How We Research & Review

A plain-language explanation of who writes this site, how we source and verify our claims, and what we do — and do not — claim about our expertise.

Who Writes This Site

NorovirusQuestions.com is researched and written by Andy Wilcox, an independent researcher and the founder of the Virus Questions network.

Andy is not a physician, virologist, or epidemiologist. His background is in analytical research — applying rigorous primary-source methodology to complex bodies of evidence. He holds an MBA and professional credentials (CPA, PMP), and has spent 30+ years as a consultant, operating executive, and investor.

He applies that same analytical discipline to public health information: working directly from CDC, WHO, NIH, and peer-reviewed sources rather than from secondary summaries or news articles.

This site is not reviewed by any licensed clinician. No physician or any other healthcare professional reviews content before or after publication. The content represents Andy Wilcox's independent research and synthesis of authoritative primary sources — not medical opinion.

Primary Sources We Use

Every factual claim on clinical pages is sourced to one of the following. We do not cite news articles or other websites as primary evidence for clinical claims. Statistics are cited with their source; where CDC and WHO figures differ, both are noted.

  • CDC — U.S. primary authority for norovirus surveillance, outbreak data, and clinical guidance
  • WHO — global burden of disease data and international public health guidance
  • FDA — food safety guidance related to norovirus in food handling and recalls
  • NIH / PubMed — biomedical research database and peer-reviewed literature
  • Peer-reviewed journals — Journal of Infectious Diseases, Emerging Infectious Diseases (CDC), Clinical Infectious Diseases, NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA, MMWR, and others

We apply a hierarchy of evidence consistent with evidence-based medicine: systematic reviews and RCTs first, followed by CDC/WHO guidance, then observational data. When sources disagree, we note the disagreement rather than picking a side.

Fact-Checking Process

Every factual claim on a clinical page goes through the following steps before publication:

  1. Source identification — The specific CDC page, WHO document, FDA guidance, or peer-reviewed study that supports the claim is located and linked.
  2. Claim verification — The claim is compared directly to the source text to confirm accuracy of both substance and nuance. Paraphrasing is checked to ensure it does not change the meaning of what the source says.
  3. Cross-reference check — Where possible, significant clinical claims are cross-checked against at least two independent authoritative sources.
  4. Uncertainty flagging — Any claim that is provisional, contested, or based on limited data is marked as such in the published text.

What this looks like in practice — three norovirus examples

A challenged figure that was upheld. In August 2026 an audit flagged the 145°F shellfish cooking temperature on this site as contradicting the 140°F water-persistence figure on another page. Before editing a health figure we read the primary source in full: CDC's Norovirus Fact Sheet for Food Workers says verbatim that noroviruses "can survive temperatures as high as 145°F." The figure was correct; changing it would have introduced an error. The report was logged as rejected on the corrections page rather than quietly dropped, because a corrections log that only records changes is telling half the story.

A precise-sounding figure with no source. During the September 2026 content review, three pages stated that "~65%" of US norovirus outbreaks occur in long-term care facilities, attributed to CDC. CDC's outbreak page says "over half." The percentage may well have come from an older analysis, but it was not what the cited source said, so it was replaced with the CDC's actual words and the change was logged. We would rather publish "over half (CDC)" than "65%" with a citation that does not support it.

Two good sources that disagree. The infectious dose of norovirus is commonly given as "18 particles" (from a 2008 modeling study) — but a 2014 human-challenge trial measured it at roughly 1,300. Both are peer-reviewed; they differ in method. We publish both, with their DOIs, and explain the difference on the Transmission page instead of picking the more dramatic number.

What We Refuse to Compute

Some numbers are easy to calculate and misleading to publish. Norovirus is not individually reportable in the United States — CDC states that health departments "are not required to report individual cases of norovirus illness to CDC" — so every US illness, hospitalization, and death figure is a modeled estimate with a confidence interval. Dividing 900 deaths by 20 million illnesses yields a "case-fatality rate" that looks precise and is not: both inputs are estimates, and neither counts real cases. This site's Norovirus Risk Perspective page therefore shows the hospitalization rate and case-fatality rate as unavailable, with the reason, rather than filling the cells. Where we do perform arithmetic on published figures — a percentage from CaliciNet's outbreak counts, an infectious-dose comparison — we show the inputs and label it as our calculation.

Monthly Review Process

Every clinical page undergoes an automated monthly review against current CDC and WHO guidance:

  1. Current CDC and WHO source documents are fetched on the first of each month.
  2. An automated review compares existing page claims against those authoritative sources.
  3. Only claims that are directly contradicted by current authority guidance are flagged — the review does not rewrite or expand content speculatively.
  4. Human review of the automated output is performed before any changes are committed.
  5. Corrections are applied to affected pages; the "Last reviewed" date is updated on every reviewed page.

The "Last reviewed" date on each page reflects the most recent review cycle. Pages that passed review without changes are still date-stamped to show they were actively checked. Ad hoc corrections for errors identified at any time are applied promptly, independently of the regular review schedule.

Independence and Funding

NorovirusQuestions.com is independently operated. It has no financial relationship with any pharmaceutical company, public health agency, or healthcare institution. Content is not influenced by any organization with a financial interest in the subject matter.

As of September 2026 this site displays no advertising and carries no affiliate links on any indexable page. It is registered with Google AdSense and enrolled in Amazon Associates, and either could be switched on; if that happens, this paragraph and the About page will say so on the day it changes. Two commitments hold regardless:

  • Advertising, if served, would be selected by Google's algorithms, not by this site, and would have no influence over editorial content.
  • Affiliate links, if restored, would be disclosed beside every link, and product selections would be editorial — based on alignment with CDC guidance — not commission-driven.

No revenue source, current or future, influences which topics are covered, how they are framed, or what the factual content says.

What This Site Is Not

  • Not medical advice. Nothing on this site should be used to make personal health decisions. Consult a qualified healthcare provider.
  • No clinical review — this site has no medical reviewer. No licensed clinician reviews this content. It is independent research, not medical opinion.
  • Not affiliated with CDC or WHO. We cite these agencies as primary sources; we are not affiliated with or endorsed by them.
  • Not a news outlet. The news feed aggregates headlines from verified third-party sources and is not original journalism.
  • Not a restatement of CDC. Where a CDC page already answers a question, we link to it. What this site adds is the layer underneath: which study a CDC figure comes from, what its confidence interval is, where two sources disagree, what is not measured and why, and how norovirus compares with other viruses on the same measures.

Medical Disclaimer

The information on NorovirusQuestions.com is for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not intended as, and does not constitute, medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the guidance of a qualified healthcare provider for any medical concerns. In an emergency, call 911.

Corrections

If you find a factual error or outdated claim, please contact us or use the Corrections page. All confirmed corrections are applied promptly and noted on the affected page.