Vaccine Basics

Misinformation vs. disinformation: What is the difference?

 

General verification framework: The SIFT Method

Whenever you encounter vaccine information on social media, through your web searches, or via links sent to you by friends and family, it is always a good idea to stop and evaluate how reliable the information is before believing or sharing it—especially if the source or content is unfamiliar to you. SIFT is a framework created by Mike Caulfield that can help you assess the trustworthiness, as well as the vaccine content, of each vaccine information source you encounter.

SIFT stands for: Stop Investigate the source Find better coverage Trace claims   The SIFT framework is not only useful for evaluating vaccine information, but can also be applied to verify other claims you encounter online!

 

Step One: STOP 

Before you even start to engage with reading, listening to, or watching content you found or someone sent to you online, stop and ask yourself the following questions:

• Am I familiar with this information source (i.e., the website, the organization, the content creator, etc.)? 
• Do I know how trustworthy the source is? Is the source reputable? 

 

If you are unsure on any of the above questions, move on to the next step: investigate the source. 

Pro tip: Check your biases Our algorithms present us with content that they think aligns with our interests and beliefs, based on our online activity. In other words, algorithms cater to our biases. If you come across new information/content online that matches with your beliefs, still stop and go through the rest of the SIFT method to verify the information and source—especially if the content riles up your emotions.  For more information on how algorithms work, see ScienceUpFirst’s resource here.

Step Two: INVESTIGATE THE SOURCE 

If you are unsure about a source of information, it is a good idea to look more closely at the source itself.  

Two resources you can use to quickly learn about a source are:

• Online search engines (e.g., Google, Microsoft Bing, DuckDuckGo, Brave Search) 
• Wikipedia

 

Wikipedia is a good starting point for information gathering, as it commonly has general information related to certain people’s and organizations’ biases, political leanings, reputation, and possible areas of expertise. (Refer to the section Expertise and vaccine research: Are they really an expert? in this factsheet for tips on how to identify a true vaccine expert.)

Step Three: FIND BETTER COVERAGE 

Now that you have a general idea of the information source’s reputation, if you consider it potentially trustworthy, the next step is to investigate the claim it is making. You can do so by investigating whether other reputable and trustworthy information sources address the claim. This is known as lateral reading.

Ask yourself as you look at other sources:

• Do other sources support the claim? 
• Do other sources refute the claim? 
• Does the claim seem contentious?

 

The trick with this step is finding multiple reputable sources that address the claim you are investigating to determine what the general consensus is about that claim. 

Refer to the section Evaluating scientific research: Is the science good? in this factsheet for how to find better coverage for vaccine research. 

Using generative AI? Conduct lateral reading While AI may be a useful tool for quickly searching for information, the overviews it generates can be misleading or simply false. Generative AI, such as Google AI Overview or ChatGPT, pulls from sources across the Internet when it answers prompts, but it is unable to determine whether the sources it uses are reliable. When you ask AI a question, find better coverage/conduct lateral reading to verify if the information generated is accurate or not.

Step Four: TRACE CLAIMS 

The final step involves tracing the claim to the original source. Some actors spread disinformation by deliberately presenting information—such as videos, images, or quotes—out of context in order to mislead others and drive their own narrative. This tactic is known as cherry picking, which you can learn more about here. By tracing the claim to its original source, you can identify whether any important context is missing.

If the source you are investigating does not provide a link to the original information, you can:

Use an online search engine to look up the claim, quote, or video to see if you can find the original context
Conduct a reverse image search for any images in question (refer to this tip sheet from Media Smarts on how to conduct a reverse image search)

Additional tips: Verifying vaccine information on websites and social media

In addition to using the SIFT method, here are extra tips you can use to determine if the vaccine information you encounter on websites and social media accounts is accurate. 

1. Check who owns the website or social media profile. 

• The person or organization running the website or social media account should be apparent and not hidden. 
• For websites, look for a page titled “About Us” or “About [Sponsor’s Name]”. This page should provide contact details such as an e-mail address and/or telephone number, as well as information about the website’s or organization’s purpose.
• For social media, look at the account bio. Regardless of the social media platform, the account bio should provide you with the organization’s or creator’s purpose. Facebook bios may provide more content details, such as an email address, a telephone number, and/or a link to their website. 

 

2. Check whether the website or social media account is providing up-to-date vaccine information.

• The more up-to-date the vaccine information is, the more likely it is that the website or social media account is reputable.

 

3. Check whether the website or social media account is trying to sell you something. 

• Be wary of any website or social media account selling health products that could be marketed as a replacement for vaccines. The interest of these companies may steer you away from evidence-based information and ignite a sense of fear to persuade you to believe their messaging and purchase their health products. 

 

4. Check whether the website or social media account directs you to additional information or organizations.

• The website or social media account should link to other reputable health agencies or agencies that maintain standards, such as the National Advisory Committee on Immunization in Canada. Websites specifically should also be endorsed by these agencies. 

 

5. Check whether the website or social media account appears professional.

• Poor grammar and spelling, and amateurish visual design, are all signs that an information source is probably not credible. 

 

Looking closer: What counts as good vaccine research and expertise?

Evaluating vaccine expertise: Are they really an expert?

Anyone online can claim to be an expert. How do you tell who is actually an expert from who is not? The answer is not always straightforward, but true vaccine experts will generally:

1. State who they are and provide their credentials. 

• You can always double-check a health or public health professional’s credentials by verifying whether they are affiliated with a reputable medical or public health organization (e.g., your province’s or territory’s college of physicians, college of nurses, college of pharmacists, or public health authority).

 

2. Have a history of working with vaccines or evidenced-based education related to vaccines.

For more tips on how to spot a true vaccine expert vs. a fraud, refer to this post on GAVI: The Vaccine Alliance’s website.

Evaluating scientific research: Is the science good?

Say you want to go out for dinner and try a new place. One of the restaurants you are interested in has 150 reviews. The vast majority of honest reviews are positive, except for three bad reviews. Would you trust the 147 good reviews, or the 3 bad reviews? This same thinking applies to evaluating scientific research. 

When assessing whether a claim based on a vaccine study is reliable, check to see if other studies support the same conclusion. If the majority of the research on the topic is in agreement, the claim is more likely to be credible. If no other studies support the findings being cited, the vaccine claim may be unreliable and should be interpreted with caution or disregarded. 

Other questions you should ask when evaluating claims based on vaccine research include:

1. How many people were involved in the study? 

• Were there hundreds or only a handful? 
• The more people involved in a study, the more confident you can be in the study’s results.   

 

2. Were the studies peer reviewed?

• Peer review is when experts in the field review a study before it is published. Peer reviews help to ensure a study’s methods and conclusions are sound. 

 

3. Are the study’s strengths and weaknesses addressed? 

• Good studies will clearly state their limitations. Authors may note that the study did not produce clear results, or that more research is needed before drawing firm conclusions—both of which are good signs of credibility.

 

4. Is the study endorsed by groups or institutions whose purpose is to uphold science, such as professional/public health associations and universities? If so, the study is most likely scientifically rigorous.

Checklist for evaluating vaccine expertise and research For vaccine experts: Do they state who they are and what their credentials are? Do they have a history of working with vaccines or evidence-based education related to vaccines?   For vaccine research: Do enough studies support the vaccine claim I encountered? How many people were involved in the study? Was the study peer reviewed? Does the study list its strengths and weaknesses? Is the study endorsed by established, well-respected organizations/institutions?

 

References

A. Holly Patterson Library. (n.d.). ENG 103 Writing in the sciences: Evaluating scientific claims made online. Nassau Community College. https://library.ncc.edu/science_writing/web_evaluation

ASU Library. (2025). Misinformation. Arizona State University. https://libguides.asu.edu/misinformation/evalframeworks

BC Centre for Disease Control. (n.d.). How to find trusted information about vaccines. https://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/covid-19-vaccine/how-to-find-trusted-information-about-vaccines

Caring for Kids. (2019). A parent’s guide to immunization information on the Internet. https://caringforkids.cps.ca/handouts/immunization/immunization_information_on_the_internet

Caring for Kids. (2022). A parent’s guide to health information on the Internet. https://caringforkids.cps.ca/handouts/behavior-and-development/health_information_on_the_internet

Caulfield, M. (2019). SIFT (The four moves). HAPGOOD. https://hapgood.us/2019/06/19/sift-the-four-moves/

The Conversation. (2025). When it comes to health information, who should you trust? 4 ways to spot a dodgy ‘expert’. GAVI: Vaccines Work. https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/when-it-comes-health-information-who-should-you-trust-4-ways-spot-dodgy-expert

Government of Canada. (2024). How to identify misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation. https://www.cyber.gc.ca/en/guidance/how-identify-misinformation-disinformation-and-malinformation-itsap00300

Media Smarts. (2019). Break the fake tip #2: Find the source. https://mediasmarts.ca/break-fake-tip-2-find-source

Media Smarts. (2019). Break the fake tip #3: Verify the source. https://mediasmarts.ca/teacher-resources/break-fake-tip-3-verify-source

Media Smarts. (2022). Break the fake: Critical thinking vs. disinformation. https://mediasmarts.ca/teacher-resources/break-fake-critical-thinking-vs-disinformation/backup

Purdue Global. (2024). How to know if a source is credible. https://www.purdueglobal.edu/blog/online-learning/credible-academic-sources/  

Rugerri, A. (2024). The ‘Sift’ strategy: A four-step method for spotting misinformation. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240509-the-sift-strategy-a-four-step-method-for-spotting-misinformation 

ScienceUpFirst. (2024). Misinformer tactic: Cherry picking. https://scienceupfirst.com/misinformation-101/misinformer-tactic-cherry-picking/

ScienceUpFirst. (2024). Misinformer tactic: Stirring up emotions. https://scienceupfirst.com/misinformation-101/misinformer-tactic-stirring-up-emotions/

ScienceUpFirst (2025). Algorithm 101. https://scienceupfirst.com/misinformation-101/algorithm-101/

The University of British Columbia Library. (2026). Evaluating information sources. The University of British Columbia. https://guides.library.ubc.ca/EvaluatingSources/Guidelines

UNHCR: The UN Refugee Agency. (n.d.). Identify reliable sources of information. https://help.unhcr.org/czech/safe-online/information/

Unicef: Europe and Central Asia. (2025). A quick guide to spotting misinformation: Tips for fact-checking, staying informed and talking it out. https://www.unicef.org/eca/stories/quick-guide-spotting-misinformation

University Libraries. (2026). Artificial intelligence (AI) and information literacy: What does AI get wrong? University of Maryland. https://lib.guides.umd.edu/c.php?g=1340355&p=9880574

University of Waterloo. (2024). Assessing source quality (beyond RADAR). https://lib.uwaterloo.ca/online_learning/assessing-source-quality-beyond-radar

Voices for Vaccines. (n.d.). Credible information. https://www.voicesforvaccines.org/credible-info/