THE CASE FOR INDEPENDENT REVIEW
CarolinaFlu.org does not ask UNC—or the public—to begin with a verdict. It asks the University to secure the relevant records, submit them to genuinely independent review, and publish what the evidence shows.
THE CENTRAL PROPOSITION
UNC cannot resolve serious, testable questions by asking the public to trust conclusions while the underlying evidence remains unexamined or unavailable.
The responsible position is neither “UNC caused COVID-19” nor “a laboratory origin is impossible.” It is that UNC possesses—or can help obtain—records capable of testing consequential claims about its research, oversight, and institutional response.
WHAT IS DOCUMENTED
Ralph Baric’s laboratory was a recognized leader in coronavirus reverse genetics and collaborated with EcoHealth Alliance and Wuhan Institute of Virology scientists. A 2015 UNC-led paper documented construction and testing of a chimeric SARS-like coronavirus.
Read the 2015 Nature Medicine paper ↗The 2018 EcoHealth Alliance proposal named Baric and the Wuhan Institute of Virology among its collaborators and described work involving SARS-related bat coronaviruses, spike proteins, and cleavage sites. DARPA declined to fund it.
Read the DEFUSE proposal ↗Public records reviewed by ProPublica described potential exposures involving laboratory-created coronaviruses at UNC. Separately, the HHS Inspector General found deficiencies in NIH and EcoHealth Alliance’s monitoring of awards and subawards.
Read the HHS Inspector General audit ↗Congress has sought records concerning DEFUSE, risky-research oversight, and federal contacts involving Baric. In May 2026, HHS issued Baric a Notice of Suspension and Proposed Debarment accompanied by an Action Referral Memorandum.
Read the HHS notice via Science ↗Mirror copy ↗WHAT THIS DOES NOT PROVE
COMPETING EXPLANATIONS AND CONCERNS
Researchers favoring zoonotic origin argue that the earliest known cases were geographically centered on Wuhan’s Huanan market, that susceptible live mammals were sold there, and that the pattern of early viral lineages is consistent with more than one animal-to-human introduction. They regard these findings as affirmative evidence for market-associated emergence, while acknowledging that the intermediate animal source has not been conclusively identified.
The American Society for Microbiology has argued that debarment is an extreme measure requiring clear evidence and a transparent scientific process free from political influence. It has called for the findings, evidence, and reasoning behind any action to be made public.
That demand and CarolinaFlu.org’s request point in the same direction: publish the underlying evidence so competing claims can be evaluated fairly.
Read the ASM statement ↗THE ANSWERABLE QUESTIONS
These categories of evidence could establish what occurred, identify gaps, and distinguish legitimate concern from unsupported speculation.
UNC reported producing more than 130,000 pages in public-records litigation while withholding 5,205 documents, including 4,537 under the state university research exemption. The courts upheld UNC’s position and the North Carolina Supreme Court declined review. The objective now is preservation, independent access, technical examination, and lawful public release—not selective disclosure by advocates on either side. Review the litigation history ↗
THE STANDARD
No financial, professional, or institutional conflicts involving UNC or the work under review.
Expertise in virology, biosafety, federal grants, research integrity, public records, and digital forensics.
Access to records, systems, materials, personnel, and outside evidence necessary to test competing explanations.
Published findings, supporting evidence, disclosed limitations, and concrete safety recommendations.
THE BOTTOM LINE
If the concerns are unfounded, a credible review can demonstrate that and strengthen confidence in UNC. If mistakes, omissions, or safety failures occurred, the University can identify and correct them. Either result is better than unresolved suspicion sustained by unavailable evidence.