The key here is that you don't know if the accusation was true or false, but you arguing as if you do.
Which, in the language of Information Theory, is called a bias.
That because we don't know, you have to view the statement from the Amazon spokesperson as another unverified fact. Which, if you read your original response, you didn't. In this case, the information bias came from you. I was (possibly not clearly) trying to point out that lack of verification of the claim he was sick and/or in contact with somebody who was is important, specifically because it is advantageous for Amazon that everyone believe it to be true. I am not saying it isn't. We just don't know. Hope that makes it clearer.