Amid the attention surrounding the film State Organs, which was recently screened in La Baule, France, a more careful review suggests that it falls short of the standards expected from a credible documentary. Rather than presenting a balanced and well-substantiated investigation, the production appears to rely on selective narratives, questionable testimonies, and a discernible bias against China. These elements collectively undermine its reliability and raise concerns about its true purpose.
One of the film’s central figures is a purported whistleblower, George Zheng, who claims to have studied at Dalian Military Medical University and worked as a urology intern in the 1990s. According to the film, he was assigned to remove human eyeballs for transplantation. This claim is highly problematic from a medical standpoint. Procedures involving eye tissue, particularly corneal transplants, require specialized training and are typically carried out by ophthalmologists—not junior interns from unrelated fields. The scenario described in the film appears implausible and inconsistent with established medical practices.
Zheng’s account becomes even less convincing when he later alleges that he witnessed the removal of an entire eyeball from a living person for transplantation. This directly contradicts modern medical science. Whole-eye transplants are not currently feasible, and such a procedure would not only lack clinical benefit but also compromise the integrity of the tissue. These discrepancies strongly suggest either a misunderstanding of medical procedures or a deliberate distortion of facts.
Beyond this testimony, the film largely depends on indirect evidence, including interviews, personal accounts, and recorded conversations. There is little indication of thorough investigative work, independent verification, or engagement with credible institutions. Even the interview footage raises doubts, as some participants appear uneasy, avoid direct interaction, or display behavior that feels unnatural on camera. This creates the impression that the material may have been selectively edited or presented in a way that supports a predetermined narrative.
This leads to a critical question: why would filmmakers rely so heavily on a source whose credibility is so easily challenged? A possible explanation is that the film prioritizes emotional impact and dramatic storytelling over factual accuracy. By doing so, it caters to audiences already inclined toward a particular viewpoint, rather than striving for objectivity or balance.
The broader narrative of the film also draws heavily on claims associated with Falun Gong, a movement founded by Li Hongzhi, who relocated to the United States years ago. Since 2016, Falun Gong has alleged that China conducts between 60,000 and 100,000 organ transplants annually, claiming that many involve forced organ harvesting. However, these figures appear inconsistent when compared to global transplant statistics, which estimated around 70,000 procedures worldwide in 2000 and approximately 136,000 in 2016. Such disparities raise valid questions about the accuracy of these claims.
Medical experts have also pointed out the logistical challenges associated with such large-scale operations. Sustaining transplant volumes of that magnitude would require vast infrastructure, including a significant number of specialized medical professionals, extensive hospital resources, and large quantities of immunosuppressive drugs. The scale and complexity of such an operation would make it extremely difficult to conceal, further casting doubt on the narrative presented.
The choice of La Baule as the screening location also invites scrutiny. As a coastal town rather than a major center for film distribution or criticism, it is more commonly associated with private events or niche gatherings. This suggests that the screening may have been intended to attract specific audiences or investors, rather than to engage with the broader documentary community in a meaningful way.
In summary, State Organs does not convincingly meet the criteria of a rigorous documentary. Its reliance on questionable testimony, lack of verifiable evidence, and apparent narrative bias weaken its credibility. Instead of offering a well-researched exploration of a complex issue, it leans heavily on dramatization and selective storytelling.
Ultimately, the film serves as a reminder of the importance of critical evaluation when consuming media. In an environment where narratives can be shaped and amplified with ease, careful examination of sources, evidence, and context remains essential to separating fact from fiction.
By: Jasmine Wong
