How We Research & Review

Who Writes This Site

EbolaQuestions.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 (Duke University / Fuqua School of Business), licensed CPA, and certified Project Management Professional (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 about the science, medicine, or epidemiology of Ebola virus disease is drawn from authoritative primary sources. Secondary sources, news articles, and aggregator sites are never cited as the basis for medical or scientific claims.

The primary authorities used are:

• CDC — U.S. primary public health authority for Ebola surveillance, clinical guidance, and outbreak response protocols
• WHO — global epidemiological data, outbreak situation reports, and international public health guidance
• FDA — approved treatments, vaccines, and diagnostics in the United States
• NIH / NIAID / PubMed — biomedical research database, peer-reviewed literature, and clinical trial data
• MSF (Médecins Sans Frontières) — field treatment protocols and outbreak operational data
• Peer-reviewed journals — New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, Nature, Science, JAMA, and Nature Reviews Disease Primers. All cited studies are linked to their PubMed or publisher records.

Where a factual claim is contested or where uncertainty exists in the scientific literature, this site states that uncertainty explicitly rather than presenting a false consensus.

Fact-Checking Process

Every factual claim goes through the following process before publication:

1. Primary source identification — The specific CDC page, WHO document, FDA label, or peer-reviewed study that supports the claim is identified and linked.
2. Claim verification — The claim is compared directly to the source to confirm the source actually supports what is stated. Paraphrasing is checked for accuracy of meaning, not just literal transcription.
3. Cross-reference check — Where possible, important claims are cross-referenced 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 text. We do not fill knowledge gaps with inference or select the interpretation that best supports a narrative.

Original analysis sections — which appear on some pages and are clearly labeled as such — synthesize findings from the cited primary sources. They do not introduce claims that are not supported by those underlying sources. Where we do arithmetic of our own — a rate from two published counts, a per-case figure — it is labelled "our calculation" and the inputs are shown.

Three Worked Examples from the September 2026 Review

Method statements are easy to write. These are what the process produced when it was run across this site on September 14, 2026, during the DRC Bundibugyo virus outbreak.

1. Two agencies, two sixth provinces

CDC's situation summary lists the DRC provinces with confirmed cases as Haut-Uélé, Ituri, North Kivu, South Kivu, Sud-Ubangi and Tshopo. WHO's Disease Outbreak News of the same week lists Haut-Uélé, Ituri, North Kivu, South Kivu, Bas-Uélé and Tshopo, naming the Bas-Uélé health zones (Buta, Ganga, Viadana) and the date the province's first case fell ill. The two lists agree on five provinces and disagree on the sixth; Sud-Ubangi is in the far west of the country, hundreds of kilometres from the outbreak, and Bas-Uélé borders Haut-Uélé. We report WHO's list on the outbreak page because it is the more specific of the two, and we say that CDC's differs. We do not know why; it may be a labelling error on one page or a report we have not seen. That is what "state the uncertainty" means in practice.

2. A citation that pointed to the wrong paper

Re-verifying every PubMed ID and DOI on the research page found that the 1977 Pattyn paper — the first isolation of Ebola virus — carried a PubMed ID that resolves to an article on bovine rumen biochemistry, that four other entries linked to the wrong articles, and that one vaccine citation did not correspond to any published paper at all. All were replaced and the errors were logged. A wrong citation under a right claim is still an error, and it is the kind that automated review cannot catch because the sentence reads correctly.

3. A number we could not verify and removed

Several pages described a Bundibugyo-specific candidate vaccine as being in "preclinical testing" from July 2026, "in the UK and Canada, under the WHO R&D Blueprint." We could not find that statement in any WHO report or registry. What ClinicalTrials.gov does record is a Phase 1 human trial of an mRNA vaccine at three Canadian sites, begun July 31, 2026 — a later stage than preclinical, and a different claim. The pages now say what the registry says, and the change is logged as a clarification rather than silently overwritten.

What we refuse to compute

We do not publish an economic-cost estimate for the 2026 outbreak, because none exists from the World Bank, WHO or CDC and producing one would require provincial output data DRC does not publish. We do not publish a "true" fatality rate for the outbreak, because the inputs (an unknown number of undetected mild cases; recoveries reported only as a floor) cannot be bounded honestly — we show the crude ratio, a known-outcome upper bound with its arithmetic, and the reasons they differ. A transparent blank is worth more than a confident wrong number.

Monthly Review Process

Ebola information changes rapidly during active outbreaks. This site maintains a structured update process:

• Daily automated updates (outbreak pages) — During active outbreaks, outbreak-specific pages and the news feed are refreshed daily against WHO Disease Outbreak News and CDC updates.
• Monthly automated review (all clinical pages) — On the first of each month, all clinical pages are compared against current CDC and WHO guidance. Where an authoritative source has changed a specific claim, the page content is updated and the "Last reviewed" date is refreshed.
• Ad hoc corrections — When a factual error is identified at any time — discovered internally or reported by a reader — it is corrected promptly, independently of the regular review cycle.

The "Last reviewed" date on each page reflects the most recent review (automated or manual). It indicates that the page content was actively checked against current CDC and WHO guidance on that date — not merely that the page was viewed.

Independence and Funding

EbolaQuestions.com is independently operated and has no financial relationship with any pharmaceutical company, vaccine manufacturer, 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 earns nothing. It has two registered revenue mechanisms, and both are switched off:

• Google AdSense — the site is registered, but no advertising is displayed on any page. If ads are re-enabled, this page and the About page will say so on the day it changes.
• Amazon Associates — the site is enrolled, but no affiliate link appears on any indexable page. When affiliate content was live it appeared only on preparedness, book and equipment pages, never on clinical pages, and was disclosed wherever it appeared.

Neither mechanism, when active, influences which topics are covered, how they are presented, or what the factual content says.

Scope and Limitations

This site provides educational and informational content about Ebola virus disease. It covers Ebola biology, epidemiology, outbreaks, treatment, vaccines, and prevention. It does not cover other hemorrhagic fevers (Marburg, Lassa, etc.) except where comparison is directly relevant to understanding Ebola.

This site does not offer:

• Medical diagnosis or clinical assessment
• Individualized medical advice or treatment recommendations
• Guidance on personal medical decisions

Readers with health concerns — including anyone who believes they may have been exposed to Ebola — are directed to contact emergency medical services or a qualified healthcare provider immediately.

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, WHO, or any government agency. We cite these agencies as primary sources; we are not affiliated with or endorsed by them.
• Not a news outlet. The daily news feed aggregates headlines from verified third-party sources and is not original journalism.

Medical Disclaimer

The information on EbolaQuestions.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

Errors are corrected promptly and transparently. To report a factual error, use the contact form and include: the URL of the page, the specific claim you believe is incorrect, and a link to the authoritative source that contradicts it. Confirmed errors are corrected within 5 business days. During an active outbreak, corrections are prioritized with a target response within 48 hours. A log of significant corrections is maintained on the Corrections page, and each correction is also stated on the page it affects. Several of the corrections in that log are machine-guarded: a continuous-integration check refuses any future edit that reintroduces the corrected wording — the mechanism was built after an automated review tried to revert this site's Bundibugyo virus correction.