This record distinguishes independent reporting about Carolina Flu, outside commentary, commentary written by the project’s founders, and news organizations we have contacted that have not published coverage.
Updated
INDEPENDENT REPORTING · SEPTEMBER 19, 2026
North State Journal reports on Carolina Flu and the call for a UNC investigation
North State Journal reporter A.P. Dillon examined CarolinaFlu.org, the open letter to Chancellor Lee Roberts, the records dispute with UNC, the DEFUSE proposal, and the specific questions George Howard and Jim Haslam believe an independent investigation should examine.
The article also makes clear that signing the Carolina Flu open letter means supporting disclosure and independent examination—not accepting a laboratory origin or endorsing any predetermined conclusion.
The Daily Tar Heel reports on Carolina Flu and the petition
The Daily Tar Heel reported on Carolina Flu’s request for an independent investigation, described the questions raised by Howard and Haslam, and sought responses from UNC faculty.
We appreciate the student newspaper’s willingness to examine the request and put the questions before the Carolina community.
OUTSIDE COMMENTARY · ALL-IN SUMMIT · SEPTEMBER 2026
Bill Gurley calls for an independent investigation
In his All-In Summit talk, Searching for Feynman, Gurley compares the investigation of COVID-19’s origins with independent inquiries that followed other major disasters. He discusses the DEFUSE proposal, urges further examination of records at UNC, and argues that finding the cause matters for preventing another pandemic.
Gurley’s published resource list includes CarolinaFlu.org. His arguments are his own; signing the open letter supports independent examination without requiring agreement with a particular origin theory.
The external transcript is automatically generated and may contain errors. The video is the authoritative source for Gurley’s words.
PUBLISHED COMMENTARY · SEPTEMBER 11, 2026
Howard and Haslam: “Football gets an investigation; UNC’s COVID questions get silence”
North State Journal published an opinion essay by George A. Howard and Jim Haslam calling on UNC, state leaders and the North Carolina press to support an independent examination of UNC’s coronavirus research, records, funding, safety oversight and communications.
The authors emphasize that the rejected DEFUSE proposal does not prove its proposed experiments were performed and that their request for investigation does not require accepting any particular explanation for the pandemic’s origin.
Howard and Haslam: “If ‘It’s Science’—Then Release the Evidence”
Chapelboro published a Viewpoints essay by George A. Howard and Jim Haslam calling on UNC and Duke to release the scientific data, laboratory records and institutional communications necessary to test competing claims about coronavirus research and the origin of COVID-19.
The essay was one of the project’s first public calls for institutions in North Carolina to allow disputed claims to be tested against the underlying evidence.
Ebright and Howard: “Uncovered risks — no oversight of UNC’s extreme virology”
Carolina Journal published an opinion essay by Dr. Richard H. Ebright and George A. Howard examining laboratory safety, coronavirus research collaborations and oversight at UNC–Chapel Hill. The authors called on North Carolina’s press, legislators and university leadership to pursue transparency, investigation and reform.
Published before CarolinaFlu.org launched, the essay documents an earlier public call for scrutiny of UNC’s research and safety practices. It is included here as commentary; signing the Carolina Flu open letter does not require agreement with the essay’s conclusions about the pandemic’s origin.
We submitted “Football gets an investigation. UNC’s COVID questions get silence,” by George A. Howard and Jim Haslam, on August 12.
On August 26, Peter St. Onge, whose editorial responsibilities include the News & Observer, wrote:
“We are going to pass on this op-ed, but we appreciate you thinking of us.”
When we asked for an explanation and whether revisions could make the piece suitable for publication, he replied:
“Thanks for following up. I appreciate you sending our way, but we don’t think it moves the conversation forward enough to be compelling to our readers.”
Peter St. Onge, explaining the decision to decline the op-ed. Emphasis added.
We submitted a separate guest opinion, “Who Is Protecting North Carolina From a Laboratory Accident?”, on August 13. We sent the matter to the investigative newsroom on August 14 and followed up on August 20 and August 25.
We continue to invite North Carolina news organizations to examine the underlying documents, question UNC leadership and independently report what they find.
THE PUBLIC REQUEST REMAINS OPEN
Evidence, examination and accountability.
CarolinaFlu.org asks for evidence, examination and accountability—not a predetermined verdict.