Andy Wilcox — Founder & Author

Independent researcher and founder of the Virus Questions network.

Background

Andy Wilcox is the founder of the Virus Questions network, which operates CoronavirusQuestions.com, EbolaQuestions.com, HantavirusQuestions.com, and NorovirusQuestions.com. He is not a physician. His work on these sites is the product of disciplined primary-source research.

Andy has 30+ years of experience as a consultant, operating executive, and investor. His consulting career began at Ernst & Young, where he worked with Fortune 500 pharmaceutical and healthcare clients. He holds an MBA from Duke University's Fuqua School of Business, is a licensed CPA, and holds a Project Management Professional (PMP) certification. He serves on the Executive, Screening, and Due Diligence committees at Triangle Angel Partners.

Why he built these sites

Each site in the network was launched in direct response to a public health event — a moment when millions of people needed clear, accurate information and found instead a mix of news articles, clinical-level CDC guidance, and social media noise.

The editorial principle is simple: every health claim must be traceable to a primary source. Speculation is not published. Uncertainty is stated explicitly. Content is corrected when authority guidance changes, not just when it's convenient.

Editorial approach

  • Primary sources only: CDC, WHO, FDA, NIH, ECDC, and peer-reviewed journals. Not summaries of other websites.
  • Verifiable citations: Every factual claim is linked to its source so readers can verify it themselves.
  • Explicit uncertainty: Where scientific consensus is unsettled or incomplete, that is stated on the page. No filling knowledge gaps with inference.
  • Monthly review: Each site is reviewed monthly against live authority guidance. Pages are corrected when directly contradicted by current sources.
  • Not medical advice: Content is for general education only. Personal health decisions require a qualified healthcare provider.

Where this expertise ends

The most useful thing a non-clinician author can publish is an honest boundary. Andy Wilcox is not a physician, epidemiologist, virologist, or public health official, and holds no clinical or biomedical qualification. Nothing on this network is written from clinical experience.

What that rules out, concretely:

  • No interpretation of your situation. Whether a symptom, exposure, or test result means anything in your case is a clinical judgement, and no page here can make it.
  • No original clinical claims. Every health statement traces to CDC, WHO, NIH, or peer-reviewed literature. Where those sources are silent, so is this network — the gap is stated rather than filled by reasoning from adjacent evidence.
  • No adjudicating live scientific disputes. Where researchers genuinely disagree, the disagreement is described. It is not resolved here in favour of whichever side reads better.
  • No treatment or dosing guidance beyond reporting what an authority has approved or authorised, with its approval status stated exactly — the distinction between "FDA-approved" and "authorised under an EUA" is one this network has already had to correct itself on.

What the background does support is a different and narrower skill: reading primary sources carefully, checking figures against the documents they came from, noticing when a number has drifted from its source or when a citation points at the wrong paper, and being willing to publish the resulting corrections. Thirty years of consulting, operating, and investment due diligence is training in exactly that — verifying claims made by other people, and finding the ones that do not hold. The corrections log is what that discipline looks like when it is applied to health content and left visible.

What the work actually consists of

Credentials describe a background; they do not show how a page got written. These are the parts of the network where the method is visible and checkable rather than asserted:

  • The corrections log — every factual change made to live content, with what was published, what it says now, and the commit that changed it. It includes a correction that was itself wrong and had to be reverted, and a reported error that was investigated and rejected.
  • The sourcing tiers — the three-tier scheme applied per figure, the rule that a derived figure inherits its weakest input's tier, and the rule that an unpublished figure is marked unavailable rather than estimated.
  • The Virus Risk Perspective — 15 viruses on one comparison, where roughly half the cells are deliberately empty because no comparable figure exists. Each per-virus page shows the arithmetic behind any derived number, both inputs separately sourced.

The consistent thread is that the uncomfortable material is published rather than omitted: the reverted correction, the rejected error report, the empty cell. A health site that only ever shows figures it can state confidently is telling you less than it knows.

Contact & profiles