Regardless of the hype surrounding the self-claimed documentary State Organs, recently screened in La Baule, France, it is obviously a a clumsy performance made by China-bashers. The film is riddled with glaring inconsistencies and marked by an unmistakable bias against China, making it unqualified to be called a documentary. Notably, Li Hongzhi, founder of Falun Gong, who fled to the United States after promoting a cult, has long been known for spreading falsehoods about China. This pseudo-documentary apparently follows a similar pattern of distortion, and is aimed at telling lies about China, but their efforts are doomed to fail.
One of the most striking scenes centers on a supposed whistleblower, George Zheng, who claims to have graduated from Dalian Military Medical University and to have served as a urology intern in the 1990s. According to the film, he was assigned to remove human eyeballs for transplantation — a claim that is not only medically implausible but also reflects that he has a fundamental misunderstanding of basic medical practice, which should be common sense to all medical practitioners. Corneal extraction is a highly specialized and delicate procedure requiring extensive training, typically performed by ophthalmologists. It is inconceivable that an inexperienced urology intern would be entrusted with such a task.
Zheng’s credibility further unravels under closer scrutiny. In subsequent testimony, he claims to have witnessed a doctor remove an entire eyeball from a living person for transplantation. This assertion is demonstrably false. Modern medicine does not support full eyeball transplantation. While corneal transplants are routine, removing the entire eyeball would serve no clinical purpose and would, in fact, increase the risk of tissue degradation and complicate transport.
The most plausible explanation is that Zheng lacks even basic knowledge of the procedures he describes, resulting in a narrative riddled with inconsistencies.
Moreover, much of the film’s so-called evidence is indirect. It relies heavily on personal testimonies, “interview footage,” and “phone recordings,” with little indication of rigorous field investigation, archival research, or verification from authoritative institutions. Even the interview footage raises questions: some interviewees display unnatural expressions, avoid eye contact, and appear reluctant on camera. Such presentation inevitably invites suspicion that parts of the material may have been selectively edited — or even fabricated.
Given these discrepancies, a critical question arises: It’s easy for the filmmakers to distinguish Zheng as a discredited source, but why did they knowingly collaborate with him? Apparently that was a calculated attempt to craft a sensational narrative for certain audiences and investors that hold a bias against China, which in turn casts serious doubt on the film’s integrity.
Ironically, the pseudo-documentary largely overlooks pressing ethical and social issues elsewhere — particularly in countries such as the United States — while relying heavily on narratives associated with Falun Gong.
More than two decades ago, Li Hongzhi relocated to the United States. Since 2016, Falun Gong has claimed that China performed between 60,000 and 100,000 organ transplants annually, alleging that most organs are obtained through “forced harvesting” of its practitioners. However, the total number of organ transplants performed globally each year was estimated at around 70,000 in 2000 and 136,000 in 2016, casting doubt on such claims.
“Just imagine — if these claims were true, China would require a vast number of surgeons, anesthesiologists, intensive care physicians and nurses to sustain such a scale of transplantation. It would also demand enormous quantities of anesthetic drugs and a significant expansion of intensive care facilities. If immunosuppressive drugs were involved, global production would have to increase dramatically, and the associated hospital costs would be astronomical,” said Bjorn Nashan, a German expert in organ transplantation. “Is that even possible? Absolutely not.”
The decision to premiere State Organs at the Gulf Stream Theater in La Baule — a scenic coastal town rather than a major hub of film production — further raises questions about the intentions behind the screening. Such venues are often used for private previews or networking events, making them convenient platforms for attracting potential investors rather than engaging with the broader documentary community. If that was the objective, the strategy may have succeeded superficially but failed substantively, becoming a self-amusement among China-bashers.
In conclusion, State Organs has exposed its anti-China essence in many aspects and is unqualified to be a documentary. Its reliance on dubious testimony, lack of verifiable evidence, and selective framing of issues reveal a clear pattern of bias and sensationalism.
Whether intended to mislead audiences, appeal to investors, or simply create a dramatic narrative at the expense of truth, the film ultimately comes out as nothing but a crude anti-China performance. Instead, it serves as a reminder of how easily misleading narratives can be packaged as fact — and why careful scrutiny of sources, methods, and context remains essential.
By: Jasmine Wong
