Selected Remarks and Responses

AI: Claim 5: “COVID-19 might have been a deliberate American biowarfare attack on China (and Iran), which then ‘blew back’ catastrophically to the U.S. itself…Classification: Inaccurate (No Evidence; Contradicted by Expert Assessments). This is the overarching suggestion of the article, tying together the previous points…Consilience of Scientific Opinion: The vast majority of virologists and bio-defense experts, at least as of 2020–2021, echoed the view that SARS-CoV-2 does not have markers of a bio-engineered pathogen…Verdict: The claim that COVID-19 was a deliberate U.S. attack is unsupported by evidence and regarded as a conspiracy theory by the scientific and intelligence communities. It is inaccurate to assert this as fact. Even Unz couches it as a hypothesis.

Unz: I fully stand by my analysis, although I agree that the evidence was only partial at the time of this article.

AI: Overall Assessment: Ron Unz’s article contains a mix of well-founded historical corrections and far-reaching conjectures. On the factual historical claims, the piece is surprisingly solid – it highlights genuine instances where the U.S. government or media narrative was misleading (the Tiananmen Square misconception and the Chinese embassy bombing cover-up). Our research confirms that in those cases the article is largely accurate

However, when extrapolating this pattern to the COVID-19 pandemic’s origin, the article veers into unsupported conspiracy theory. The idea of a U.S. biowarfare “blowback” causing COVID-19 is not substantiated by any direct evidence and is contradicted by the consensus of experts and intelligence findings…

In conclusion, Ron Unz’s article is partially reliable…Ultimately, while the article succeeds in questioning U.S. credibility using historical cases, its central insinuation about COVID-19 as biowarfare does not meet the burden of proof and should be viewed with extreme skepticism.

Unz: Once again, I stand by my analysis, and note that the AI failed to consider with a number of my additional points.

Preface

• American Pravda: Our Coronavirus Catastrophe as Biowarfare Blowback?
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • April 21, 2020 • 7,400 Words

Understood. I will conduct a comprehensive fact-check of the article Our Coronavirus Catastrophe as Biowarfare Blowback? from The Unz Review, verifying all historical and scientific claims, checking the credentials and accuracy of cited sources, and performing a point-by-point analysis of all major factual assertions.I’ll compile a structured report detailing the accuracy of each claim, how sources are represented, and offer a final assessment of the article’s reliability. I’ll let you know once the report is ready.

Introduction

Ron Unz’s April 21, 2020 article, “Our Coronavirus Catastrophe as Biowarfare Blowback?” (published on The Unz Review), advances a narrative that the U.S. government and media have misrepresented key events in Sino-American history – from the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown to the 1999 NATO bombing of China’s Belgrade embassy – and suggests these examples of deceit cast doubt on current claims that China caused the COVID-19 pandemic. Unz explores the possibility that the COVID-19 outbreak might actually have been a U.S. biowarfare attack on China which disastrously backfired on America. This report conducts a comprehensive fact-check of the article’s historical and scientific assertions. We verify each major claim, assess the credibility and context of cited sources (such as Jay Mathews’s “The Myth of Tiananmen,” Peter Lee’s analysis of the embassy bombing, Whitney Webb’s reporting on U.S. biowarfare research, and the pseudonymous “OldMicrobiologist”), and evaluate whether the article accurately represents those sources. The goal is to separate well-founded facts from speculation or misrepresentation and to judge the overall factual reliability of Unz’s piece.

Methodology

We followed a rigorous fact-checking process:

• Extraction of Claims: We carefully read Unz’s article to identify discrete factual or historical claims. Each claim was distilled in plain terms (e.g. “No massacre occurred in Tiananmen Square” or “The Chinese embassy bombing was deliberate”).
• Source Verification: For claims where Unz cited a source, we traced those citations to the original material. We confirmed the authenticity, authorship, and content of sources including the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) article by Jay Mathews, Peter Lee’s writings on the embassy bombing, investigative reports by Whitney Webb, and comments by “OldMicrobiologist.” We checked that these sources say what the article claims they do.
• Cross-Referencing Independent Sources: We consulted a wide range of independent, reputable sources – official records, mainstream news archives (e.g. New York Times, Washington Post), peer-reviewed studies, watchdog organizations (e.g. FAIR.org, Columbia Journalism Review archives), and expert analyses – to verify each claim’s accuracy. We paid special attention to sources the prompt recommended (government records, major newspapers, CJR, FAIR, etc.).
• Comparison for Context: For each claim, we compared Unz’s summary or interpretation with the original context of the cited source. This allowed us to detect any misquoting or contextual distortion. We also assessed whether relevant contrary evidence was omitted.
• Classification: Each claim was categorized as accurate, partially accurate, or inaccurate (as well as noting unsubstantiated where appropriate). These judgments are based on the preponderance of evidence gathered. “Accurate” means the claim is factually correct; “Partially accurate” means it has some truth but is missing context or has minor inaccuracies; “Inaccurate” means the claim is fundamentally false or misleading.
• Source Credibility Evaluation: We evaluated whether the key sources used (Jay Mathews, Peter Lee, Whitney Webb, “OldMicrobiologist”) are credible and authoritative on the topics at hand. We also check if Unz quoted them in context and fairly. This included checking the background of those authors (e.g. Mathews’s journalistic credentials, Webb’s track record, etc.) and any known biases or controversies.

Using this approach, we built a claim-by-claim analysis with supporting evidence cited in the format 【source†lines】. All citations are from authoritative sources that substantiate or refute the claims in question. Below we present the findings, followed by an assessment of source usage and an overall conclusion.

Findings: Claim-by-Claim Analysis

Claim 1: “The Tiananmen Square ‘massacre’ is a myth – no students were killed in the Square in 1989, and the Western media blindly propagated a false story.”

Classification: Partially Accurate. Unz asserts that the famous “Tiananmen Square massacre” never actually occurred in the Square itself, and that student protesters vacated the plaza peacefully, as the Chinese government has long maintained. He cites veteran journalist Jay Mathews’s 1998 analysis “The Myth of Tiananmen” to support this. Evidence strongly supports the specific point that no protesters were killed inside Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989 – however, framing this as the massacre never happened or calling it a “hoax” is somewhat misleading without clarification. In reality, hundreds of people were killed that night in Beijing, just not in the Square’s confines. The core of the claim – that Western media reports of a bloodbath in the Square were erroneous – is accurate, but it omits the broader context of violence in the city and overstates the idea of a deliberate media “hoax.”

• No Deaths in the Square: Contemporary evidence and later journalistic reviews confirm that the final group of student demonstrators in Tiananmen Square left peacefully in the early hours of June 4 after negotiating with army commanders. As CJR’s The Myth of Tiananmen explains, “as far as can be determined from the available evidence, no one died that night in Tiananmen Square” cjr.org. The gunfire and killings happened on avenues leading to the Square and other parts of Beijing – “hundreds of people, most of them workers and passersby, did die that night, but in a different place and under different circumstances” cjr.org. Mathews, who was The Washington Post’s Beijing bureau chief and covered the 1989 protests firsthand, found that many U.S. media outlets had for years mistakenly described a “massacre” in the Square that eyewitnesses knew hadn’t occurred cjr.org cjr.org. This aligns with Unz’s summary that Western reports were “media artifacts produced by confused reporters,” and indeed “the protesting students had all left Tiananmen Square peacefully” scribd.com.
• Media Acknowledgements (Buried): Unz is also correct that on a few occasions, major U.S. newspapers admitted no one was killed in the Square – but these clarifications were not prominently highlighted. For instance, both The New York Times and Washington Post (on anniversary retrospectives) have noted in passing that the students weren’t shot in the Square itself, yet “these were short explanations at the end of long articles” that likely escaped most readers’ notice cjr.org. This matches Unz’s claim that such admissions were “usually buried…so deep in their stories that few ever noticed” scribd.com. The overall media narrative remained that a “Tiananmen Square massacre” occurred, which Mathews characterizes as a myth accepted by many American reporters and editors cjr.org cjr.org.
• Not a Deliberate Hoax: Where Unz’s portrayal leans into exaggeration is the notion that the massacre was a “hoax” born of “dishonest propaganda”. Jay Mathews did not allege an intentional Western conspiracy; rather, he described how early erroneous reports and assumptions solidified into a canonical story. Initial reports in 1989 were chaotic – many journalists were kept away from the Square and relied on hearsay during the crackdown. This allowed unverified accounts of a mass slaughter in the Square to take hold. Mathews argues that once the dramatic story was established, herd mentality led the press to repeat it without verification scribd.com scribd.com. In other words, it was a failure of journalism and fact-checking, not an intentional lie by reporters. (Chinese authorities did kill hundreds of people – just mostly along Changan Avenue and other approach routes – so it was not a hoax that a massacre happened, only that it happened in the Square itself.) Thus, Unz’s claim is partially accurate: the specific location of the “massacre” was misreported and the media narrative was indeed flawed, but describing it as the massacre “never happened” at all glosses over the very real bloodshed that night outside the Square.
• Verdict: We concur that it is accurate that no massacre took place in Tiananmen Square proper – a fact many Western media outlets got wrong for years cjr.org. The article correctly cites a credible source (CJR, by an authoritative eyewitness reporter) on this point, and it accurately conveys the source’s conclusion scribd.com scribd.com. However, labeling it a “hoax” without qualification is an overstatement. We classify this claim as Partially Accurate (true in substance about the Square, but missing context that a massacre did occur elsewhere in Beijing). It is important to note this nuance rather than conclude that 1989’s violence was a fiction. The key lesson, supported by CJR and others, is that media outlets were imprecise and even misleading in their Tiananmen coverage, which is a fair criticism scribd.com.

Claim 2: “NATO’s 1999 bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was not an accident but a deliberate attack – and U.S. media helped cover it up.”

Classification: Mostly Accurate (Evidence strongly supports deliberate intent, though it remains officially disputed; media misrepresentation is accurately documented). Unz revisits the May 7, 1999 bombing of China’s embassy in Belgrade during the Kosovo war, a strike which U.S./NATO officials long claimed was a “tragic mistake” caused by outdated maps. The article claims that China was right in suspecting foul play: the embassy was knowingly targeted because it was facilitating Yugoslav communications, and even housing a downed U.S. stealth plane’s debris. Moreover, Unz argues that multiple NATO insiders later confirmed the bombing was intentional, yet the U.S. media “encountered an absolute wall of silence” on these revelations scribd.com scribd.com. We found substantial evidence backing the deliberate targeting narrative from reputable sources abroad (and even a belated U.S. admission of unique CIA involvement), as well as clear documentation that American media downplayed or ignored these findings in late 1999.

• Deliberate Targeting and Motives: Investigative reporting soon after the incident provided persuasive evidence that NATO intentionally struck the Chinese embassy. Multiple military and intelligence sources told the London Observer (in a report on Oct. 17, 1999) that NATO “deliberately bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade” after detecting it was being used to transmit Yugoslav Army communications theguardian.com. According to these sources – which included a NATO flight controller, a signals intelligence officer, and others – Yugoslav forces, once their own transmitters were bombed, had begun rebroadcasting military radio signals from the Chinese embassy. NATO identified this “electronic profile” and targeted it theguardian.com theguardian.com. One NATO officer even bragged that the precision-guided bomb hit exactly the room intended, according to Unz’s recounting of the Observer piece scribd.com. In addition, the Observer and other outlets reported that Chinese personnel were suspected of helping Belgrade monitor NATO missile strikes and that the embassy may have held pieces of a U.S. F-117 stealth fighter that Serbia had shot down – providing further motive for the U.S. to strike the facility scribd.com scribd.com. Notably, two of the three people killed in the bombing were not journalists (as China first claimed) but intelligence officers, suggesting the embassy had an active military role at the time theguardian.com. In short, contemporaneous credible evidence supports the claim that the U.S. knowingly targeted the Chinese embassy to shut down a Yugoslav radio relay and possibly to destroy sensitive military hardware or “punish” China scribd.com scribd.com.
• Refutation of the “Accident” Excuse: The official U.S./NATO line was that the bombing was accidental – supposedly an intelligence blunder wherein the embassy’s location was mistaken for a Yugoslav arms agency on a map. However, this excuse collapsed under scrutiny. A U.S. National Imagery and Mapping Agency officer called the “wrong map” story “a damned lie” theguardian.com. NATO insiders revealed that NATO possessed an updated “no-strike” map on which the Chinese embassy was correctly marked at its current address (it had relocated in 1996) – meaning targeteers knew full well where the embassy was theguardian.com theguardian.com. Furthermore, in July 1999, CIA Director George Tenet testified to Congress that the bombing was the only strike of the entire war “organized and directed” by the CIA (rather than the military) en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org. This extraordinary admission – that the CIA selected the target – is highly suspicious, as Unz notes scribd.com, because it implies the attack was an intelligence mission outside the normal NATO targeting process. (Tenet still maintained it was an accident, but this unique CIA role raised many eyebrows.) In summary, by late 1999 there was strong evidence and insider confirmation that the strike was deliberate, contradicting NATO’s public apologies. The claim that “the American attack on the Chinese embassy had indeed been deliberate, just as China had always claimed” is well-supported by NATO and CIA revelations scribd.com scribd.com.
• Media Silence and Spin: The article’s contention that the U.S. mainstream media ignored or buried this story is unfortunately accurate. After the Observer’s bombshell exposé in October 1999, European and international press covered it prominently – e.g. The Guardian (UK) ran a summary the same day scribd.com scribd.com, The Times of London followed up with officials’ reactions, and outlets from Canada (Globe and Mail) to India and Australia printed wire stories about the deliberate bombing report fair.org fair.org. In stark contrast, U.S. media was largely silent or dismissive. None of the three major U.S. TV networks mentioned the Observer’s findings fair.org fair.org. The New York Times and USA Today also failed to report the new evidence at all fair.org fair.org. The Washington Post gave it only a 90-word blurb in a “World Briefing,” which ran under the headline “NATO Denies Story on Embassy Bombing” – emphasizing the official denial rather than the substance of the revelations fair.org fair.org. As FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting) observed, headlines on the wire services told the story (“NATO Bombed Chinese Embassy Deliberately – UK Paper”) while the U.S. AP wire’s headline was “NATO Denies Deliberate Embassy Hit,” reflecting a defensive spin fair.org. In the months right after the bombing (May 1999), U.S. outlets had uncritically referred to it as the “accidental” or “mistaken” bombing in line with NATO’s claims fair.org fair.org, and portrayed Chinese protests of intent as propaganda. This credulity gave way to unwillingness to revisit the issue when evidence to the contrary emerged. FAIR’s analysis concluded that “the U.S. media [showed] a deafening silence” in response to the exposé fair.org fair.org – exactly what Unz recounts. Thus, his claim that the media ignored and even covered up the deliberate nature of the bombing is well-founded scribd.com. Indeed, The New York Times did not properly report on the embassy bombing controversy until April 2000, when it published its own investigation largely reaffirming the official version (finding “no evidence” of a deliberate targeting) en.wikipedia.org – an investigation widely criticized as inadequate by observers (and likely influenced by limited sources).
• Official Stance: It should be noted that U.S. and NATO officials to this day deny that the bombing was intentional. At the time, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright blasted the Observer story as “balderdash” and the British foreign secretary said there was “not a single shred of evidence” for deliberate targeting en.wikipedia.org. The Pentagon and CIA maintained it was a tragic mistake. The New York Times’ April 2000 article supported the accident narrative en.wikipedia.org. So, while the balance of evidence uncovered by journalists and even some U.S. testimony strongly supports Unz’s claim of deliberate intent, it is fair to say the issue is contentious. There is no official acknowledgment of wrongdoing beyond the CIA admitting a targeting error on their part. We classify the claim as Mostly Accurate – the weight of credible evidence (from NATO insiders, CIA testimony, etc.) backs it, and the description of U.S. media behavior is correct fair.org fair.org. The only caveat is that the U.S. government’s position remains denial, meaning the claim, while credible, is not officially confirmed. In a fact-check context, however, Unz’s presentation aligns with documented facts from reliable sources like The Guardian/Observer and FAIR.
• Verdict: It is accurate that multiple independent sources (Observer, Guardian, etc.) revealed the Chinese embassy bombing was likely deliberate theguardian.com theguardian.com, and that no credible counter-evidence was ever produced to refute this. It is also accurate that American media and officials either ignored these revelations or framed them as unfounded, thereby misleading the public fair.org fair.org. Unz’s recounting of Peter Lee’s extensive research and the cited follow-ups (like FAIR’s reports) checks out. We have essentially a pattern of media distortion convincingly demonstrated in this case.

Claim 3: “China suffered mysterious viral epidemics in 2018–2019 (avian flu in poultry and African swine fever in pigs) that devastated its food supply, benefiting U.S. exports – raising suspicions of a biowarfare campaign even before COVID-19.”

Classification: Partially Accurate (the outbreaks and impacts are real; the insinuation of deliberate cause is unproven). Unz, echoing points from the “OldMicrobiologist” source, notes that in the two years preceding COVID-19, China’s agriculture was hit by back-to-back plagues: a 2018 avian influenza that wiped out much of its poultry, and 2019 African Swine Fever (ASF) that decimated its pig herds. He points out that these “serious blows” to China’s food security coincided with the U.S.-China trade war and indeed forced China to import more food (to America’s advantage) scribd.com scribd.com. The article even mentions “widespread claims” that the swine fever was being spread deliberately by “mysterious small drones” inside China scribd.com scribd.com. These facts are presented to suggest a pattern of possible U.S. biological sabotage prior to the coronavirus. Here’s what we found:

• Reality of the Animal Disease Outbreaks: The claim accurately describes the scale of the animal epidemics:
  • African Swine Fever in 2018–2019: African swine fever (a highly contagious virus deadly to pigs) swept through China starting mid-2018. By 2019, China’s hog population experienced catastrophic losses. Official Chinese statistics showed a decline of over 40% of the swine herd by late 2019 ers.usda.gov. Independent analyses (e.g. Rabobank, USDA) likewise estimated that at least 40% of China’s ~360 million pigs were lost – over 100 million dead – in what one agribusiness economist called a “very dire situation” theguardian.com. This led to pork shortages, soaring meat prices in China, and a surge in China’s pork imports from abroad ers.usda.gov ers.usda.gov. The USDA noted that the ASF outbreak “decimated the world’s largest swine herd in 2019” and “created significant export opportunities for the U.S. pork industry,” as American pork producers were suddenly able to ship much more product to China despite trade tensions ers.usda.gov. In fact, U.S. pork exports to China roughly doubled in 2019, and pork became a major component of a Phase-One trade deal – validating Unz’s observation that the crisis was “a huge boon to American farm exports” scribd.com ers.usda.gov. All mainstream reports concur that the African swine fever outbreak was real and devastating – there is no dispute on this factual point.
  • Avian Influenza in 2018: China also battled avian flu in poultry around 2018 (likely H7N9 or a similar strain). While less internationally reported than ASF, Chinese authorities did cull large numbers of chickens to contain outbreaks. The article’s reference to a “new Avian Flu virus [that] swept the country, eliminating large portions of China’s poultry industry” scribd.com appears plausible. Indeed, China’s Ministry of Agriculture reported several avian influenza incidents in 2018, and historically China has had significant bird flu outbreaks (e.g. H7N9 in 2017 led to the culling of 30 million poultry). The exact quantitative impact isn’t given in Unz’s piece, but it is reasonable that a major poultry epidemic occurred. So this aspect is also accurate in essence.
• Claims of Malicious Spread (Drones): The article mentions “widespread claims that [African swine fever] was being spread by mysterious small drones” in China scribd.com. This sounds sensational, but it is grounded in real reports. In late 2018 and 2019, Chinese media and officials did report incidents of drones spreading ASF: criminal pig smugglers (dubbed “pig stir-fry syndicates”) were found to be using drones to drop contaminated materials into farm pens to infect pigs, then profit from buying livestock cheaply and moving pork illicitly thechinaproject.com thechinaproject.com. For example, Chinese state media and South China Morning Post covered how gangs deployed drones carrying ASF virus to farms, exacerbating the outbreak thechinaproject.com thechinaproject.com. This led some Chinese farmers to jam GPS signals to deter drones linkedin.com. Therefore, Unz’s detail about drones is based on legitimate news – though those were criminal activities for profit within China, not proven foreign sabotage. The suggestion of “mysterious” drones hints at espionage, but publicly the known cases were domestic smugglers. Still, his inclusion of that fact is factually correct: such drone-assisted spread did reportedly happen thechinaproject.com.
• Implied Biowarfare vs. Natural Causes: While the facts of the outbreaks and their consequences are correct, the claim carries an implication that these might not have been natural or accidental events – i.e. possibly a biowarfare prelude. This implication is unsubstantiated. African swine fever was rampant across Asia and Europe around that time; it likely entered China via pork or pigs from neighboring countries (it was first detected in China in August 2018 in Liaoning, likely from Russia). Experts widely agree ASF’s spread was due to poor biosecurity, smuggling, and its hardy nature, rather than a directed attack. The Chinese government’s own investigations blamed factors like illegal transport of pigs and virus-contaminated feed, not U.S. agents. Similarly, avian flu outbreaks have been recurrent in Asia from migrating birds and farm conditions. There is no evidence that the U.S. or any actor deliberately introduced these animal diseases into China. Unz’s article stops short of outright asserting it as fact, but strongly suggests a pattern (three years in a row of new diseases hitting China). This suspicion is understandable given the coincidental timing with trade disputes, but it remains speculative. No official or scientific source has confirmed any biowarfare link to those outbreaks.
• Verdict: The historical claims here – that China’s pigs and poultry were devastated by disease in 2018–19 and that the U.S. benefited from China’s food shortfalls – are accurate and supported by data ers.usda.gov ers.usda.gov. Unz accurately reports the scale (e.g. ~40% of China’s pigs wiped out, which matches external estimates theguardian.com) and the coinciding benefit to U.S. agriculture ers.usda.gov. He also correctly notes unusual anecdotes like drone vectors thechinaproject.com. However, the article’s implication of a clandestine U.S. biowarfare campaign against Chinese livestock is unsupported by evidence – there is no public proof tying the U.S. to those animal plagues, and the claim is not something we can verify as true. Thus we label the claim Partially Accurate: true in describing the events, inaccurate or unproven in attributing motive or causation. It is fair to call the pattern “suspicious” (as the article does scribd.com), but one must emphasize that this suspicion remains conjecture. Absent concrete evidence (e.g. caught operatives or lab analysis indicating engineered strains), we cannot affirm a biowarfare explanation. So while Unz is right that these coincidences raise questions, any assertion of U.S. culpability in those outbreaks is not established.

Claim 4: “Immediately before COVID-19 emerged, Wuhan hosted the World Military Games with a large U.S. military delegation – an ‘absolutely remarkable coincidence’ that suggests the virus could have been introduced then.”

Classification: Factually Accurate Timeline, but Speculative Link. The article notes that in October 2019, Wuhan was the site of the 7th Military World Games (a global sporting event for military personnel), and about 300 American military athletes and staff were in attendance. Unz posits a thought experiment: if 300 Chinese soldiers visited a U.S. city and an outbreak began there weeks later, Americans would be very suspicious; likewise, the presence of the U.S. team in Wuhan right before the pandemic is presented as circumstantial evidence of possible U.S. involvement scribd.com scribd.com.

On the facts: Yes, Wuhan hosted the Military World Games from October 18–27, 2019, with thousands of athletes from 100+ countries including the United States. The U.S. delegation’s size was indeed on the order of a few hundred. According to the U.S. Department of Defense and event records, Team USA sent ~280 servicemembers (athletes and staff) to Wuhan washingtonpost.com, competing in sports from wrestling to golf. Chinese media similarly reported “about 300 athletes from the United States” arriving for the Games xinhuanet.com. So the timeline and figures Unz gives are accurate. It’s true this gathering occurred roughly two months before China first reported COVID-19 cases in late December 2019.

However, the suggestion that this timing indicates the U.S. might have covertly released the virus during the Games is highly speculative and currently unsupported by hard evidence. Here’s the breakdown:

• Coincidence in Time and Place: The Military World Games in Wuhan did take place shortly before the earliest known outbreak. This coincidence has fueled multiple theories. Some participants from various countries later recounted falling ill with unusual symptoms during or right after the event (though none confirmed as COVID-19 at the time) washingtonpost.com washingtonpost.com. These anecdotal reports led to calls by some (including Chinese officials in 2020 and, later, some U.S. Congress members in 2021) for an investigation into whether the virus could have been circulating at the Games. It remains a question mark. Notably, a June 2021 Washington Post report confirms “there has never been a real investigation” into the Games and whether they might have been a COVID-19 “superspreader event” or origin point washingtonpost.com washingtonpost.com. So it’s not a completely dismissed idea in investigative terms – it’s simply unproven.
• Lack of Concrete Evidence: To date, no direct evidence has emerged that SARS-CoV-2 was present at the Games or that any U.S. personnel were infected or involved in spreading it then. The earliest confirmed cases in Wuhan trace back to mid-late November 2019 (with some studies suggesting possible viral presence in November) washingtonpost.com, which is after the Games. If the virus had been deliberately planted in October, one might expect an earlier explosion of cases. Chinese authorities have not provided any virological data from athletes. The U.S. military stated it was not aware of any COVID-like illness among the U.S. team at the time (though no antibody tests were done later to check) washingtonpost.com. In short, while suspicious minds can connect the dots circumstantially, no proof links the U.S. delegation to the outbreak. The mainstream scientific consensus is leaning towards two possibilities: a natural spillover in the Wuhan area or an accidental lab escape from the Wuhan Institute of Virology – not a premeditated introduction by foreign soldiers.
• Verdict: Unz’s framing of the scenario (the hypothetical of Chinese officers in Chicago) is a rhetorical device, but the underlying factual claim – “300 American military personnel visited Wuhan right before COVID appeared” – is accurate xinhuanet.com washingtonpost.com. The implication that this was the vector of the virus is unsubstantiated. We classify the timeline aspect as Accurate, but the insinuation of causality as Not Proven. Essentially, it’s an interesting fact pattern with no verification of wrongdoing. Intelligence and health investigations have not corroborated this theory to date. Even Unz admits this is “merely circumstantial” evidence that “raised dark suspicions” scribd.com scribd.com – which is a fair characterization. We concur that it’s an intriguing coincidence worth further inquiry (as some lawmakers have suggested), but no conclusive claims can be made. In a fact-checking sense, one should not leap from “U.S. troops were in Wuhan” to “the U.S. planted COVID-19 at Wuhan.” Therefore, this claim is presented correctly in terms of facts, but any definitive biowarfare conclusion drawn from it would be inaccurate pending actual evidence.

Claim 5: “COVID-19 might have been a deliberate American biowarfare attack on China (and Iran), which then ‘blew back’ catastrophically to the U.S. itself.”

Classification: Inaccurate (No Evidence; Contradicted by Expert Assessments). This is the overarching suggestion of the article, tying together the previous points. Unz posits a scenario in which elements of the U.S. security apparatus covertly released the novel coronavirus in Wuhan (possibly during the military games or via other means) to cripple China’s economy and rise – essentially a biological warfare strike – and that this plan backfired when the virus spread worldwide, causing massive American casualties and economic damage. He acknowledges this theory is “not particularly likely,” but considers it “certainly a very fitting end to the American Empire” if true scribd.com. Fact-checking this claim requires examining whether there is any factual basis or authoritative support for the idea that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered or deployed as a weapon by the United States.

All available evidence and expert analysis to date refute this claim or find it highly implausible:

• No Indications of a Bio-Weapon: The U.S. Intelligence Community, after extensive investigation, concluded with high confidence that the coronavirus “was not developed as a biological weapon.” A declassified ODNI report in 2021 stated there is a “broad agreement” among agencies that China did not engineer or intentionally release SARS-CoV-2 hstoday.us. The report also assessed that Chinese officials had no foreknowledge of the outbreak – meaning it wasn’t a case of them getting accidentally hit by their own or someone else’s bioweapon without warning hstoday.us. Importantly, the intelligence review found no evidence of genetic manipulation indicative of a lab-engineered virus: “The COVID-19 disease isn’t a biological weapon and probably wasn’t genetically engineered,” as summarized by DNI Avril Haines airandspaceforces.com. The virus’s genome lacks the telltale signatures one would expect if it had been deliberately modified airandspaceforces.com. While these agencies considered both natural origin and lab-leak scenarios plausible (remaining divided on which), they explicitly remain skeptical of any claim of a biological weapon origin dni.gov.
• Consilience of Scientific Opinion: The vast majority of virologists and bio-defense experts, at least as of 2020–2021, echoed the view that SARS-CoV-2 does not have markers of a bio-engineered pathogen airandspaceforces.com. The genome appears typical of viruses that evolve in nature (particularly from bat coronaviruses). Early peer-reviewed studies (e.g. Andersen et al. in Nature Medicine, March 2020) found “no evidence that the virus was engineered”, noting its features likely resulted from natural selection. Additionally, a bioweapon would presumably be designed for controllability or specific targeting; SARS-CoV-2’s global and indiscriminate spread (affecting all countries severely) and relatively moderate fatality rate are inconsistent with strategic biowarfare design, according to biodefense experts washingtonpost.com. It’s also worth noting that if the U.S. had somehow unleashed COVID-19 in China, it did so in a manner that infected not just one city or group but an entire region including its ally South Korea and adversary Iran almost simultaneously – a pattern hard to explain by a single covert operation (unless one posits multiple attacks, which spirals into even more complexity and conjecture).
• Lack of Whistleblowers or Evidence Trail: A conspiracy of this magnitude (U.S. operatives deploying a virus) would likely generate some paper trail or whistleblower, yet none has surfaced. Journalists and researchers (including those sympathetic to alternative origin theories) have not uncovered solid documentation pointing to a U.S. plot. In contrast, there is considerable documentation of longstanding Chinese concerns about U.S. biodefense labs and vice versa – a war of narratives, but no smoking gun. The article leans on circumstantial points (as we’ve covered: prior incidents, timing of Wuhan games, etc.) but does not present direct evidence of an actual plot.
• Verdict: The claim that COVID-19 was a deliberate U.S. attack is unsupported by evidence and regarded as a conspiracy theory by the scientific and intelligence communities. It is inaccurate to assert this as fact. Even Unz couches it as a hypothesis. At this stage (mid-2025), exhaustive investigations by multiple countries have not validated this scenario. By contrast, we have official statements explicitly rejecting the bioweapon idea airandspaceforces.com. Thus, we classify this claim as Inaccurate. It should be noted that no authoritative source (government or peer-reviewed research) endorses the notion of a U.S. biowarfare attack on China; on the contrary, official U.S. reviews point away from any bio-weapon origin airandspaceforces.com. While it’s true the origins of COVID-19 are still debated (natural spillover vs. accidental lab leak in Wuhan), both those theories differ fundamentally from a deliberate attack. There is also zero evidence that the U.S. targeted Iran with the virus (Iran’s early outbreak in Qom is generally attributed to travel links with China). In summary, this dramatic claim does not withstand factual scrutiny and must be considered false absent new, compelling evidence.

Source Representation Analysis

Unz’s article relies on a mix of sources – some mainstream and highly credible, others more obscure or speculative. Here we evaluate the credibility and context of the key sources named (Jay Mathews, Peter Lee, Whitney Webb, “OldMicrobiologist”) and assess whether the article quoted or summarized them accurately and in proper context:

• Jay Mathews (“The Myth of Tiananmen”): Credibility: High. Jay Mathews (note: his last name is Mathews with one “t”, though Unz spells it “Matthews”) is a veteran journalist for The Washington Post. He was the Post’s first Beijing bureau chief in the 1980s and directly covered the Tiananmen protests in 1989, giving him first-hand authority cjr.org. His article “The Myth of Tiananmen and the Price of a Passive Press,” published in the Sept/Oct 1998 issue of Columbia Journalism Review (the premier U.S. media criticism journal), is a well-regarded piece that challenged the prevailing narrative about the Tiananmen Square deaths cjr.org cjr.org. Accuracy of use: Unz accurately conveys the core finding of Mathews’s article – that no massacre took place in Tiananmen Square and that U.S. media perpetuated a myth to the contrary scribd.com scribd.com. He correctly notes Mathews’s credentials (Beijing bureau chief, eyewitness) and the prestige of CJR scribd.com. The quotes and points attributed to Mathews (e.g. Western reporters were confused, the false story became entrenched, students left peacefully, NYT/WaPo buried the truth) are faithful to the CJR article scribd.com scribd.com. Context is preserved: Mathews indeed intended to critique media misreporting; Unz uses it to cast doubt on U.S. media narratives, which is consistent with Mathews’s purpose. One minor caveat: Unz’s tone (“massacre hoax”) is a bit stronger than Mathews’s more nuanced wording (“mythical version”), but the substance isn’t distorted. Overall, he quotes Mathews in context and does not misrepresent his analysis. This source is authoritative, and Unz’s use of it is appropriate.
• Peter Lee (“How It All Began: The Belgrade Embassy Bombing” and related): Credibility: Moderate to High. Peter Lee is a journalist and blogger focused on China (formerly a contributor to Asia Times and host of the “China Matters” blog). He’s not a household name, but his 2009–2010 investigative writings on the Chinese embassy bombing drew on reputable sources (like the Observer, declassified documents, and FAIR). Essentially, Lee compiled the evidence from various Western reports and connected the dots. Unz notes that Lee’s work was a 7,000-word deep dive built on multiple prior pieces and sources scribd.com scribd.com. Those sources included major newspapers (New York Times, Observer/Guardian, Times of London) and watchdog groups (FAIR) – all of which are credible. Lee’s analysis also referenced a U.S. congressional finding (Tenet’s testimony) scribd.com. So while Peter Lee himself is an independent commentator, the content he provided is strongly sourced and largely credible. Accuracy of use: Unz essentially summarizes Peter Lee’s conclusions and the evidence he marshaled – and our fact-check confirms that summary is accurate. The article recounts Lee’s claims that the Chinese embassy was used as a Serb communications hub and storage for stealth tech, prompting a deliberate U.S. strike scribd.com scribd.com. It also cites Lee on the CIA ordering the bombing and on rumors (stealth debris destruction attempt) scribd.com scribd.com. These points align with what we found in sources like The Guardian and FAIR, indicating Unz is relaying Lee’s work correctly. Context: Lee’s investigation was explicitly meant to challenge the “accident” narrative – Unz uses it in exactly that spirit, to question U.S. honesty. He does not take Lee’s points out of context; in fact, he supplements them with references[5][6][7][8] that correspond to NYT, Guardian, and FAIR pieces, just as Lee did scribd.com scribd.com. So, Unz’s use of Peter Lee is fair and represents the source faithfully. The credibility of the content is backed by mainstream documentation, even if Lee’s profile is niche. We find Unz did not exaggerate beyond what Lee wrote – he even expressed initial caution about Lee until he saw the strong sources, which shows reasonable handling scribd.com.
• Whitney Webb (“Bats, Gene Editing and Bioweapons…”): Credibility: Mixed. Whitney Webb is an independent investigative journalist known for deep dives connecting government programs and private interests (she wrote for MintPress News and runs the site Unlimited Hangout). Webb’s work often draws on public records and research but can be viewed as controversial or conspiratorial by mainstream standards due to the connections she draws. In this cited piece (published January 30, 2020 on The Last American Vagabond and later on other sites lewrockwell.com lewrockwell.com), Webb documented DARPA’s recent projects on bat viruses and genetic engineering – this is factual reporting, largely. For example, she noted that “DARPA recently spent millions on research involving bats and coronaviruses, as well as gene-editing ‘bioweapons’ prior to the outbreak” lewrockwell.com, and that DARPA-backed studies in 2018–2019 discovered many new bat coronaviruses (some at labs in the U.S. and near China) lewrockwell.com. These claims check out: DARPA’s PREEMPT program did invest in studying animal-to-human virus spillover (including bat coronaviruses) lewrockwell.com, and there were U.S. Army labs collaborating abroad. So Webb’s article, while tinged with a suggestive tone, presented verifiable information about U.S. biodefense efforts. Accuracy of use: Unz references a “lengthy article by investigative journalist Whitney Webb providing copious evidence of America’s own enormous biowarfare research efforts…focused for years on bat viruses.” scribd.com. This is an accurate characterization of Webb’s piece – she did compile evidence of U.S. military projects with bat viruses and even potential weaponization aspects lewrockwell.com lewrockwell.com. He notes that her usual outlet declined to publish it, implying the content was too controversial scribd.com, which Webb herself indicated. Unz does not misquote Webb; rather, he uses her findings to counter the U.S. media narrative that only China was doing risky bat virus research. Context: The context is maintained – Webb’s concern was that DARPA’s activities could be related to the outbreak or at least are relevant when considering origin possibilities. Unz uses her work to highlight U.S. capabilities and interest in coronaviruses, which is exactly what her reporting exposed scribd.com. While Webb is not an “official” source, her factual claims have citations and Unz appropriately treats them as an important but under-the-radar perspective (even mentioning how it might have had little readership without his site). Given the evidence we checked (DARPA press releases, etc.), Webb’s content is credible in factual terms. Unz uses it responsibly to fill a gap in the mainstream discourse (which was heavily focused on Wuhan’s lab). We see no misrepresentation – he neither exaggerates nor omits her caveats. Therefore, Unz’s use of Webb’s article is contextually fair and generally accurate.
• “OldMicrobiologist” (“Was Coronavirus a Biowarfare Attack Against China?”): Credibility: Uncertain/Low (pseudonymous source, though possibly expert). The source “OldMicrobiologist” is a pseudonym for an individual who posted a detailed comment or essay on a blog (the Saker blog) in early 2020, later republished on Unz.com on March 13, 2020 unz.com. This person claims to be a retired U.S. biodefense researcher with 40 years’ experience at Fort Detrick, involved in biological defense programs unz.com. Unz mentions an “update” that an investigation “strongly suggests” the author’s stated background is accurate unz.com – meaning Unz tried to verify that “OldMicrobiologist” really is who he says (perhaps checking his identity privately). If true, that would lend some credibility to his technical knowledge. Nonetheless, as a pseudonymous commentator, “OldMicrobiologist” is not an established authority or a published expert in the traditional sense; his writings haven’t been peer-reviewed or confirmed by independent reporting. He is essentially an anonymous insider voice. Accuracy of use: Unz draws several points from OldMicrobiologist’s piece, such as:
  • The pattern of prior animal disease outbreaks in China (which we verified as factual – likely he raised those points, and Unz echoed them) scribd.com scribd.com.
  • The detail about the Military World Games and 300 American officers in Wuhan (again factual and presumably highlighted by OldMicrobiologist) scribd.com.
  • Some arguments about why COVID-19 might be a bioweapon or how such an attack could be done. Unz notes that he found some of OldMicrobiologist’s arguments “doubtful” or overtaken by later facts, but “several seemed quite telling” scribd.com scribd.com. This shows Unz exercised a bit of skepticism and did not accept the source wholesale.
    From what we can see, Unz fairly summarized OldMicrobiologist’s key points. There’s no sign he exaggerated what was said; in fact, he selectively used the parts he found plausible (like the coincidences and prior outbreaks) and discarded others that didn’t age well. This indicates a responsible approach to a questionable source.
    Context: The original context was a discussion on whether COVID-19 could be a biowarfare attack. Unz kept that context – he explicitly cites OldMicrobiologist’s article (which directly posed that question in its title) as “Related Reading” and integrates its content into his narrative of suspicion scribd.com. He clearly signals that the evidence from this source is circumstantial (“merely circumstantial, but the pattern seemed highly suspicious” scribd.com). By doing so, he doesn’t present OldMicrobiologist’s claims as proven facts, but as pieces of a puzzle to consider. This is a reasonable way to handle such material. However, readers should be cautious: despite Unz’s partial vetting, a pseudonymous forum post is not on par with verified journalism or official data. It’s the least authoritative source he uses. Still, he did not quote OldMicrobiologist out of context or twist his message – if anything, Unz distilled his points and openly noted which he found convincing or not scribd.com. This transparency in evaluating the source is to Unz’s credit.

In summary, Unz generally represented his sources accurately and in good faith:

• He used Mathews/CJR for Tiananmen and conveyed it correctly (a credible source used aptly).
• He used Peter Lee and underlying Western media/FAIR sources for the embassy bombing and conveyed them correctly (mix of credible primary sources and Lee’s analysis – all well contextualized).
• He used Whitney Webb’s findings to provide factual context on U.S. programs – representing it fairly (Webb is somewhat controversial, but her facts were solid and Unz didn’t misuse them).
• He incorporated OldMicrobiologist’s insights carefully, acknowledging the speculative nature and only taking the plausible bits (the source itself is not fully verifiable, but Unz did attempt to verify and was transparent about speculation).

The credibility of the sources varies:

• Mathews (CJR/WaPo) – authoritative and credible (mainstream journalist correcting historical record).
• Observer/Guardian, NYT, FAIR via Peter Lee – highly credible evidence for that incident.
• Whitney Webb – investigative but non-mainstream, her work is credible in content but viewed with caution due to lack of institutional backing. Still, she cites sources and Unz cited her for factual data, not wild claims.
• OldMicrobiologist – unknowable credibility, essentially an informed anonymous opinion. Unz partially validated his identity, but from an outside perspective, it remains anecdotal. It’s the weakest source if taken alone.

Despite that, Unz’s quotations and summaries are fair. He does not seem to misquote or cherry-pick misleadingly. For instance, he correctly notes that mainstream media continued to mention a “massacre” despite CJR’s debunking scribd.com, which is true. He correctly reports the Observer’s scoop and the lack of U.S. media follow-up fair.org fair.org. In places where the article takes a leap (like suggesting biowarfare), it’s clear those are Unz’s inferences, not directly sourced facts – he doesn’t falsely attribute that claim to some authority. Instead, he presents it as his theory based on the pattern.

Thus, in terms of source representation, Unz generally stays truthful to the sources’ content. The sources themselves range from impeccable to speculative, but he delineates between them (footnoting each claim). If anything, the article’s weakest aspect is giving significant weight to a pseudonymous commenter and to circumstantial evidence. But it does so openly. There is no sign of deliberate misquotation or fabrication of source material in the article as fact-checked.

Conclusion

Overall Assessment: Ron Unz’s article contains a mix of well-founded historical corrections and far-reaching conjectures. On the factual historical claims, the piece is surprisingly solid – it highlights genuine instances where the U.S. government or media narrative was misleading (the Tiananmen Square misconception and the Chinese embassy bombing cover-up). Our research confirms that in those cases the article is largely accurate: the “Tiananmen Square massacre” story is indeed a media myth (no one died in the Square itself) cjr.org, and credible evidence indicates the 1999 embassy bombing was deliberate, contrary to official U.S. statements theguardian.com theguardian.com. Unz accurately cites reputable sources (Columbia Journalism Review, The Observer/Guardian, FAIR) to back these claims, and we found no misrepresentation of those sources. These portions of the article serve as a valuable corrective to historical record and demonstrate the article’s point that U.S. media narratives can be flawed or propagandistic.

However, when extrapolating this pattern to the COVID-19 pandemic’s origin, the article veers into unsupported conspiracy theory. The idea of a U.S. biowarfare “blowback” causing COVID-19 is not substantiated by any direct evidence and is contradicted by the consensus of experts and intelligence findings (which conclude the virus was not a designed weapon) airandspaceforces.com. The article’s circumstantial arguments – mysterious pre-pandemic outbreaks in China, timing of the Wuhan military games, U.S. bioresearch activities – are presented in a suggestive way, but they do not prove culpability. We classify the biowarfare claim as inaccurate because it leaps beyond what the verified facts support. Unz essentially asks the reader to infer a nefarious plot from coincidences; this is a drastic claim requiring more proof than provided.

Source Use: Unz does make use of some fringe or non-traditional sources (Whitney Webb, “OldMicrobiologist”), but he cross-references their claims with observable events and in some cases mainstream reportage. He appears to use these sources to raise questions rather than to conclusively answer them. By contrast, for his concrete historical examples he uses high-quality, verifiable sources and represents them honestly. Jay Mathews’s CJR piece and the Observer investigation are cited and summarized correctly, lending credibility to those parts of the article. In terms of factual reliability, when Unz sticks to documented history, he is reliable; when he speculates about current events (COVID-19 origins), he ventures beyond the evidence.

Recommendations for Correction/Clarification: The article would benefit from clearer delineation between established fact and speculation. For instance:

• It should clarify that saying the Tiananmen “massacre” never happened refers specifically to the location (the Square), as hundreds did die elsewhere – avoiding the impression that the 1989 crackdown was bloodless.
• The section on the embassy bombing is strong, but to be fully fair, it could note that U.S. officials denied the accusations and the NYT’s investigation differed (even if one finds those unconvincing) en.wikipedia.org. This would show the full picture.
• Most importantly, the COVID biowarfare theory should be presented with appropriate caution. Phrases implying it’s a concrete scenario could mislead readers. The article could improve by explicitly stating that no hard evidence has emerged of a U.S. attack and by acknowledging the findings of experts to the contrary airandspaceforces.com. It should be framed as a hypothesis that, while “fitting” a pattern, remains speculative. Including the intelligence community’s conclusion that the virus was not a bioweapon airandspaceforces.com would provide balance.

In conclusion, Ron Unz’s article is partially reliable: it raises legitimate points about past incidents where U.S. narratives were false (and does so with sources to back them). But its extension of that distrust to assert a specific and incendiary theory about COVID-19 is not grounded in verifiable fact. Readers should separate the confirmed historical facts (where Unz is correct) from the conjectural leap regarding the pandemic (where he is very likely incorrect). Adopting a critical eye, one can appreciate the article’s analysis of media double standards while rejecting the unfounded implication of American bio-espionage in the coronavirus outbreak.

Ultimately, while the article succeeds in questioning U.S. credibility using historical cases, its central insinuation about COVID-19 as biowarfare does not meet the burden of proof and should be viewed with extreme skepticism.

Responses

• Selected Remarks and Responses