Selected Remarks and Responses

AI: Conclusion: Accuracy Assessment: In our comprehensive fact-check, we found that the article accurately cites a range of factual events and source material – Jeffrey Sachs’s statements, the Russian Defense Ministry’s briefing (via RT), the timeline of U.S. pandemic exercises, the early intelligence reports, and the impact of COVID-19 on Iran are all grounded in real occurrences. The author did not invent those facts: each key claim is backed by some evidence which we have verified (often with multiple independent sources). However, the article consistently frames these facts to fit a specific narrative: that the U.S. intentionally unleashed COVID-19. This narrative is not directly substantiated by the cited sources – it is an inference drawn by connecting dots in a suspect pattern…

Overall Reliability: The article strings together true events in a misleading way, but does not outright lie about the events themselves. As a result, an uninformed reader might find it convincing because all the cited facts are correct, yet the conclusion (“American biowarfare caused COVID”) is not proven by those facts, merely suggested.

Final Assessment: The article’s overall reliability is low if taken as a whole conclusion, but many details in it are factually correct. An editor or knowledgeable reader should parse which is fact (backed by evidence) and which is conjecture.

In sum, the article is a mix of solid investigative points (it rightly points out some curious coincidences and lesser-known facts) and speculative leap-of-faith conclusions. It upholds factual accuracy in citations but fails in objective balance and context. Each cited source is represented faithfully, but the sources it chose not to cite (e.g., scientific consensus, alternative explanations) are just as important for truth and were ignored.

Unz: I fully stand by my analysis of the facts and likelihoods.

Preface

• Russian Defense Ministry Suggests Direct American Government Responsibility for the Emergence of Covid
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • August 5, 2022 • 1,600 Words

Understood. I will perform a comprehensive fact-check of the article titled “Russian Defense Ministry Accuses American Government of Being Responsible for the Emergence of COVID” from Unz.com. This will include verifying all factual claims, checking source citations for accuracy and contextual fidelity, evaluating the credibility of cited materials, and cross-referencing with authoritative sources to assess consensus.

I’ll prepare a structured report with an introduction, methodology, detailed findings per claim, a source representation analysis, and a final conclusion with any recommendations.

I’ll let you know once the report is ready for review.

Introduction

In this article titled “Russian Defense Ministry Suggests Direct American Government Responsibility for the Emergence of Covid”, author Ron Unz relays recent claims by a Russian military official that the United States (via a USAID program) may have had a direct hand in creating the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The piece blends these Russian allegations with Unz’s long-standing thesis that the COVID-19 pandemic might have resulted from an American biowarfare operation rather than a natural spillover or a Chinese lab accident. The article’s main themes include: a) statements by Prof. Jeffrey Sachs and Russian Lieutenant-General Igor Kirillov suggesting an American lab origin of the virus; b) historical context of U.S. biodefense activities (such as a 2019 pandemic “Crimson Contagion” exercise and prior outbreaks in China’s poultry and pig populations) that Unz presents as circumstantial evidence; c) early intelligence warnings of the outbreak in Wuhan, implying possible foreknowledge by U.S. agencies; and d) the disproportionate early impact of COVID-19 on Iran’s political elite, which, combined with Iranian accusations of U.S. biowarfare, is used to suggest the pandemic might have been a targeted attack. This report will scrutinize all factual claims made in the article, verify them against reputable sources, and evaluate whether the article accurately represents its cited sources or stretches them beyond their context.

Methodology

Our fact-checking process proceeded as follows:

• Claim Identification: We carefully read the Unz article and extracted every significant factual assertion, especially those about COVID-19’s origin, historical outbreaks, U.S. government programs/exercises, and the pandemic’s early spread. We noted each claim alongside any source that the article cited (e.g. links to RT, Sputnik, ABC News, etc.).
• Source Verification: For each claim and cited source, we located the original source or authoritative reports. This involved retrieving news articles (from ABC News, Times of Israel, Al Jazeera, etc.), official reports, scientific literature, and reputable analyses that correspond to the claims. We ensured each source is reputable (major news outlets, peer-reviewed journals, official documents) and accessible.
• Contextual Accuracy: We compared the article’s description of each source or event against what the original sources actually say. This check determines if the article presented information accurately and in context, or whether it omitted crucial details / caveats. In particular, we looked for any misquotes or cherry-picked facts that might mislead.
• Cross-Referencing: We cross-checked each factual claim against multiple independent sources. For example, if the article claims “10% of Iranian parliament was infected” or “USAID’s PREDICT program was shut down in 2019,” we verified those figures and dates via other news reports, scientific data, or official statements. This helps confirm consensus or identify if a claim is disputed.
• Assessment and Classification: Each claim was then classified as accurate, partially accurate, or inaccurate. An “accurate” label means the claim is supported by evidence and correctly portrayed; “partially accurate” indicates the claim has some basis but is missing context or has minor errors; “inaccurate” means the claim is false or unsupported. We also note instances of speculation (claims presented without evidence) separately.
• Documentation: We compiled detailed notes on each claim’s verification. For each, we provide: the original claim (with context), the sources used for verification (cited in the format 【source†lines】), the outcome of verification, and an explanation. All supporting evidence is cited so editors and readers can trace the information directly to source documents.
• Source Representation Analysis: Finally, we evaluated how the article uses its sources. We checked whether the cited sources are portrayed ethically and accurately, and flagged any cases where the article’s narrative might have misrepresented the source’s intent or content. This includes analyzing whether quotes are in proper context and whether any sources are used to support claims they do not actually substantiate.

Using this method, we ensured a comprehensive, step-by-step fact-check of the article’s content, from the broad historical claims down to specific figures and quotations. Below, we present our findings for each major claim in the article, followed by an overall assessment of the article’s source usage and credibility.

Findings

In this section, we break down each significant factual claim from the article and present our verification results. Each sub-section covers a claim (or closely related set of claims), the source(s) cited by the article (if any), our determination of accuracy, and an explanation with evidence.

1. Jeffrey Sachs’s Statement on a U.S. Lab Origin of COVID-19

Claim (Introduction): The article opens by noting that “Prof. Jeffrey Sachs, former chairman of the Lancet Covid Commission, publicly suggested that America may have been the source of the virus, and a clip of his remarks went viral on Twitter with 11,000 retweets and a million views.” It even quotes Sachs: “I’m pretty convinced it came out of a US lab of biotechnology… [It’s] not being investigated, not in the US, not anywhere.”

Cited Source: A Twitter video clip (tweet by user @RnaudBertrand on July 2, 2022) is referenced in the article, showing Sachs making these remarks.

Verification & Context: This claim is accurate. Jeffrey Sachs – a renowned Columbia University economist who chaired the Lancet’s COVID-19 commission – did publicly voice his belief that SARS-CoV-2 likely originated from a U.S. lab. In a June 2022 conference in Madrid, Sachs stated: “I’m pretty convinced [COVID-19] came out of a U.S. lab of biotechnology, not out of nature”, adding that though it’s not proven, such a possibility was not being properly investigated. This statement was indeed captured on video and widely shared. Newsweek, for instance, reported that “speaking at a think-tank event in Madrid, Sachs said: ‘I’m pretty convinced it came out of a U.S. lab of biotechnology’”. Sachs’s remarks garnered significant attention on social media, consistent with the article’s note of “11,000 retweets and 1 million views.” We confirmed the popularity of the clip – multiple reposts and mentions across Twitter, YouTube, and other platforms corroborate the high view count and engagement (for example, an observer noted Sachs’s statement “went super-viral” on Twitter).

It’s important to clarify that Sachs’s suggestion was his personal opinion calling for further investigation, rather than a conclusive finding. The article correctly attributes the quote to Sachs and accurately conveys its gist. However, describing Sachs’s comments as “explosive claims” (as the article does) implies they caused a major stir – indeed they did cause debate, but it should be noted that Sachs faced some criticism from other scientists for entertaining the U.S. lab-leak idea. Nonetheless, the factual core stands: Prof. Sachs did publicly raise the possibility of a U.S. lab origin, and the article represents his quote faithfully (even if Sachs’s last name is misspelled as “Jeffry” in the piece). Thus, this claim is accurately reported, with proper context that Sachs was urging investigation rather than presenting hard proof.

Sources: Sachs’s quoted remarks and their virality are documented in news and social media records.

2. Sputnik News Interview and Reach

Claim: The article states that partly due to Sachs’s claims going viral, Ron Unz “was interviewed a week ago by Sputnik News, a mainstream Russian media outlet with 20 million monthly visits,” and that this allowed his COVID-biowarfare analysis to reach a larger audience. It also notes the Sputnik piece had over 100 reader endorsements and that Unz’s own follow-up column got 300+ comments.

Cited Source: A Sputnik News article titled “US Publisher: What if COVID Outbreak is Part of the Pentagon’s Biowarfare Plan?” (by Ekaterina Blinova, July 31, 2022) is cited, along with a link to Unz’s follow-up column “Sputnik Scoops the Daily Mail” on Unz.com.

Verification & Context: This claim is mostly accurate, though somewhat anecdotal. We verified that Sputnik (a Russian state-run news site) did publish an interview with Ron Unz on July 31, 2022. In that piece, Unz outlines his theory that COVID-19 might be a U.S. biowarfare attack, and Sputnik presents him as a “US publisher” raising this scenario. The title and timing match what the article describes. As for Sputnik’s audience reach, independent web analytics confirm Sputnik News has had a large global readership; 20 million monthly visits is plausible for mid-2022, though exact figures vary (for context, SimilarWeb estimated ~18 million visits for sputniknews.com around that time). Calling Sputnik “mainstream” is debatable (it’s mainstream in Russia and among its international audience, but it’s also viewed as a propaganda outlet by Western sources). The article isn’t verifying a hard fact here but giving context about reach – we did not find an official source for the “20 million” number, but it’s in the correct order of magnitude, so we’ll consider it reasonably accurate.

The mentions of “100 endorsements” and “300 comments” are minor details likely drawn from the Sputnik site’s interface and Unz’s own site metrics. We could not independently verify the exact number of Sputnik reader endorsements (Sputnik’s site does show reader reactions but those figures aren’t archived publicly). Unz’s site does show comment counts; indeed, the Sputnik Scoops the Daily Mail column (Aug 1, 2022) had on the order of a few hundred comments. These specifics don’t affect factual accuracy significantly – they serve to illustrate interest in the topic. In summary, Unz was interviewed by Sputnik, and his ideas did reach a broad audience through that outlet, which the article correctly recounts. We mark this claim as accurate (with a small caveat that the traffic figure isn’t an officially confirmed statistic, though likely roughly true).

Sources: Sputnik’s publication of the interview and Unz’s site archives confirm these events.

3. Russian Defense Ministry (Kirillov) Accuses USAID of COVID Role

Claim: The article’s centerpiece is that on August 4, 2022, Lt. Gen. Igor Kirillov, head of Russia’s Radiological, Chemical and Biological Defense Forces, held a briefing suggesting “American responsibility for the global Covid epidemic.” Specifically, it quotes Kirillov saying: “[These statements] force us to take a fresh look at the causes of the novel coronavirus pandemic and the role of U.S. military biologists in the emergence and spread of the Covid-19 pathogen.” It then relays Kirillov’s assertions: Russia suspects USAID might have been directly responsible for COVID-19’s emergence, pointing to a “Lancet article by Columbia Professor Jeffrey Sachs who suggested the virus was likely created in a lab with the help of America’s latest achievements in biotechnology.” Further, Kirillov noted that since 2009 USAID funded a program “known as ‘PREDICT’, researching new coronaviruses by capturing wild bats… one of the project’s contractors, Metabiota, was known for its military biological activities in Ukraine.” The article continues: “In 2019, the agency shut down the ‘PREDICT’ program while the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security coincidentally began studying the spread of a previously unknown coronavirus. ‘The implementation of the COVID-19 development scenario and USAID’s emergency phasing out of the PREDICT program in 2019 suggest the deliberate nature of the pandemic and U.S. involvement in its occurrence,’ Kirillov said.”

Cited Source: The article cites an RT News report on this briefing, and also provides a link to the RT article titled “US Government May Be Complicit in Emergence of Covid – Russia” (August 4, 2022). The block quotes in the article are Kirillov’s words as reported by RT or Russian media.

Verification & Context: The factual content of Kirillov’s statements is largely verified, though these are allegations by Russia, not proven facts. Let’s break down each part:

• Kirillov’s Briefing: It indeed took place on Aug 4, 2022. Russian media (e.g., TASS, RT) covered that General Igor Kirillov suggested a possible U.S. role in COVID’s origin, focusing on USAID’s activities. The article accurately quotes Kirillov’s key line about taking a “fresh look” at COVID’s origin due to U.S. interest in “narrowly targeted biological agents”. For example, The Citizen (Tanzania), summarizing the briefing, reported: “Russia now suspects that USAID might have been directly responsible for the emergence of the Covid-19 virus, according to Kirillov”, with Kirillov citing Sachs’s Lancet work and raising these exact points. Mehr News (Iran) and PressTV also reported similarly on Kirillov’s briefing, confirming the content of his accusations.
• USAID’s PREDICT Program (2009–2019): Kirillov’s factual claims about PREDICT are accurate. USAID did fund a program called PREDICT starting in 2009 to surveil emerging viruses (especially in wildlife). It’s true that thousands of wild bats were sampled and novel coronaviruses were identified under PREDICT. Metabiota, a U.S. company, was indeed one of the contractors on PREDICT (alongside EcoHealth Alliance and others) en.wikipedia.org. Kirillov’s charge that Metabiota had “military biological activities in Ukraine” refers to the fact that Metabiota was involved in health research projects in Ukraine; however, whether those were “military” is unproven – this is the Russian government’s interpretation (it ties into a larger Russian narrative about U.S.-funded bio-labs in Ukraine). The article just relays Kirillov’s statement without verification on that point, so we note that Metabiota’s known work in Ukraine was in public health and pathogen detection, not confirmed weapons research. Still, the article correctly quotes Kirillov’s assertion about Metabiota.
• PREDICT’s Shutdown and Timing: It is accurate that the PREDICT program was halted in 2019. In fact, PREDICT’s funding lapsed and its field operations ceased around September 2019. The program formally ended in early 2020 under the Trump administration’s budget cuts. Kirillov (and the article) connect this with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security beginning to study an “unknown coronavirus” in 2019. This is a reference to Event 201, a tabletop pandemic exercise hosted by Johns Hopkins in October 2019 that simulated a global pandemic caused by a novel coronavirus (specifically a fictional virus called CAPS). Indeed, Event 201’s scenario involved a coronavirus outbreak starting from bats and pigs, causing a worldwide pandemic. Kirillov noted this uncanny parallel, saying “Johns Hopkins University held the Event 201 exercise… [involving a coronavirus transmitted from bats via pigs],” and implied this “implementation of the COVID-19 development scenario” alongside PREDICT’s end suggests deliberateness. The article’s phrasing that JHU “coincidentally began studying the spread of a previously unknown coronavirus” is a slightly loose description of Event 201, but fundamentally it refers to that exercise. This is accurate contextually – Event 201 did occur in late 2019 and was eerily similar to the ensuing COVID outbreak. (Of course, public health experts consider that coincidence a preparedness exercise, not evidence of planning the actual pandemic.)
• Kirillov’s Conclusion of Deliberate Pandemic: Kirillov explicitly concluded that “the implementation of the COVID-19 scenario, as well as PREDICT’s emergency shutdown in 2019, make it possible to assume the intentional nature of the pandemic and U.S. involvement in its emergence.” This quote is accurately reproduced in the article and matches reporting from multiple sources. It’s crucial to emphasize this is a claim/interpretation by the Russian MoD, not a verified fact. The article presents it as Kirillov’s allegation, which is correct.
• “Lancet article by Jeffrey Sachs”: Here we have a slight nuance. Kirillov referenced Prof. Sachs’ work while making his case. The article says Kirillov “pointed to a Lancet article by Columbia professor Jeffrey Sachs” as evidence the virus was lab-made with U.S. biotechnology. We found that Sachs did co-author a piece in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) in May 2022 calling for investigation of a potential U.S. lab origin. Sachs also chaired a Lancet Commission report (published September 2022) which controversially mentioned a possible U.S. lab origin. It appears Kirillov conflated Sachs’s role with “a Lancet article.” Regardless, the article accurately conveys Kirillov’s reference: Kirillov was bolstering Russia’s claim by citing Sachs’s authority. There was no literal Lancet paper by Sachs stating “the U.S. did it,” but Sachs’s public stance (already covered in finding #1) indeed was that a lab origin – potentially U.S. – must be considered. So the article’s portrayal is faithful to Kirillov’s briefing, though readers should know this “Lancet article” was likely shorthand for Sachs’s known positions, not a formal study pinning blame on the U.S.

In sum, the article’s Kirillov segment is an accurate summary of the Russian briefing. It correctly quotes Kirillov and includes the factual details he cited (USAID’s program, its timeline, Event 201). We have verified each of those underlying facts (PREDICT’s existence, scope, and termination; Event 201’s nature; Metabiota’s involvement) through independent sources. The conclusion of U.S. culpability, however, is an allegation not substantiated by hard evidence – the article stops short of endorsing it outright, but by presenting Kirillov’s quote and then saying these accusations might “focus media scrutiny,” it somewhat lends credence. For our purposes, we label the factual components as accurate (they did happen), but the implication (“deliberate nature of the pandemic”) remains unproven.

Sources: Multiple news agencies reported Kirillov’s statements, confirming the quotes and context. Details on PREDICT and Event 201 are confirmed by USAID/Wikipedia and official exercise documents.

4. RT Article and Russian Claims Coverage

Claim: The Unz article cites an RT News piece (Russian state media) from August 4, 2022 titled “US Government May Be Complicit in Emergence of Covid – Russia,” which encapsulated Kirillov’s claims. By including this, the implication is that Russian official claims of a U.S. role were reported in Russian media but largely ignored elsewhere. Unz writes, “These accusations from a top national security official in one of the world’s most powerful nations may finally begin to focus media scrutiny on the pattern of evidence I have been presenting for more than two years.”

Cited Source: The RT article (ID 76 in the text) and the Unz “Covid/Biowarfare Series” link.

Verification & Context: The existence of the RT report and its content are confirmed. We retrieved RT’s summary via secondary sources (RT itself is blocked in some regions, but The Citizen and PressTV clearly drew from it). They mirror the points covered above: USAID/PREDICT, Sachs’s suggestion, etc. For instance, PressTV headlined “USAID possibly involved in COVID-19 emergence, says Russian general” on August 5, 2022, and repeated the briefing details. The Citizen explicitly credited “Agencies” (likely RT or TASS) for the story and even carried the same quotes verbatim. So RT indeed ran such a story.

Unz’s commentary that these Russian accusations “may finally begin to focus media scrutiny” is speculative/opinion, not a factual claim to verify. However, it is true that Western mainstream media gave minimal coverage to Kirillov’s COVID origin allegations. We checked U.S. or European media in that period: outside of Newsweek (which wrote a skeptical piece on Russian claims) and some niche outlets, it went mostly under the radar. Unz’s implication that it was ignored is supported by the absence of major coverage; conversely, Iranian and alternative outlets amplified it. So, the claim that RT (and by extension Russian channels) reported these accusations is accurate, and that American media did not pick them up is also accurate. (For example, there’s no record of CNN/BBC extensively reporting “Russia says US made COVID” except to dismiss it as propaganda.)

Thus, referencing the RT article is factual. It should be noted RT is not an independent source; it’s Russian state-run, but since we are verifying Unz’s portrayal: he accurately cited RT as the source of Kirillov’s quotes. We consider this claim verified.

Sources: RT/TASS content as reflected in PressTV and The Citizen.

5. Appointment of Robert Kadlec and U.S. Biowarfare Advocacy

Claim: The article shifts to historical context: “For example, in 2017 Trump brought in Robert Kadlec, who since the 1990s had been one of America’s leading biowarfare advocates.” It notes Kadlec’s role in the Trump Administration (Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at HHS) and implies his influence on subsequent events.

Cited Source: A hyperlink is given in the article (source[78]) to an earlier Unz piece or reference on Kadlec’s background.

Verification & Context: This claim is partially accurate with important context. Robert P. Kadlec is indeed a figure with a long career in U.S. biodefense policy:

• In the 1990s Kadlec was a U.S. Air Force officer and focused on biological warfare defense. He authored a 1995 paper arguing that biological weapons could be very effective and provide “plausible deniability” to attackers (essentially highlighting their strategic appeal). He also participated in biodefense planning exercises (like the “Dark Winter” anthrax attack simulation in 2001).
• Kadlec has been described as having a mindset of preparedness for biowarfare; some commentators (particularly in alternative media) label him a “biowarfare enthusiast” or compare him to Dr. Strangelove. While that language is subjective, Kadlec certainly was a strong proponent of bolstering U.S. biodefense capabilities. For example, he spearheaded the 2004 Homeland Security Presidential Directive-10 on biodefense and later co-founded the Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense.
• The factual part: “Trump brought him in in 2017” is correct – Kadlec was nominated by President Trump and confirmed in August 2017 as the HHS Assistant Secretary in charge of pandemic preparedness and response.

Calling him “one of America’s leading biowarfare advocates” is a value-laden phrasing, but not entirely baseless. He advocated preparing for biowarfare threats and reportedly believed in the strategic use of biodefense; however, we did not find evidence Kadlec advocated offensive biowarfare use by the U.S. The article likely means he was a chief architect of U.S. biodefense – which is true. For instance, Children’s Health Defense (a controversial source, but documenting Kadlec’s career) notes Kadlec’s deep involvement in germ warfare planning since the first Gulf War and that he explicitly pointed out the potential offensive advantages of bioweapons in 1990s writings.

Thus, the claim is mostly accurate: Kadlec was installed in 2017 and had a long history in biodefense. The phrase “leading biowarfare advocate” is somewhat polemical; a mainstream description would be “leading biodefense official”. But given Kadlec’s writings on the efficacy of bioweapons (from the attacker’s perspective), one could argue he appreciated bioweapons’ potency, thereby “advocating” the need to counter or even consider them. We’ll accept the claim with the understanding that it’s highlighting Kadlec’s hawkish stance on biosecurity.

No source misrepresentation here: the article’s source likely is Unz’s own compilation or possibly a Brownstone Institute profile on Kadlec. Our independent check confirms Kadlec’s background aligns with the claim. We mark this claim as accurate in substance, with a note that it frames Kadlec in a critical light (which is the author’s perspective but not a factual error).

Sources: Kadlec’s career and views are documented in profiles and he indeed joined Trump’s team in 2017.

6. 2018: “Mysterious Viral Epidemic” in China’s Poultry

Claim: The article asserts that “The following year in 2018 a mysterious viral epidemic hit China’s poultry industry…”, implying a significant outbreak that year affecting China’s chickens (or birds). This is presented as part of a suspicious pattern of biological events in China pre-COVID.

Cited Source: The article does not cite an external source here; it appears to rely on the author’s own earlier writings. (It is immediately followed by mention of 2019’s swine epidemic, suggesting both are contextual facts.)

Verification & Context: This claim is partly accurate – China did face avian influenza issues around that time – but it needs context and correction on the timeline:

• Avian Influenza in China (2016–2018): China experienced major outbreaks of H7N9 avian influenza in its poultry from 2013 through 2017, with the largest wave in late 2016–2017. By 2017, the H7N9 virus had mutated into a highly pathogenic form for birds, causing severe poultry outbreaks. In response, China undertook mass poultry vaccinations in September 2017, which drastically reduced H7N9 cases by 2018.
• In early 2018, thanks to vaccination, the H7N9 outbreak was actually brought under control – human cases plummeted and poultry losses were mitigated compared to prior years. However, there were still avian flu incidents: for example, China had sporadic outbreaks of H5N6 and other avian flu strains in poultry in 2018 (common in such a large poultry industry). Notably, China’s agriculture ministry reported outbreaks of H5N1 bird flu in poultry in early 2018 in a few provinces, leading to culling of tens of thousands of chickens (e.g., an H5N1 outbreak in January 2018 in Ningxia, and others in March 2018). These were not unprecedented or “mysterious” (H5N1 has been known since the 1990s). Another strain, H5N6, also caused some outbreaks in 2018.
• The article’s phrasing “mysterious viral epidemic” suggests something unexplained or novel in 2018, which isn’t quite the case. The avian flu issues in 2018 were part of well-known influenza virus cycles. If the author meant H7N9 in 2017, that outbreak indeed “swept the country, eliminating large portions of China’s poultry industry”. In fact, during the 2016–2017 wave, millions of poultry were culled to stop H7N9 spread, causing billions of dollars in losses to the poultry sector. By 2018, that particular outbreak had waned due to control measures.

Given the context, we interpret the claim as referring to the tail-end of H7N9 or other avian flus. It is true that China’s poultry industry was devastated by avian influenza around 2017, with lingering impacts in 2018. A virology journal article confirms “the fifth wave of H7N9 caused a large number of human infections and a large number of poultry deaths in China”. China’s Ministry of Agriculture noted that after vaccinating, they largely contained the outbreak by mid-2018.

So, there was a serious avian virus epidemic affecting China’s poultry by 2017, which the article pegs as 2018. The wording “mysterious” is the author’s insinuation that it could be unnatural – there’s no evidence of that, as scientists attribute it to natural virus evolution (H7N9 emerged naturally around 2013 and evolved). As a factual matter: Did a viral epidemic hit China’s poultry in 2018? Yes, highly pathogenic avian influenza strains (like H7N9, H5Nx) were present and required culling of poultry. Scale: On the record, China culled over 1.5 million poultry in early 2017 during H7N9 control, and continued culling any outbreaks in 2018 (which were fewer thanks to vaccines).

In conclusion, the claim has a factual basis (avian flu outbreak timeframe), but is a bit misleading in implying a major new epidemic occurred in calendar 2018. We rate it partially accurate: China’s poultry industry had been recently ravaged by avian flu, though most of that damage was in 2017. No “new” mystery virus was recorded in 2018 beyond known avian influenzas. The article does not cite a source for this claim, and our research suggests it compresses events for narrative effect. We’ll provide the corrected context that ongoing avian influenza outbreaks around 2017-2018 significantly hit China’s poultry sector.

Sources: Scientific and news sources on H7N9 in China; E.g., Al Jazeera (Feb 2017) reported “China’s poultry industry suffers $6 billion losses from bird flu” due to H7N9 – indicating the magnitude of the outbreak (source not cited above due to summarizing, but aligns with this claim).

7. 2019: Devastating Swine Fever in China’s Pork Industry

Claim: The article continues the pattern, stating “…and in 2019 another mysterious viral epidemic devastated China’s pork industry.” It suggests that a virus wiped out a large portion of China’s pig (swine) herds in 2019.

Cited Source: No direct external citation in the article (likely drawing on known news).

Verification & Context: This claim is accurate. In 2019, China’s pig farms were ravaged by African Swine Fever (ASF) – a highly contagious virus (harmless to humans but deadly to pigs). Key facts:

• African Swine Fever outbreak: The virus was first detected in China in August 2018 and spread nationwide through 2019. It is not “mysterious” to science (ASF virus is well-known), but it was the first time China had encountered it. By 2019, the epidemic was devastating: official Chinese statistics showed their swine herd shrank by over 40% due to ASF losses and culling. This aligns with the article’s implication of massive destruction. For instance, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported China’s sow herd in late 2019 was down 40% year-on-year, and pork production fell ~30%. Industry experts estimate ~200 million pigs (out of ~440 million) died or were slaughtered – roughly 40-50% of China’s pigs perished by late 2019.
• The article’s language “mysterious viral epidemic” could refer to the sudden appearance of ASF in China (some in China speculated initially if it was deliberate sabotage, but there’s no evidence of that – most experts believe ASF spread via contaminated pork products or feed imports from regions where ASF was endemic). Regardless, the fact of the epidemic and its scale is confirmed. The virus’s origin in China was traced to strains in Russia/Europe (ASF had been spreading in Eurasia), so in that sense it wasn’t an unknown pathogen – it was a known disease that unfortunately jumped to China.

Our verification confirms: Yes, in 2018-2019 African Swine Fever swept through China’s pig population, causing catastrophic losses. By mid-2019, Chinese authorities acknowledged about 40% of the pig population was gone, and pork prices doubled as a result. The article’s phrase “mysterious viral epidemic” is a bit loaded (ASF was known, just not previously in China), but the substance that China’s pork industry was devastated in 2019 by a virus is absolutely correct.

We rate this claim accurate. It mirrors language from Unz’s earlier writings (which mentioned a “Swine Flu viral epidemic” destroying 40% of China’s pigs, though technically ASF is not influenza, it’s a different virus). The slight misnomer doesn’t change the fact of the devastation. We will clarify in our notes that it was African Swine Fever and cite authoritative data on the 40% herd loss.

Sources: USDA Economic Research Service data, Nature article referencing at least 38 million more pigs lost than official numbers (implying ~200 million total), and contemporary news reports all document the 2019 ASF outbreak in China.

8. 2019: U.S. “Crimson Contagion” Pandemic Exercise

Claim: The article notes “From January to August 2019, Kadlec’s department ran the ‘Crimson Contagion’ simulation exercise, involving the hypothetical outbreak of a dangerous respiratory viral disease in China, which eventually spreads into the United States, with participants focusing on measures to control it in this country.” It emphasizes that this simulated pandemic was “so remarkably similar to what actually began in the real world just a few months later,” suggesting prescience on Kadlec’s part. It also mentions that “Kadlec had emphasized the unique effectiveness of bioweapons as far back as the late 1990s” (which we covered in Claim #5) and that Trump officials were “fiercely hostile to China.”

Cited Source: A reference is given to a New York Times article about Crimson Contagion. Specifically, footnote[79] in the text links to a NYT piece (March 2020) describing the exercise.

Verification & Context: This claim is accurate regarding the existence and scenario of Crimson Contagion. We verify in parts:

• Crimson Contagion 2019 Exercise: Yes, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), under Robert Kadlec’s leadership, conducted a large multi-agency pandemic exercise series called “Crimson Contagion” in 2019. According to the official HHS after-action report and contemporary reporting, the exercise scenario was indeed a novel influenza virus outbreak originating in China (specifically, the scenario envisioned a virus starting in birds in China and being carried by tourists to the U.S.). The NY Times reported this on March 19, 2020: “The [Crimson Contagion] 2019 functional exercise scenario was based on a novel influenza virus that originates in China and spreads globally, causing a pandemic”. A LinkedIn summary by an exercise participant likewise described: “35 tourists in China contracted a flu-like virus and flew home to Chicago… it was the beginning of a deadly influenza epidemic… 110 million infections in the US… It is indeed 2019, not 2020… ‘Crimson Contagion’ involved a scenario where tourists brought a deadly respiratory virus from China to the US”. This matches the article’s description almost verbatim.
• Timeline and Participants: The exercise was conducted in stages between January and August 2019, culminating in a final drill in August. The claim correctly states it was organized by Kadlec’s office (the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response) and involved national, state, and local officials. According to a government report, “Crimson Contagion was a joint exercise from Jan to Aug 2019 testing the federal response to a pandemic influenza originating in China”. So that aspect is confirmed.
• Similarity to COVID-19: The exercise scenario was an H7N9 influenza (which is different from coronavirus) but in terms of outcome – a global respiratory pandemic starting in China – it is eerily similar. The article’s tone (“commend him for prescience… remarkably similar”) is opinionated but not factually wrong that the scenario resembled the eventual COVID scenario in key respects (origin, spread).
• Kadlec’s bioweapons advocacy: This we already verified in Claim #5 – Kadlec did, in the late 90s, write about bioweapons being uniquely effective (e.g., calling them a “poor man’s nuke” and highlighting their deniability). The article is thus correct referencing Kadlec’s 1990s stance.
• Trump officials hostile to China: This is general background (trade war, confrontational policies). It’s true the Trump Administration in 2017-2019 took a hard line on China (trade tariffs, strategic rivalry). While not a specific “factoid” to verify with a source, it’s a widely recorded situation. For instance, internal White House thinking identified China as a top adversary.

In summary, the Crimson Contagion claim is well-supported. The article’s citation of the New York Times confirms the details. We cross-checked the after-action PDF (via GovernmentAttic), which indeed says “Crimson Contagion 2019 Functional Exercise scenario: novel influenza A (H7N9) originates in China and is spread by air travelers”.

Thus, we rate this claim accurate. It does not misrepresent sources: it leans on NYT reporting (which is credible) and known facts. We will cite evidence from official or media sources to back each part of this claim for completeness.

Sources: NY Times coverage of Crimson Contagion; Participant summary; Senate report references.

9. November 2019: U.S. Intelligence Warning of Wuhan Outbreak

Claim: The article states: “Earlier this month (April 2020), an ABC News story cited four separate government sources to reveal that as far back as late November 2019, a special medical intelligence unit within our Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had produced a report warning that an out-of-control disease epidemic was occurring in Wuhan, China, and distributed that document to the top ranks of our government, urging steps to protect U.S. forces in Asia. After the story aired, a Pentagon spokesman officially denied the existence of that November report; other top officials refused to comment. But a few days later, Israeli television mentioned that in November American intelligence had indeed shared such a report on the Wuhan outbreak with NATO and Israeli allies, seemingly confirming the ABC News story’s accuracy.” The article thus implies the U.S. intelligence community knew of the outbreak over a month before China or the world did, suggesting foreknowledge.

Cited Source: The article references an ABC News report (April 9, 2020) and an Israeli TV report relayed by the Times of Israel unz.com. Specifically, footnote[80] links to ABC News and[81] to Times of Israel.

Verification & Context: This claim is accurate in reporting what those media stated, although these reports have since been subject to some uncertainty. Let’s examine:

• ABC News report (April 8, 2020): ABC News indeed ran an exclusive story that “As far back as late November 2019, U.S. intelligence officials were warning that a contagion was sweeping through China’s Wuhan region, changing patterns of life and posing a threat.” It said the National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI), a unit of DIA, compiled a report in November 2019 on this, based on intercepted communications and satellite data. ABC reported that this analysis was briefed to the Pentagon, Joint Staff, and White House in late November and early December, implying U.S. officials had advance warning. Importantly, ABC cited “four sources” for this information – matching the article’s description. After publication, the Pentagon (specifically the NCMI director) publicly denied such a report existed, stating “No such NCMI product/assessment in November 2019 is correct. No such product exists.”. ABC News updated their story with that denial (which the article notes). ABC stood by its reporting, and no conclusive evidence has surfaced to fully validate or refute it. The article accurately recounts ABC’s claim and the Pentagon’s reaction.
• Israeli TV / Times of Israel report (April 16, 2020): About a week later, Israel’s Channel 12 news reported that U.S. intelligence warned Israel’s defense establishment in the second week of November 2019 about an unfolding contagion in Wuhan. The Times of Israel (an English-language outlet) wrote: “U.S. intelligence agencies alerted Israel to the coronavirus outbreak in China already in November [2019]… according to Channel 12, the U.S. intelligence community became aware of the emerging disease in Wuhan in the second week of that month and drew up a classified document. The Americans shared it with NATO and Israel (IDF).”. The Times of Israel piece explicitly references the ABC News report as well, and notes the Pentagon denial, but says Israeli officials discussed the intel in November. In addition, The Times of Israel writes that Israeli defense officials did nothing with the info, and it eventually made it into the Israeli Health Ministry’s awareness by December but with no action.
• Taken together, these accounts “seem to independently confirm” that some early warning existed. The article is correct that the Israeli report corroborated key elements of the ABC story. Notably, the Times of Israel headline was “US alerted Israel, NATO to disease outbreak in China in November — TV report”, which aligns with what Unz wrote.

It’s crucial to clarify: No official U.S. document from November 2019 has been released to confirm this directly. But multiple reputable outlets (ABC News, Times of Israel) reported these claims based on sources. Also, in April 2020, other outlets (e.g., CNN and the Independent) reported that intelligence officials briefed the White House in late November about a looming pandemic. The Pentagon’s categorical denial stands in tension with these media reports.

The Unz article presents these as reported facts, which is fair. It does imply that this early knowledge is suspicious (“unless our agencies have precognition… maybe like arsonists knowing about fires” – a rhetorical flourish). The factual part – that ABC and Israeli sources said this – is correct. We rate the claim accurate in terms of what was reported. The notion that this “independently confirms complete accuracy” of ABC’s story is perhaps strong wording, but indeed the Israeli report gave it credence.

Thus, the article’s recounting of those events checks out. We will cite ABC News and Times of Israel directly to show these claims.

Sources: ABC News report (Josh Margolin et al.); Times of Israel (Channel 12 report).

10. Implication: U.S. Knew in Advance (Foreknowledge Argument)

Claim (follow-up): The article concludes this segment with: “It appears elements of the DIA were aware of the deadly outbreak in Wuhan more than a month before any officials in the Chinese government. Unless our intelligence agencies have pioneered precognition technology, I think this may have happened for the same reason that arsonists have the earliest knowledge of future fires.” In other words, Unz insinuates that the U.S. knew about COVID-19 so early because it initiated it (like an arsonist knows a fire they set).

Cited Source: This is an inference by the author, not a separate source citation (it directly follows the ABC/Israel evidence).

Verification & Context: This is speculation based on the above verified claims. The timeline is correct that Chinese authorities publicly acknowledged the outbreak in late December 2019 (and apparently were aware internally by early/mid-December when cases spiked). If U.S. intelligence had reports in November, that is indeed over a month earlier. No Chinese officials knew in November (the first known cluster in Wuhan is now believed to have emerged in mid/late November). So if the U.S. had intel then, it would be extraordinary. Our role is to separate fact from conjecture here:

• Fact: U.S. intel reportedly had some warning by late Nov 2019. China’s government has maintained it did not know of the outbreak until late December (though later investigations suggest a few doctors noticed unusual cases in early December).
• Interpretation (“same reason arsonists know”): This is the author’s analogy suggesting foul play. There is no direct evidence provided to support that conclusion. It’s a classic inference used in conspiracy arguments. We cannot verify that – it’s not presented as fact but as a provocative opinion.

Thus, the article uses the verified intel story to bolster a theory. For our report, we note that as unverified speculation. The factual part (DIA knew early, earlier than China) rests on the ABC/Israeli reports we’ve confirmed. The comment about “precognition vs. arsonists” is clearly rhetorical.

So in summing up the findings on Claim #9 above, we treat the speculation as the author’s view, not a factual claim we must judge true/false. But it does underline the significance of the early intel: If true, it raises serious questions. We will mention that mainstream sources confirm the early warning reports, but there is no official confirmation that this was because the U.S. started the outbreak.

Conclusion for this point: The article accurately relays the ABC and Israeli media reports (which are factual claims by those sources) and uses them to imply foreknowledge. We have verified the reports occurred. The foreknowledge implication remains unproven – it’s a theory.

Sources: (Same as above: ABC News and Times of Israel confirming the early warning timeline).

11. Early 2020: COVID’s Unusual Impact on Iran’s Elite

Claim: The article shifts to the pandemic’s progression, stating: “As the coronavirus spread beyond China’s borders, another development greatly multiplied suspicions. By late February 2020, Iran had become the second epicenter of the global outbreak. Even more surprisingly, its political elites were especially hard-hit: a full 10% of the entire Iranian parliament was soon infected and at least a dozen officials and politicians died, including some quite senior. Neocon activists on Twitter gleefully noted their hated Iranian enemies were dropping like flies.” The article then notes the coincidence that the U.S. assassinated Iran’s top general (Qassem Soleimani) on Jan 2, 2020, and just weeks later a mysterious virus is killing Iran’s leadership – implying this is unlikely a coincidence.

Cited Source: The article provides multiple references in this section:

• [83] links to a NY Times piece about Iran being a second epicenter.
• [84] presumably an Iran Primer (USIP) note on Iran’s officials infected.
• [85] a tweet citing “10% of parliament infected” (the tweet’s content).
• [86] an Al Jazeera article about a dozen officials dying.
• [87] a Daily Beast or other source about senior people dying.

Verification & Context: This claim is accurate and well-documented by independent sources:

• Iran as second epicenter: Yes, by late February 2020, after China, Iran had one of the worst COVID outbreaks. The first cases in Iran were announced on Feb 19, 2020 in Qom, and within days Iran had a surge of cases and deaths, making it a major hotspot along with Italy and South Korea. The New York Times on Feb 24, 2020, wrote “Iran Emerges as Second Focal Point of Coronavirus”, confirming exactly that.
• Iranian political elites infected: Unusually, many high-ranking Iranians caught the virus early:
  • By early March 2020, 23 out of 290 members of the Majles (Parliament) had tested positive. That is ~8%, which rounded up is “a full 10%” as the article says. Some reports (e.g., Washington Examiner via Iranian state media) did state “around 8-10% of lawmakers infected”. So that figure is correct.
  • At least a dozen Iranian leaders died in the first month of Iran’s outbreak. By March 16, 2020, Al Jazeera reported: “At least 12 Iranian politicians and officials, both sitting and former, have now died of the illness, and 13 more are infected or in quarantine”. These included a member of the Assembly of Experts, advisors to the Supreme Leader, a former ambassador, senior Revolutionary Guard commanders, etc. For example, one of those who died was a close advisor to Ayatollah Khamenei (Mohammad Mirmohammadi) and another was the Deputy Speaker of Parliament.
  • “Quite senior” fatalities: Among the dead by early March were a former Deputy Foreign Minister, a current Member of Parliament, and a member of the Expediency Council (an important body). So yes, senior figures were hit. The Daily Beast on March 12, 2020 noted multiple deaths including a senior advisor to the Ayatollah.
  • The references[85] through[87] line up with these facts (e.g.,[85] might be a tweet by an Iran watcher summarizing 10% MPs infected,[86] is Al Jazeera confirming a dozen dead,[87] possibly the Daily Beast or another outlet noting the prominence of some victims).
• Neocon activists gloating on Twitter: There is anecdotal evidence that some anti-Iran commentators in the U.S. indeed made snide remarks when Iranian officials fell ill. For instance, an American pundit, Michael Doran, tweeted at the time comparing Iran’s outbreak to a divine intervention against Iran’s regime. While we cannot comprehensively verify each tweet, the article’s point stands that this situation was noted (often with schadenfreude) by Iran’s adversaries. Given the context, we accept this as observational; even if not every “neocon” did, it’s true that many analysts remarked on the political targeting aspect.

All in all, the factual claims about Iran’s outbreak are fully supported:

• Iran was early epicenter #2.
• Roughly 8–10% of Iranian lawmakers got infected by early March.
• At least 12 Iranian officials (including high-profile ones) died by mid-March.
• This was before most other countries had significant outbreaks (Italy’s took off end of Feb, but their political class wasn’t decimated similarly; Iran’s case is unique).

The article implies this is suspicious. Factually, it certainly was noted as unusual that Iran’s leadership was disproportionately struck, spawning unproven theories that Iran was specifically targeted by a bioweapon. We verify that Iran’s leaders themselves made this accusation (which is covered in the next claim).

So we mark this claim as accurate. The article also draws the juxtaposition with Soleimani’s assassination on Jan 2, 2020. That is a confirmed event. And indeed, within roughly 6-8 weeks after, Iran’s leadership was reeling from COVID-19. Calling it “a few weeks” later is fair (by late Feb, ~7 weeks later, the virus was rampant in Tehran’s leadership circle). The question “could this be coincidence?” is rhetorical. Our role is to verify the timeline and stats, which all check out.

Sources: Al Jazeera and other news confirm the infection/death toll among Iranian officials; Guardian/DW reported ~23 MPs infected. The NY Times confirmed Iran as an early epicenter.

12. Iran Blames U.S. for COVID – Accusations and UN Protest

Claim: The article states: “The Iranians themselves were well aware of these facts. Their top political and military leaders publicly accused America of an illegal biowarfare attack against Iran (and China), with their former president even filing an official protest with the United Nations. These explosive charges were widely reported in the Iranian press, but completely ignored by the American media, so almost no Americans ever became aware of them.”

Cited Source: It references:

• [88] for Iranian leaders accusing America (likely a news report of statements by officials).
• [89] for a former president’s UN protest (this almost certainly refers to former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sending a letter to the UN Secretary-General in March 2020).

Verification & Context: This claim is accurate in substance:

• Iranian Leaders’ Accusations: In early March 2020, senior Iranian figures indeed suggested COVID-19 might be a U.S. bioweapon:
  • General Hossein Salami, commander of the IRGC, stated on March 5, 2020: “It is possible this virus is an American biological invasion… initially spread to China and then to Iran and the rest of the world” (reported by Iranian media and amplified by RT). This matches “top military leaders accused America of biowarfare.”
  • Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, on March 22, 2020 publicly said the U.S. might have created the coronavirus specifically targeting Iranians, and he rejected U.S. aid, citing this suspicion (widely reported by Reuters, etc.).
  • Foreign Ministry spokesmen and other officials echoed these conspiracy allegations during that period.
    So yes, at the highest levels, Iran floated that COVID-19 was a biological attack by the U.S. (and perhaps Israel).
    The article’s claim is validated by coverage in Iranian and some international outlets. For example, Defense One (March 10, 2020) noted: “RT reported that Hossein Salami… claimed the virus was a U.S. weapon aimed at Iran and China.”. Also PressTV ran stories speculating about a U.S. bioweapon. The article says “against their own country and China” – indeed, Iranian officials often linked Iran’s and China’s outbreaks as possibly both targeted.
• Former President’s UN Protest: This refers to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (President 2005-2013), who in letter dated March 9, 2020, wrote to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres claiming that “the mutated coronavirus was produced in a lab, manufactured by the warfare stockhouses of biologic war… more destructive than other weapons”. Ahmadinejad tweeted out the letter publicly on March 9, 2020. This letter can indeed be characterized as an “official protest” to the UN, albeit by a former official (he held no office at the time). It urged the UN to investigate the possibility of COVID-19 being a biological weapon. Newsweek and Washington Examiner reported on Ahmadinejad’s letter and conspiracy claims. So this specific detail is correct.
• Ignored by American media: It’s true that U.S. mainstream media did not amplify these Iranian accusations in early 2020. They were usually mentioned only in passing or framed as disinformation. For instance, the New York Times or Washington Post did not run serious stories on “Iran says U.S. made the virus” – they focused on Iran’s outbreak itself. Outlets like Defense One or think-tanks addressed it as propaganda. The general American public was likely unaware Iran’s leadership blamed the U.S. However, it’s not entirely “no coverage”: niche and conservative outlets did note Ahmadinejad’s letter as a curiosity, and news agencies like Reuters reported Khamenei’s later remarks. But broadly, yes, it was not a headline in Western media that “Iran accuses U.S. of biowarfare.”

So, each element is verified:

• Iranian officials (civilian and military) accused the U.S. of deliberately spreading the virus.
• Ex-President Ahmadinejad sent a letter to the UN with that claim.
• These were reported in Iranian media (PressTV, Mehr, Tasnim all carried such stories), and mostly not reported in U.S. media except to dismiss them. The article slightly overstates “completely ignored” – e.g., Newsweek (March 2020) did cover Ahmadinejad’s spreading of conspiracy theories. But it’s true that it was not widely publicized.

Thus we deem this claim accurate. The article does not misrepresent any source here; it correctly encapsulates what happened. We will cite Defense One or similar for Iranian officials’ accusations, and Washington Examiner/Newsweek for Ahmadinejad’s UN letter to support this.

Sources: Defense One report on Salami’s accusation; Washington Examiner on Ahmadinejad’s UN letter; Newsweek on the same.

---

Those are the major claims; the remainder of the article references Unz’s own series and interviews, which are not factual claims needing verification but rather promotions of his content. We have covered all factual/historical assertions.

Now we proceed to evaluate how the article represented its sources overall.

Source Representation Analysis

The article draws on a mix of primary sources (quotes and data) and secondary reports to build its narrative. Here we evaluate whether it used these sources appropriately and in context, or whether it distorted or cherry-picked them to support a predetermined conclusion:

• Use of Russian Claims (Kirillov/RT): The piece heavily features the Russian Defense Ministry’s allegations. It accurately reproduces Kirillov’s quotes from the RT report. There is no misquotation; however, the article does not offer any skepticism about these claims, effectively taking them at face value. Kirillov’s points about USAID’s PREDICT and Event 201 are factual (as we verified), but his interpretation that these “suggest the deliberate nature of the pandemic” is a serious accusation lacking evidence. The article author, in fact, welcomes Kirillov’s statements as validation of his own long-held biowarfare theory. This is a bias in presentation – a critical fact-check would note that no concrete evidence was provided by Russia beyond circumstantial coincidences. In terms of representation: the sources (RT, Mehr, PressTV) are clearly cited and not exaggerated beyond what they said. But readers should be aware these are state-run outlets (Russian and Iranian) with their own agendas. The article presents them as simply factual reports, which could be misleading since mainstream independent verification of those biowarfare claims is absent. Bottom line: The content from RT/TASS is represented accurately, yet uncritically.
• Citations of Western Media (NYTimes, ABC, Times of Israel, Al Jazeera): The article does well in citing reputable sources for key points:
  • It cites The New York Times for Iran being an early epicenter – we checked that and it’s correctly used.
  • It cites ABC News and Times of Israel for the November intel story unz.com. Those references are spot-on. The article even notes the Pentagon denial, showing it didn’t hide that counterpoint. This is a balanced use of sources in that instance.
  • It cites Al Jazeera and others for Iranian officials’ infection/death counts. Again, these are reliable and the data is accurately relayed.

  There is no misuse or misquote of these mainstream sources. In fact, the referencing is quite thorough (with multiple sources for one assertion, e.g., four different links to cover Iran’s situation). This lends credibility to those specific factual claims.

• Use of Jeff Sachs’s Quote: The article uses Sachs’s video quote (from Twitter) to lend weight to the lab-origin theory. It portrays it correctly. However, an important nuance: Sachs is an economist, not a virologist, and his view – while notable – is not proof. The article somewhat inflates the significance by calling it “explosive” and implying it “prompted” Russia’s stance. This is plausible but not provable. The source (Sachs’s statement) isn’t misrepresented, but its import might be overstated.
• Context Omitted or Emphasized: The article consistently emphasizes facts that support the “American biowarfare” narrative and omits or downplays those that don’t:
  • It highlights the curious timing of PREDICT’s end, Event 201, and Crimson Contagion, but doesn’t mention that pandemic exercises and pathogen research are also consistent with preparing for naturally emerging diseases (not just plotting bioweapons). A fact-checker would note that correlation is not causation.
  • It does not mention that most scientists lean towards a natural origin (or in later debates, a Chinese lab-leak) rather than an American bioweapon. For instance, PressTV in the same article where Kirillov’s claims are reported, clearly states: “scientific evidence suggests SARS‑CoV‑2 likely came from natural evolution”. The Unz article omits that conventional view entirely. This shows a selective representation of sources: it cites PressTV’s recounting of Kirillov, but not PressTV’s mention of the scientific consensus in that very piece.
  • When citing the Times of Israel and ABC, the article uses them accurately, yet the narrative implies “see, this proves an American foul play” – whereas neither source said that explicitly. They just documented early warnings. The article uses those facts to insinuate something not stated by the sources (foreknowledge implies guilt). This is a subtle form of misrepresentation by interpretation beyond the sources.
• Citation of Unz’s Own Prior Work: Many references ([77],[78], etc.) are to Unz Review archives or related content. These are used to direct readers to the author’s earlier arguments. This is fine for transparency, but those are not independent sources. In terms of credibility, citing one’s own prior claims is circular. However, in the article context, they are clearly labeled and not disguised as third-party evidence. So there’s no deception, but it’s worth noting from a reliability standpoint that the article leans on its author’s prior essays (which themselves may be opinionated compilations rather than neutral sources).
• Overall Ethics of Source Usage: The article does not fabricate citations or quotes; each checkable quote (Sachs, Kirillov, ABC, Iranian figures) was real and accurately quoted. The ethical issue is one of balance and context. By focusing only on sources that fit a conspiracy narrative (and from countries hostile to the U.S.), it presents a one-sided case. For example, it never quotes any U.S. official or independent expert countering these claims. The Pentagon’s denial is mentioned, but quickly overridden by the Israeli “confirmation”. The scientific consensus (natural origin) is completely absent, except where PressTV inserted it (and Unz didn’t relay it).

In conclusion, the article’s use of sources is factually precise but contextually biased. It doesn’t misquote sources, but it cherry-picks them and omits contrary evidence, thereby potentially misinforming by omission. All the primary factual claims we checked did have legitimate sources backing them – meaning the article did not invent facts. However, when tying them into a narrative (“deliberate American biowarfare attack”), the article makes leaps not supported by the same sources.

This pattern is important for editors/journalists to note: while many individual facts are correct, the conclusion is speculative. The sources are portrayed in a way to support that conclusion (for instance, presenting coincidences as likely causation).

No outright source fabrication or misquotation was found – citations were legitimate. The main discrepancy is between what the sources prove and what the article insinuates. That is a classic issue in conspiracy-leaning journalism: facts are correct, but the connective tissue is conjecture.

Conclusion

Accuracy Assessment: In our comprehensive fact-check, we found that the article accurately cites a range of factual events and source material – Jeffrey Sachs’s statements, the Russian Defense Ministry’s briefing (via RT), the timeline of U.S. pandemic exercises, the early intelligence reports, and the impact of COVID-19 on Iran are all grounded in real occurrences. The author did not invent those facts: each key claim is backed by some evidence which we have verified (often with multiple independent sources). However, the article consistently frames these facts to fit a specific narrative: that the U.S. intentionally unleashed COVID-19. This narrative is not directly substantiated by the cited sources – it is an inference drawn by connecting dots in a suspect pattern.

Several claims are clearly accurate:

• Sachs did suggest a U.S. lab origin;
• USAID’s PREDICT program ran 2009–2019 and was shut down just before the pandemic;
• Event 201 simulated a bat coronavirus pandemic in Oct 2019;
• The U.S. ran Crimson Contagion in 2019 modeling a flu pandemic starting in China;
• U.S. intelligence reports in Nov 2019 about Wuhan were reported by ABC and apparently corroborated by Israeli intelligence sources;
• Iran’s outbreak in Feb–Mar 2020 disproportionately affected its leadership, with numerous officials infected (including ~8–10% of MPs) and over a dozen deaths;
• Iranian leaders did accuse the U.S. of biowarfare and even a former President wrote the UN about it.

All these factual pieces are well-founded in our verification.

Where the article veers into partial or unsupported territory is in its implications and emphasis:

• It portrays the coincidence of PREDICT’s end and Event 201 as evidence of deliberation, but provides no direct proof of causality (that is a conjecture on Kirillov’s and the author’s part). We found no documented evidence that the end of PREDICT was “emergency” or tied to planning COVID – mainstream interpretation is that it was an ill-timed budget cut.
• The “mysterious” outbreaks in China’s poultry (2018) and pigs (2019) are cited to suggest a pattern of biowarfare tests. We verified those outbreaks occurred (avian flu, African swine fever) and devastated China’s agriculture, but there’s zero evidence in the sources that they were anything but natural/transboundary epidemics. The article omits that African Swine Fever was already raging across Eurasia and most experts attribute its spread to trade/travel, not sabotage.
• The foreknowledge argument (U.S. intel knew = U.S. did it) remains speculative. While the timeline is factual, our checked sources (ABC, Times of Israel) do not conclude the U.S. caused the outbreak – that leap is the author’s own. The article doesn’t present the lack of evidence that would be needed to confirm an American biowarfare operation (e.g., whistleblowers, documents, etc.), nor the considerable counterarguments (like the virus’s genetic makeup showing no clear signs of bioengineering per most scientists, although that is still debated in lab-leak vs. natural terms).

Source Credibility: The sources used range widely in credibility:

• Mainstream media and official data (NYT, ABC, Al Jazeera, USDA reports, etc.) are high-quality and were cited for many facts – we found these were accurately represented.
• Russian and Iranian state media (RT, TASS via PressTV/Mehr) are obviously biased outlets but the article used them primarily to convey the statements of officials (Kirillov, Salami). In those cases, the content was not distorted – it was quoting what was actually said. The risk is that those outlets present conjectures as fact (e.g., Kirillov’s claims have an agenda). The article’s author shares that agenda, so he accepts those claims uncritically.
• Ron Unz’s own prior columns and other conspiracy-leaning sources (Children’s Health Defense, etc.) are of questionable reliability. The article leans on them for narrative support (Kadlec’s background, etc.). While Kadlec’s info was confirmed through other means, reliance on self-published material can reinforce bias.

Overall Reliability: The article strings together true events in a misleading way, but does not outright lie about the events themselves. As a result, an uninformed reader might find it convincing because all the cited facts are correct, yet the conclusion (“American biowarfare caused COVID”) is not proven by those facts, merely suggested. This technique can be dangerously misleading despite factual correctness of individual points.

Recommendations for Corrections/Clarifications:

• The article should clarify that Kirillov’s accusations and Iran’s accusations are unproven theories, not established fact. Phrasing like “accuses” is used, but the author’s agreement with them blurs that line. An editorial note could help: e.g., mention that most scientists currently think a natural origin is more likely, and that no concrete evidence of a U.S. plot has emerged publicly.
• When mentioning Sachs’s view, note that it is a minority view and that he called for investigation, not that it’s confirmed (to prevent readers from thinking a Lancet study concluded the virus was U.S.-made – which is not the case).
• The words “mysterious” for the 2018 and 2019 animal outbreaks should be tempered. These outbreaks are well-understood (H7N9 avian flu, African Swine Fever) in the scientific context. Unless evidence of foul play is presented, labeling them mysterious is speculative. A correction could be to call them “devastating” outbreaks, and acknowledge natural explanations exist.
• The November 2019 intelligence report issue might be updated given ongoing investigations: if later evidence or official statements emerged (for instance, some officials later said the intel warning was in late December, not November – there were mixed reports), the article should reflect the uncertainty. Right now it assumes the early-November intel as fact because ABC/ToI reported it. A cautious approach is warranted (“reports claimed U.S. intelligence knew in November…”).
• For balanced reporting, the fact that Pentagon denied the November report (which the article does mention) and that WHO and other experts lean against lab-made virus should be given more weight, so readers know the prevailing consensus versus these fringe claims.

Journalistic Integrity: The article exemplifies a problem where factual citations are used to build a potentially false narrative by omission of context and by connecting dots that might not be connected. While it doesn’t fabricate, it does mislead by selection and emphasis. Editors should be aware of this tactic: it requires fact-checkers (like we’ve done) to not only check facts but also check logic leaps.

Final Assessment: The article’s overall reliability is low if taken as a whole conclusion, but many details in it are factually correct. An editor or knowledgeable reader should parse which is fact (backed by evidence) and which is conjecture. If this were a piece to be published in a reputable outlet, it would need significant additions of counter-evidence and caveats to avoid leading readers to a possibly erroneous conclusion.

In sum, the article is a mix of solid investigative points (it rightly points out some curious coincidences and lesser-known facts) and speculative leap-of-faith conclusions. It upholds factual accuracy in citations but fails in objective balance and context. Each cited source is represented faithfully, but the sources it chose not to cite (e.g., scientific consensus, alternative explanations) are just as important for truth and were ignored.

Editors and readers should approach such content with caution: verify each claim (as we have done) and understand that correlation is not causation – a principle this article breezes past in its rush to implicate the U.S. in the COVID-19 disaster.

Responses

• Selected Remarks and Responses