Corrections policy

We aim for our reviews to be as accurate and up-to-date as possible. If we discover a mistake has been made, we will correct it as soon as possible and a note will be added on the original item. If you think we’ve made an error or missed some relevant information, contact us. Our editorial team will review the information you send us and investigate the issue further, if necessary. If there is a major concern, the director will assess the correction request.

If our publications contain an error which leads to a change in the verdict rendered, we will correct the publication and ensure that this correction is made prominent, e.g. indicating the correction in our headline. If the erroneous publication was shared on social media, we will ensure that the correction is published on the same platforms as the erroneous publication.

If our publications contain an error in a format which doesn’t permit edits, we will ensure that the corrected information will be published in the same format and channel as the original publication.

In keeping with its status as a signatory of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), Science Feedback must uphold the Code of Principles as set forth by the IFCN. If you believe that we have violated the Code of Principles, you may notify the IFCN by filing a complaint here.

In addition, as a member of the European Fact-Checking Standards Network, Science Feedback must also uphold the European Code of Standards. If you believe that we have breached the Code of Standards, you may file a complaint here.

Record of corrections made by Science Feedback

List of reviews corrected in

• 2024

1. https://science.feedback.org/review/viral-claim-dr-sebi-misleads-effects-cortisol-in-body-recommends-unproven-moringa-supplement-lower-cortisol-levels/

• 2023

1. https://science.feedback.org/review/studies-covid-19-vaccination-doesnt-increase-risk-death-misleading-video-europe-excess-death-john-campbell/
2. https://science.feedback.org/review/baseless-claim-covid-19-vaccines-killed-more-than-200000-from-flawed-bmc-infectious-diseases-study/
3. https://science.feedback.org/review/steve-kirschs-claim-new-zealand-data-shows-covid-vaccines-killed-millions-flawed-analysis/

• 2022:

1. https://science.feedback.org/review/covid-19-vaccine-boosters-reduce-risk-infection-hospitalization-dont-increase-risk-contrary-claims-of-vaccines-negative-efficacy/
2. https://science.feedback.org/review/covid-19-vaccines-reduce-risk-death-contrary-to-mark-steyns-misleading-interpretation-mortality-data-gb-news/
3. https://science.feedback.org/review/mercola-pfizer-biontech-covid-vaccine-immunosuppression-inaccurate-misrepresents-study/
4. https://science.feedback.org/review/scientific-evidence-shows-covid-19-vaccination-reduces-risk-infection-mortality-analysis-cases-deaths-from-145-countries-methodologically-flawed-steve-kirsch/
5. https://science.feedback.org/review/water-fluoridation-hasnt-been-associated-with-cognitive-health-problems-contrary-to-widespread-claims/