, and to check each drafted statement against its source. We use them within strict limits:

• Every drafted statement is tied to the source's own words. Software confirms that each supporting passage appears word for word in the paper or registry record, and that every number we state appears in one of those passages. Anything that can't be matched is rejected.
• A second, separate AI check — run on its own and shown only the source and the drafted statements — looks for errors: overstated findings, animal results presented as human ones, the wrong herpes type.
• A person approves everything. Nothing is published automatically. The editor reads each draft, its sources and both checks, and approves, edits or rejects it.
• We label what kind of evidence it is. Each paper is marked as peer-reviewed, a preprint or a conference abstract, and by study type (laboratory, animal or human trial). Where our summary rests on an abstract alone, the page says so.

This is an editorial check, not peer review. Entries prepared this way carry a "How this entry was checked" note listing each statement and where in the source it comes from.

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.