The presentation of this piece is odd insofar as Sharmini Peries (presenter) asserts as fact that "the Douma attack west of Damascus on April 7, 2018 killed at least 70 people..".., even though the newspiece ostensibly revolves around evidence to the effect that the chemical attack on Douma, the one that precipitated the US Admin bombing Syria, did not take place, (The coming to light of a leaked engineering report that was omitted from the OPCWs' report on the supposed chemical attack). That contradiction between presentation and content aside, the interview itself is comprehensive and credible.

This article is mostly an interview directly with a professor at MIT who is speculating that a document he received to review is authentic. Despite the document being an unverified "leak". The issue is, the professor makes the assumption the document is valid because the document appears "professional", and includes some data. I would take any unverified leak with a grain of salt, if people can fake a Monet or Da Vinci so well that it fools art professionals running museums like the Louvre, then creating a document that backs into a bit of math is not at all out of the realm of possibility. Having said that, the reporter conducting the interview handled this extremely well, and basically recorded the interview, did not provide much in the way of commentary, and did not inject bias into the article itself.

While the reporting appears to be complete, the reliance on a single source (Ted Postol) and a single "leaked" engineering report, leaves the article dubious given Dr. Postol's long-standing bias against the US Gov't and governments in general.

Well sourced and credible outlet countering the regime change media narrative