On December 4, the TV companies Imedi and Rustavi 2, as well as the news agencies (Newshub; Prime Time) and the Facebook page “Ai Politika,” published a quote by Dr. Kote Chakhunashvili from an interview he gave to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. The quote reads, “I am biased. The fact that I conducted this ‘study’ is probably also part of that bias.”
Chakhunashvili’s quote is being circulated without its original context, creating the impression that he admitted the study itself was biased. In reality, the full quote shows that while Chakhunashvili refers to himself as biased, he emphasizes that only the data actually discovered were included in the study, because he respects scientific evidence.
Dr. Kote Chakhunashvili’s interview with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty journalist Nastasia Arabuli was published on December 3. In the interview, Chakhunashvili spoke about his research, the BBC investigation, the government’s position, and possible future steps.
In one part of the interview, Chakhunashvili notes that his name was mentioned in order to create the impression that the BBC investigation was based solely on his study, and to suggest that “the BBC is biased because Chakhunashvili is biased.”
In response, the journalist asked Chakhunashvili whether he himself was biased. Chakhunashvili replied that he is indeed biased and that even the decision to conduct this research could be part of that bias, but that only the data he actually found were included in the study, because he respects scientific evidence.
Kote Chakhunashvili (from 10:51): “I am biased, but for example, if I were truly biased, I would have written many things that we did not find. I simply respect scientific evidence, and therefore I would not put myself in a position to write some ‘fakes,’ right? Because afterward, for example, it says in the ‘disclosure’ that if some scientist asks us to provide our ‘data,’ we must provide it, and if they cannot reach the same statistical conclusions, then that becomes a problem for us. We could have written many things, but we wrote down what we actually found. For instance, in capillaroscopy, we found 4 cases out of 69 patients; we found none in the control group. And despite the fact that there was 0% there and about 7% here, when we ran the statistical analysis, it showed a ‘weak p-value,’ one that was higher than 0.05, which meant for us that the difference was not statistically significant, and we could not write that this might be caused by that. So, yes, I am biased, of course, because… the fact that I conducted this study at all is probably part of that bias, but… yes.”
Accordingly, the part of Chakhunashvili’s full answer in which he speaks about the objectivity of the study has been omitted from the circulated quote. The remaining quote therefore creates the impression that Chakhunashvili admits both his own bias and the bias of the study itself.
The study by Kote Chakhunashvili and other Georgian doctors came under the spotlight after the BBC used it as one of its sources in its investigation. In the investigation published on December 1, based on information obtained from chemical weapons experts, informants within Georgia’s special forces, and doctors, the BBC suggests that during the violent dispersal of protest rallies in 2024, the authorities used bromobenzyl cyanide, also known as “Camite,” which was removed from circulation in the 1930s due to its long-term effects.
On December 1, Georgia’s State Security Service released a statement saying that it had launched an investigation into the information disseminated by the BBC. According to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the investigation is being conducted under two articles of the Criminal Code: Article 333, which concerns abuse of official authority, and Article 319, which involves assisting a foreign organization in hostile activities. As part of the investigation, both Kote Chakhunashvili and several co-authors of the study, as well as other BBC respondents, were summoned for questioning.
The article has been written in the framework of Facebook’s fact-checking program. You can read more about the restrictions that Facebook may impose based on this article via this link. You can find information about appealing or editing our assessment via this link
Read detailed instructions for editing the article.
Read detailed appeal instructions.
