Okay, I'll take a shot at it. The National Review writes the following:

> Three weeks after doctors first started noticing the cases, China contacts the World Health Organization.

This implies that China hid the existence of the virus from the WHO for three weeks. This is untrue. On 24 December 2019, doctors in Wuhan sent out samples to labs in Guangzhou and Beijing. The results returned on 27 December. The lab in Guangzhou said that the patient had a new coronavirus, while the lab in Beijing said the test turned up SARS, but that the result was probably a mistake. The Chinese government notified the WHO on 31 December, four days after these initial test results came in.

So on that crucial point, National Review is fudging things in a way that is pretty darn misleading. They're trying to make it look like China kept the existence of the new disease under wraps for three weeks, when at most, you could argue they did so for four days, though even that is dubious.

That was my thought, too. I mean, if there was a deliberate falsehood or even a misrepresentation, why not point that out? That is how you make your point - by bringing evidence to the table.

Pointing out the political alignment and reliability of the site is an interesting mash-up of the “poisoning the well” and “ad hominem” fallacies, and does indicate that the commenter has no ammunition with which to refute the published statements.

The political alignment of the reporting agency might point out the motive behind making the article in the first place, but unless there is an explicit falsehood or misrepresentation, why would this affect the veracity of what was written?

China fucked up in a typically dystopian pro-power, pro-cronyism, anti-citizen, anti-communism manner. Full stop. Not much else that can be said here…