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 and memorandum ↗WHAT THIS DOES NOT PROVE
THE ANSWERABLE QUESTIONS
These categories of evidence could establish what occurred, identify gaps, and distinguish legitimate concern from unsupported speculation.
The objective is preservation, independent access, technical examination, and lawful public release—not selective disclosure by advocates on either side.
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.