Back when I debated in College we called this "power-tagging." When you read evidence it was from what was called a "card" (even though no one used cards anymore, they were on standard paper, several related cards to a page) which had a "tag" read first and clearly summarizing the evidence, and then the body was read more quickly.
"Power tagging" was the practice of unscrupulous debaters writing this really great "tag" that clearly supported their arguments and was really stunning, but it didn't match the actual evidence in the source, and they read the rest of the card so quickly that clueless or dumb judges wouldn't notice.
This is an impossibly long article with a gigantic mish-mash of assorted (and often unrelated) info with a couple of vague sentences about very weak and unsupported speculation that Cuba caused West Nile. Doesn't exactly match the headline, and it isn't what most of the article is about.
West Nile is a remarkably ineffective bioterror attack if it was one (and the odds are overwhelming that it wasn't.) It's bird borne and hence pops up up and down the East Coast corridor. Strangely, and I've talked about the weird psychology of this several times, it's actually more comforting believing that bad things are the results of specific human evil actions rather than random acts of nature, though. There is no greater fear of humans than randomness. It's also why the more painfully stupid of people prefer to believe natural disasters are specific punishments from God, etc.