Sources & Evidence
The Context Project is built around source trails, public records, documents, archived pages, funding links, ownership structures and evidence grading.
The goal is not to tell people what to think.
The goal is to show where claims come from, what supports them, what is disputed, what is missing and what still needs investigating.
How evidence is handled
Not every source carries the same weight.
A government archive is not the same as a social media post. A peer-reviewed paper is not the same as a headline. A patent is not proof that something is being used. An adverse event report is not proof of causation. A funding link is not proof that a result is false.
But each can still matter.
The Context Project is built to place sources in context, compare them against other records, and separate documented facts from claims, concerns, assumptions and speculation.
The evidence hierarchy
Where possible, investigations prioritise primary sources first.
That means original documents, public records, official archives, clinical trial registries, regulatory filings, company records, patents, lobbying disclosures, funding records and archived webpages.
Secondary sources can still be useful, but they are treated as interpretation, not the foundation.
The aim is to follow the trail back to the source.
Confidence vs concern
The Context Project separates confidence from concern.
Confidence asks: how strong is the available evidence?
Concern asks: how serious could the issue be if the evidence, trend or claim is accurate?
This distinction matters because people can believe things too quickly, and institutions can dismiss concerns too easily.
The truth often lives in the context between those two mistakes.
What we look for
Each investigation is designed to look beyond the surface claim.
Where possible, we look for the original source, the timeline, the funding, the sponsor, the ownership structure, the conflicts of interest, the regulatory history, the public records, the archived material and the wider system around the topic.
The question is rarely just “is this true or false?”
The better question is often: what is documented, who benefits, what is missing, and what does the wider context show?
The source bank
The sources below are starting points for deeper research.
They include official archives, public records, medical research databases, clinical trial registries, patents, corporate filings, lobbying records, archived webpages and global policy documents.
This is not a complete list, and no single source should be treated as enough on its own.
The value comes from cross-referencing.
Official archives & FOIA
Government, policy & public records
Medical research & clinical trials
Drug safety & regulation
Funding, lobbying & conflicts
Corporate ownership & filings
Patents & technology
Food, chemicals & environment
Cancer, toxins & environmental health
Global institutions & policy
Archived and removed content
How to research properly
The Context Project does not treat a single document, study or source as the whole story.
The method is to cross-reference.
Check the original source. Check who funded it. Check who sponsored it. Check conflicts of interest. Check ownership. Check whether the results were replicated. Check whether public statements match archived records. Check whether the same claim appears across independent sources.
You are not always proving something true or false.
Often, you are identifying bias, incentives, gaps and unanswered questions.
What we do not do
The Context Project is not built to treat every claim as fact.
We do not assume something is true because it is popular online.
We do not assume something is false because institutions dismiss it.
We do not treat patents as proof of deployment.
We do not treat adverse event reports as proof of causation.
We do not treat funding links as automatic proof of corruption.
But we also do not ignore patterns, incentives, conflicts, missing context or unanswered questions.
The aim is evidence, context and better questions.
Accuracy matters
The Context Project is being built as a living archive.
That means sources can be improved, links can be updated, context can be added and mistakes should be corrected.
If you spot a broken link, missing source, unclear wording, outdated information, factual concern or evidence that should be reviewed, report it.
Submit a source lead
Some evidence is hidden in plain sight.
Some is buried in documents, filings, archived webpages, old reports, deleted pages, trial records, patents or public databases most people never search.
And sometimes, people know where to look before anyone else does.
If you have a document, archived webpage, public record, study, filing, whistleblower lead, first-hand account, correction or topic that deserves further investigation, you can send it for review.
Submissions can be made anonymously.
Not every lead will become part of an investigation, but useful information may help strengthen the archive.