COVID-19 lab leak theory

The COVID-19 lab leak theory, or lab leak hypothesis, is the notion that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, escaped from a laboratory.[1] There is no evidence SARS-CoV-2 existed in any laboratory prior to the pandemic.[2][3][4] Central to the idea of a Chinese leak is the fact that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) is in the same city as the pandemic's earliest known outbreak. The idea of a leak there gained support because of suspicions about the secrecy of the Chinese government's response.[2][5] Scientists from WIV had previously collected SARS-related coronaviruses from bats; allegations that they also performed undisclosed risky work on such viruses is central to some versions of the idea.[6][7] Another variant of the hypothesis posits an American laboratory origin.[8] Some versions, particularly those alleging alteration of the SARS-CoV-2 genome, are based on misinformation or misrepresentations of scientific evidence.[9][10][11]

This article is about the hypothesis proposing SARS-CoV-2 came from a laboratory. For conspiracy theories about the virus being a bioweapon, see COVID-19 misinformation § Bio-weapon.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology administered by the Chinese Academy of Sciences

The idea that the virus was released from a laboratory (accidentally or deliberately) appeared early in the pandemic.[12][13] The theory gained popularity in the United States through promotion by conservative figures including president Donald Trump and other members of the Republican Party in the spring of 2020,[14] fomenting tensions between the US and China.[15] At the time, politicians and media outlets widely dismissed it as a conspiracy theory.[16][17] The accidental lab leak idea regained scientific and media attention in 2021.[18] In March, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a report into the origins which found the possibility "extremely unlikely". Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that the report's conclusions were not definitive and data had been withheld from investigators.[19] In June 2021, the WHO announced plans for a second phase of investigation that would include audits of research institutions, which China rejected.[5][20] In October 2021, the United States Intelligence Community released the full report of its probe into the origins. The probe assessed that the Chinese government did not have foreknowledge of the outbreak and that the virus was likely not engineered.[21][22] The report did not conclusively favor any origin scenario. Of the eight assembled teams, one (the FBI) leaned towards a lab leak (with moderate confidence), four others and the National Intelligence Council leaned towards zoonosis (with low confidence), and three were unable to reach a conclusion.[23][24][25][26][22] In May 2021, British intelligence agencies said it was "feasible" that the virus began with a leak from a Chinese laboratory.[27] A July 2021 Politico-Harvard poll found that 52 percent of Americans believe that COVID-19 leaked from a lab (including 59 percent of Republicans and 52 percent of Democrats), compared to 28 percent that believe COVID-19 resulted from human contact with an infected animal.[28]

In June 2022, the WHO released a report advocating for more investigation into the lab leak theory.[29] In response, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian called the lab leak theory "a lie concocted by anti-China forces for political purposes, which has nothing to do with science".[30] Most scientists have remained skeptical of the idea, citing a lack of supporting evidence, while a minority of scientists regard both a lab leak and natural origin as equally valid.[31] Some scientists agree that the possibility of a lab leak origin should be examined as part of ongoing investigations,[32][33] though they have expressed concerns about the risks of politicization.[34][35] In late July 2022, two papers published in the journal Science described new epidemiological and genetic evidence that the pandemic likely began at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market and did not come from a laboratory.[36][37][38][39] The new evidence led a co-author of the two papers, Edward C. Holmes, to declare that "The siren has definitely sounded on the lab leak theory".[4][40]

Background
Main article: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 § Reservoir and origin

Zoonosis

Most new infectious diseases begin with a spillover event from animals,[34] and furthermore, they spill over spontaneously (either by contact with wildlife animals, which are the majority of cases, or with farmed animals).[41][42] For example, the emergence of Nipah virus in Perak, Malaysia and the 2002 outbreak of SARS-CoV-1 in Guangdong province, China, were natural zoonosis traced back to wildlife origin.[41] COVID-19 is considered by scientists to be "of probable animal origin".[42] It has been classified as a zoonotic disease (naturally transmissible from animals to humans), but, because the natural reservoir of SARS‑CoV‑2 has not yet been found,[43] some scientists have argued the classification is premature.[42] The original source of viral transmission to humans remains unclear, as does whether the virus became pathogenic (capable of causing disease) before or after a spillover event.[44][45][46]

Bats, a large reservoir of betacoronaviruses, are considered the most likely natural reservoir of SARS‑CoV‑2.[47][48] Differences between bat coronaviruses and SARS‑CoV‑2 suggest that humans may have been infected via an intermediate host.[49] Research into the natural reservoir of the virus that caused the 2002 SARS outbreak has resulted in the discovery of many SARS-like coronaviruses circulating in bats, most found in horseshoe bats. Analysis of related viruses indicates that samples taken from Rhinolophus sinicus show a resemblance of 80% to SARS‑CoV‑2.[50][51][52] Analysis also indicates that a virus collected from Rhinolophus affinis in a cave in Yunnan province, designated RaTG13, has a 96% resemblance to SARS‑CoV‑2.[53][54][55] The RaTG13 virus genome was the closest known sequence to SARS-CoV-2 until the discovery of BANAL-52 in horseshoe bats in Laos,[56][47][57] but it is not its direct ancestor.[10] Other closely-related sequences were also identified in samples from local bat populations in Yunnan province.[58] One such virus, RpYN06, shares 97% identity with SARS-CoV-2 in one large part of its genome, but 94% identity overall. Such "chunks" of very highly identical nucleic acids are often implicated as evidence of a common ancestor.[59][60]

An ancestor of SARS-CoV-2 likely acquired "generalist" binding to several different species through adaptive evolution in bats and an intermediate host species.[61][62][63] Estimates based on genomic sequences and contact tracing have placed the origin point of SARS-CoV-2 in humans as between mid-October and mid-November 2019.[64][65] Some scientists (such as Fauci above and CIRAD's Roger Frutos) have suggested slow, undetected circulation in a smaller number of humans before a threshold event (such as replication in a larger number of hosts in a larger city like Wuhan) could explain an undetected adaption period.[16]

Wuhan Institute of Virology

The first known human infections from SARS‑CoV‑2 were discovered in Wuhan, China.[53] Because many of the early infectees were workers at the Huanan Seafood Market,[66][67] it was originally suggested that the virus might have originated from bats or pangolins sold at the market.[46][49] It was later determined that no bats or pangolins were sold at the market.[68] People in Central China rarely consume bats.[69] The Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Wuhan Center for Disease Control are located within miles of the original focal point of the pandemic, Wuhan's Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, and this has been used to argue in support of the lab leak theory. However, another explanation for this is a tendency to build virology labs in proximity to potential outbreak areas.[70]

SARS-CoV-2 phylogenetic tree and representative sarbecoviruses and geographical context

The Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) had been conducting research on SARS-like bat coronaviruses since 2005,[71] and was involved in 2015 experiments that some experts (such as Richard Ebright) have characterized as gain-of-function.[7][72] Others (including Ralph Baric) have disputed the characterization, pointing out that the experiments in question (involving chimeric viruses) were not conducted at the WIV, but at UNC Chapel Hill, whose institutional biosafety committee assessed the experiments as not "gain-of-function".[73] Baric did acknowledge the risks involved in such studies, writing, "Scientific review panels may deem similar studies building chimeric viruses based on circulating strains too risky to pursue ... The potential to prepare for and mitigate future outbreaks must be weighed against the risk of creating more dangerous pathogens."[7][74]

As early as 2017, some scientists expressed concerns about the risk of pathogens escaping from the WIV.[75] This, along with the fact that the lab is in Wuhan, the city where the pandemic's early outbreak took place,[76] and the fact that the research at WIV was being conducted under the less stringent biosafety levels (BSL) 2 and 3,[7][77] has led to speculation that SARS-CoV-2 could have escaped from the Wuhan lab.[6] Richard Ebright said one reason that lower-containment BSL-2 laboratories are sometimes used is the cost and inconvenience of high-containment facilities.[7][78] Australian virologist Danielle Anderson, who was the last foreign scientist to visit the WIV before the pandemic, said the lab "worked in the same way as any other high-containment lab". She also said it had "strict safety protocols".[79] The Huanan Seafood Market may have only served as a jumping off point for a virus that was already circulating in Wuhan, facilitating rapid expansion of the outbreak.[44][80]

Prior lab leak incidents and conspiracy theories

Laboratory leak incidents have occurred in the past.[81][82] A Soviet research facility in 1979 leaked anthrax and at least 68 people died.[83] The 2007 foot-and-mouth outbreak in the UK was caused by a leaky pipe at a high-security laboratory.[83] The SARS virus escaped at least once, and probably twice, from a high-level biocontainment laboratory in China.[75][3][84]

Benign exposures to pathogens (which do not result in an infection) are probably under-reported, given the negative consequences of such events on the regulation of a host institution and low risk for widespread epidemics.[85] Some scientists, such as epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch and bacteriologist Richard Ebright, have asserted that the risk of laboratory-acquired infection (especially with modified pathogens) is greater than widely believed.[86][87]

No epidemic has ever been caused by the leak of a novel virus.[1] The only incident of a lab-acquired infection leading to an epidemic is the 1977 Russian flu. It was caused by a strain of H1N1 that had circulated naturally until the 1950s.[88][2]

Previous novel disease outbreaks, such as AIDS, H1N1, SARS, and the Ebola virus have been the subject of conspiracy theories and allegations that the causative agent was created in or escaped from a laboratory.[89][90][3] Each of these is now understood to have a natural origin.[11]

Lab leak theories
See also: Investigations into the origin of COVID-19

There is no evidence that any laboratory had samples of SARS-CoV-2, or a plausible ancestor virus, prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.[2]

Various sources have theorized that SARS-CoV-2 could have leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology or another laboratory in Wuhan, such as the Wuhan Center For Disease Control & Prevention. The theories vary on whether this was an intentional act or an accident. Theories also vary on whether the virus was modified by human activity prior to being released.

As the COVID-19 pandemic progressed, lab leak theories became less rooted in science, adopting instead the trappings of conspiracy theory; by 2022 most lab leak proponents were promoting a narrative with conspiracist components.[1]

Accidental release of a natural virus

Some have theorized the virus arose in humans from an accidental infection of laboratory workers by contact with a sample extracted from a wild animal or by direct contact with a captive animal or its respiratory droplets or feces.[16] According to a number of scientists, including Ian Lipkin, the Wuhan Institute of Virology performed work on chimeric SARS-like coronaviruses using inadequate safety procedures.[7]

Former CDC director Robert R. Redfield said in March 2021 that in his opinion the most likely cause of the virus was a laboratory escape, which "doesn't imply any intentionality", and that as a virologist, he did not believe it made "biological sense" for the virus to be so "efficient in human to human transmission" from the early outbreak. The fact that scientists have not been successful in finding an intermediate host that picked up the virus from bats and passed it to humans is seen by some as evidence that supports a lab leak, according to The Guardian.[91] CNN aired a response from Anthony Fauci saying that the virus could have adapted itself for "efficient spread" among humans in two ways, either "in the lab", or via the more likely possibility of "below the radar" community spread going unnoticed for several weeks or months before it was first recognized clinically.[92] University of Utah virologist Stephen Goldstein has criticized the scientific basis of Redfield's comments, saying that SARS-CoV-2's spike protein is very effective at jumping between hosts, so this ability to transmit efficiently among humans is not particularly unusual. Goldstein noted "If a human virus can transmit among mink, there's no basis to assume a bat virus can't transmit among humans. Us humans may think we're very special – but to a virus we are just another mammalian host."[93]

According to Reuters, the Wuhan Institute of Virology's (WIV) decision to take offline its gene sequence and sample databases in 2019 is an important part of the lab leak theory.[94]

WHO assessment

The WHO-convened Global Study of the Origins of SARS-CoV-2, written by a joint team of Chinese and international scientists and published in March 2021,[32][95] assessed introduction through a laboratory incident to be "extremely unlikely" and not supported by any available evidence,[47][96] although the report stated that this possibility could not be wholly ruled out without further evidence.[16] The report stated that human spillover via an intermediate animal host was the most likely explanation, with direct spillover from bats next most likely. Introduction through the food supply chain and the Huanan Seafood Market was considered less likely.[47]

A small group of researchers said that they would not trust the report's conclusions because it was overseen by the Chinese government, and some observers felt the WHO's statement was premature.[5] Other scientists found the report convincing, and said there was no evidence of a laboratory origin for the virus.[95][2]

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom stated that the team had experienced difficulty accessing raw data on early COVID-19 cases and that the least likely hypothesis, a lab leak, required additional investigation because "further data and studies will be needed to reach more robust conclusions".[19][32][97] The leader of the WHO investigatory team, Peter Ben Embarek, stated that although the team had been under political pressure from both inside and outside China, he had not felt pressed to remove anything from the final report. He later said that he supported further investigation into the lab leak idea because of the way the Chinese government had "tried to suppress all research in this area".[98] In August 2021 he said "An employee of the lab gets infected while working in a bat cave collecting samples. Such a scenario, while being a lab leak, would also fit our first hypothesis of direct transmission of the virus from bat to human."[99]

The United States, European Union, and 13 other countries criticized the WHO-convened study, calling for transparency from China and access to the raw data and original samples.[100] Chinese officials described these criticisms as "an attempt to politicise the study".[101] Scientists involved in the WHO report, including Liang Wannian, John Watson, and Peter Daszak, objected to the criticism, and said that the report was an example of the collaboration and dialogue required to successfully continue investigations into the matter.[101]

On 15 July 2021, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that the COVID-19 lab leak theory had been prematurely discarded by the WHO, following his earlier statements that a potential leak requires "further investigation, potentially with additional missions involving specialist experts".[102] He proposed a second phase of WHO investigation, which he said should take a closer look at the lab leak idea, and asked China to be "transparent" and release relevant data.[103] Later on 17 July, Tedros called for "audits of relevant laboratories and research institutions" in the area of the initial COVID-19 cases.[104] China refused saying it showed "disrespect" and "arrogance towards science".[105][103][106] The United States criticised China's position on the follow-up origin probe as "irresponsible" and "dangerous".[107]

In June 2022, the WHO's Scientific Advisory Group for Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO) published a preliminary report urged a deeper investigation into the possibility of a laboratory leak.[108] The SAGO chair said in a press conference that "the strongest evidence is still around a zoonotic transmission".[109] The AP described the report as a "sharp reversal" of the WHO's previous assessment,[108] and Science.org described reactions from academics as mixed.[109]

Mojiang copper mine

Proponents of the lab leak theory, including Alina Chan and members of DRASTIC, a collection of internet activists supporting the lab leak idea,[110] have raised concerns over a respiratory outbreak that happened in the spring of 2012 near an abandoned copper mine in China, which Shi Zhengli's group investigated. Shi's group collected a sample of viral RNA and named it RaBtCoV/4991.[10] Later, Shi's group published a paper about a virus named RaTG13 in Nature in February 2020.[111] Via sequence comparisons, it became clear that RaBtCoV/4991 and RaTG13 were likely the same virus. Shi has said that the renaming was done to reflect the origin location and year of the virus.[112]

Some proponents, including Nicholas Wade and pseudonymous DRASTIC member TheSeeker268, have argued that the renaming was an attempt to obscure the origins of the virus and hide how it could be related to a laboratory origin of the related SARS-CoV-2 virus.[113] Scientists have said that RaTG-13 is too distantly related to be connected to the pandemic's origins, and could not be altered in a laboratory to create SARS-CoV-2.[114] The New Yorker has described this series of events as an "odd" omission, and reported clarifications made thereafter by Shi's group and the WIV.[115] Nature later published an addendum to the 2020 RaTG13 paper addressing any possible link to the mine, in which Shi says that the virus was collected there, but that it was very likely not the cause of the miners' illnesses. Laboratory tests conducted on the workers' serum were negative, and "no antibodies to a SARS-like coronavirus had been found."[112]

Accidental release of a genetically modified virus
See also: Gain-of-function research § COVID-19 pandemic

One idea used to support a laboratory origin invokes previous gain-of-function research on coronaviruses. The exact meaning of "gain of function" is disputed among experts.[73][116][117] According to emailed statements by Shi Zhengli, director of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, her lab has not conducted any unpublished gain-of-function experiments on coronaviruses, and all WIV staff and students tested negative for the virus in the early days of the pandemic.[118]

Furin cleavage site

Some claims of bioengineering focus on the presence of two sequential cytosine-guanine-guanine (CGG) codons in the virus' RNA, more precisely in the crucial furin cleavage site.[10][3] The CGG codon is one of several codons that translates into an arginine amino acid, and it is the least common arginine codon in human pathogenic betacoronaviruses.[119] Partially, this lack of CGG codons in human pathogenic coronaviruses is due to natural selection: B-cells in the human body recognize areas on virus genomes where C and G are next to each other (so-called CpG islands).[16][120] The CGG codon makes up 5% of the arginine codons in the SARS-CoV-1 genome, and it makes up 3% of the arginine codons in the SARS-CoV-2 genome.[10] Proponents of an engineered virus, including journalist Nicholas Wade, claim that two such uncommon codons in a row are evidence for a laboratory experiment; because of the low chance of a CGG codon pair occurring in nature, and in contrast, the common usage of CGG codons for arginine in genetic engineering work.[10][3] This has been disputed by scientists, who note that the CGG codon is also present (and even more frequent) in other coronaviruses, including MERS-CoV,[121] and that a codon being rare does not mean it cannot be present. In addition, the presence of the furin cleavage site, which is responsible for a significant increase in transmissibility, largely outweighs the disadvantageous immune responses from B-cells triggered by the genetic sequences which code for it.[120][16]

Another source of speculation is the presence of the furin cleavage site itself. It is absent in the nearest known relatives of SARS-CoV-2, but scientists consider that this is likely the result of recombination, and is further unsurprising due to the genetic lineage of the virus being poorly sampled. A common occurrence amongst other coronaviruses, including MERS-CoV, HCoV-OC43, HCoV-HKU1, and appearing in near-identical fashion in HKU9-1, the site is preceded by short palindromic sequences suggestive of natural recombination caused by simple evolutionary mechanisms. Additionally, the suboptimal configuration of the cleavage site when compared with known examples (such as HCoV-OC43 or HCoV-HKU1), along with the complex task this would have required, is inconsistent with what would be expected from an engineered virus.[2]

Project DEFUSE was a rejected DARPA grant application, that proposed to sample bat coronaviruses from various locations in China.[122] The rejected proposal document was leaked to the press by DRASTIC in September 2021.[123] To evaluate whether bat coronaviruses might spillover into the human population, the grantees proposed to create chimeric coronaviruses which were mutated in different locations, before evaluating their ability to infect human cells in the laboratory.[124] One proposed alteration was to modify bat coronaviruses to insert a cleavage site for the Furin protease at the S1/S2 junction of the spike (S) viral protein. Another part of the grant aimed to create noninfectious protein-based vaccines containing just the spike protein of dangerous coronaviruses. These vaccines would then be administered to bats in caves in southern China to help prevent future outbreaks in humans.[122] There is no evidence that any of the proposed experiments were ever carried out. Co-investigators on the rejected proposal included the EcoHealth Alliance's Peter Daszak, Ralph Baric from UNC, Linfa Wang from Duke–NUS Medical School in Singapore, and Shi Zhengli from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.[115][2]

Government oversight

The situation reignited a debate over gain-of-function research, although the intense political rhetoric surrounding the issue has threatened to sideline serious inquiry over policy in this domain.[125] Researchers have said the politicization of the debate is making the process more difficult, and that words are often twisted to become "fodder for conspiracy theories."[126][11][16] The idea of an experiment conducted in 2015 on SARS-like coronaviruses being the source of the pandemic was reported in British tabloids early in the pandemic.[127] Virologist Angela Rasmussen writes that this is unlikely, due to the intense scrutiny and government oversight gain-of-function research is subject to, and that it is improbable that research on hard-to-obtain coronaviruses could occur under the radar.[76]

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul alleged that the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) had been funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan, accusing researchers including epidemiologist Ralph Baric of creating "super-viruses".[116][73] Both Fauci and NIH Director Francis Collins denied that the US government supported such research.[116][117][128] Baric likewise rejected Paul's allegations, saying his lab's research into cross-species transmission of bat coronaviruses did not qualify as gain-of-function.[73] While a 2017 study of chimeric bat coronaviruses at the WIV listed NIH as a sponsor, NIH funding was only related to sample collection.[73] A Washington Post fact-checker commented that "EcoHealth funding was not related to the experiments, but the collection of samples", and that "statements about Baric's research appear overblown".[73] In October 2021, a spokesman for the NIH acknowledged that the EcoHealth Alliance had provided new data demonstrating that in a mouse experiment, a coronavirus had caused more weight loss than expected.[129] This was described as an unexpected consequence of the research, and not its intended outcome or a component of the original funding proposal.[130] Importantly, the NIH spokesman said this finding was provided in a late progress report, and was not available before prior statements about experiments at the WIV.[131]

An August 2021 report made by the minority staff of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee working for its Republican Party members alleged that SARS-CoV-2 emerged as a result of gain-of-function research made on the RaTG13 virus, collected in a cave in Yunnan province in 2012, which was afterwards accidentally released some time before 12 September 2019, when the database of the Wuhan Institute of Virology went offline.[132][133] The report also estimated that SARS-CoV-2 was circulating in Wuhan as early as late August 2019.[132] That same month, an intelligence probe on the origins of COVID-19 requested by President Biden assessed that the Chinese government did not have foreknowledge of the outbreak.[21] Overall, the probe did not render conclusive results on the origins. Of eight assembled teams, one (the Federal Bureau of Investigation) leaned towards a lab leak theory, four others (and the National Intelligence Council) were inclined to uphold a zoonotic origin, and three were unable to reach a conclusion.[23][24][25][22] British intelligence agencies believe it is "feasible" that the virus began with a leak from a Chinese laboratory.[27]

Fringe views on genetic engineering
See also: COVID-19 misinformation § Gain-of-function research

The earliest known recorded mention of any type of lab leak theory appeared in the form of a tweet published on 5 January 2020, from a Hong Kong user named @GarboHK, alleging that the Chinese government had invented the virus as a bioweapon.[12][13] Similar ideas were later formalized in a preprint posted on BioRxiv on 31 January 2020, by researchers at the Indian Institute of Technology, claiming to find similarities between the new coronavirus' genome and that of HIV. The paper was quickly retracted due to irregularities in the researchers' "technical approach and...interpretation of the results".[134][135] This claim was notably promoted by Luc Montagnier, a controversial French virologist and Nobel laureate, who contended that SARS-CoV-2 might have been created during research on a HIV/AIDS vaccine.[136][137] Bioinformatics analyses show that the common sequences are short, that their similarity is insufficient to support the hypothesis of common origin, and that the identified sequences were independent insertions which occurred at varied points during the evolution of coronaviruses.[16][138][139]

Further claims were promulgated by several anti-vaccine activists, such as Judy Mikovits and James Lyons-Weiler, who claimed that SARS-CoV-2 was created in a laboratory, with Mikovits going further and stating that the virus was both deliberately engineered and deliberately released.[3] Weiler's analysis, where he argued that a long sequence in the middle of the spike protein of the virus was not found in other coronaviruses and was evidence for laboratory recombination, was dismissed by scientists, who found that the sequence in question was also found in many other coronaviruses, suggesting that it was "widely spread" in nature.[140]

Chinese researcher Li-Meng Yan was an early proponent of deliberate genetic engineering, releasing widely criticised preprint papers in favor of the theory in the spring of 2020.[141][142] After she released her preprints, political operatives (including Steve Bannon and Guo Wengui) arranged for Yan to flee to the United States in the summer of 2020 to engage in a speaking tour on right-wing media outlets, as a method of distracting from the Trump administration's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.[143] According to scientific reviewers from the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Yan's paper offered "contradictory and inaccurate information that does not support their argument,"[142] while reviewers from MIT Press's Rapid Reviews: COVID-19 criticised her preprints as not demonstrating "sufficient scientific evidence to support [their] claims."[141]

In September 2022, a panel assembled by The Lancet published a wide-ranging report on the pandemic, including commentary on the virus origin overseen by the group's chairman Jeffrey Sachs. This suggested that the virus may have originated from an American laboratory, a notion long-promoted by Sachs, including on the podcast of conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Reacting to this, virologist Angela Rasmussen commented that this may have been "one of The Lancet's most shameful moments regarding its role as a steward and leader in communicating crucial findings about science and medicine".[8] Virologist David Robertson said the suggestion of US laboratory involvement was "wild speculation" and that "it's really disappointing to see such a potentially influential report contributing to further misinformation on such an important topic".[8]

Deliberate release
Main article: COVID-19 misinformation § Bio-weapon

Historian of science Naomi Oreskes says that she does not know of any credible scientists who support the view that the virus was released deliberately, while the version proposing the virus may have escaped accidentally is more plausible.[144]

Developments in 2022

In June 2022, the WHO released a report advocating for more investigation into the lab leak theory.[29] In response, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian called the lab leak theory "a lie concocted by anti-China forces for political purposes, which has nothing to do with science".[30]

In July 2022 two articles appeared in the journal Science elucidating the zoonotic origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.[40] Virologist Edward C. Holmes, a co-author, commented that the as a result of the publications "The siren has definitely sounded on the lab leak theory" and that in support of the lab leak theory "There's no emails. There's no evidence in any of the science. There's absolutely nothing".[40]

Political and media attention

The first media reports suggesting a SARS-CoV-2 lab leak appeared in the Daily Mail and The Washington Times in late January 2020.[12] In a 31 January 2020 interview with Science Magazine, Professor Richard Ebright said there was a possibility that SARS-CoV-2 entered humans through a laboratory accident in Wuhan, and that all data on the genome sequence and properties of the virus were "consistent with entry into the human population as either a natural accident or a laboratory accident".[145] A 5 February report from Caixin described these rumors as originating from two sources: a preprint paper by an Indian scholar posted to bioRxiv that was later withdrawn, and a BBC China report.[146][147]

China–US relations
See also: Chinese government response to COVID-19

The origin of COVID-19 became a source of friction in China–United States relations. The lab leak theory was promulgated in early 2020 by United States politicians and media, particularly US president Donald Trump, other prominent Republicans, and conservative media (such as Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson, and former Breitbart News publisher and White House chief strategist Steve Bannon).[148][113] Trump had also referred to the virus as "kung flu",[149] and the administration also expressed the intention to sanction China.[150] In April 2020, Trump claimed to have evidence for the theory, but refused to produce it when requested.[113][151] At that time, the media did not distinguish between the accidental lab leak of a natural virus and bio-weapon origin conspiracy theories. In online discussions, various theories – including the lab leak theory – were combined to form larger, baseless conspiracy plots.[148] In May 2020, Fox News host Tucker Carlson accused Anthony Fauci of having "funded the creation of COVID" through gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).[116] Citing an essay by science writer Nicholas Wade, Carlson alleged that Fauci had directed research to make bat viruses more infectious to humans.[128] Facebook enacted a policy to remove discussion of the lab leak theory as misinformation; it lifted the ban a year later, in May 2021.[18][152][153]

A BBC China report stated that on 14 February, Chinese president Xi Jinping proposed for biosafety to be incorporated into law; the following day, new measures were introduced to "strengthen the management of laboratories", especially those working with viruses.[146][147] In April 2020, The Guardian reported that China had taken steps to tightly regulate domestic research into the source of the outbreak in an attempt to control the narrative surrounding its origins and encourage speculation that the virus started outside the country.[154] In May 2020, Chinese state media carried statements by scientists countering claims that the seafood market and Institute of Virology were possible origin sites, including comments by George Gao, director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention.[155]

In the United States, anti-China misinformation spread on social media, including baseless bio-weapon claims, fueled aggressive rhetoric towards people of Asian ancestry,[156] and the bullying of scientists.[34] Some scientists were worried their words would be misconstrued and used to support racist rhetoric.[149] In a letter published in Science, a number of scientists, including Ralph S. Baric, argued that the accidental laboratory leak hypothesis had not been sufficiently investigated and remained possible, calling for greater clarity and additional data.[157] Their letter was criticized by some virologists and public health experts, who said that a "hostile" and "divisive" focus on the WIV was unsupported by evidence, was impeding inquiries into legitimate concerns about China's pandemic response and transparency by combining them with speculative and meritless argument,[10] and would cause Chinese scientists and authorities to share less rather than more data.[34]

Fort Detrick

Some members of the Chinese government have promoted a counter-conspiracy theory claiming that SARS‑CoV‑2 originated in the U.S. military installation at Fort Detrick.[158][159] This theory has little support. Chinese demands to investigate U.S. laboratories are thought to be a distracting technique to push focus away from Wuhan.[160]

Chilling effects

According to Paul Thacker (writing for the British Medical Journal), some scientists and reporters said that "objective consideration of COVID-19's origins went awry early in the pandemic, as researchers who were funded to study viruses with pandemic potential launched a campaign labelling the lab leak hypothesis as a 'conspiracy theory.'"[18] In February 2020, a letter was published in The Lancet authored by 27 scientists and spearheaded by Peter Daszak which described some alternate origin ideas as conspiracy theories.[161] Filippa Lentzos said some scientists "closed ranks" as a result, fearing for their careers and grants.[18] The letter was criticized by Jamie Metzl for "scientific propaganda and thuggery",[162] and by Katherine Eban as having had a "chilling effect" on scientific research and the scientific community by implying that scientists who "bring up the lab-leak theory ... are doing the work of conspiracy theorists".[163][113]

Early in 2020, scientists including Jeremy Farrar, Kristian G. Andersen, and Robert F. Garry, among others, sent emails to Anthony Fauci with questions regarding the lab leak theory, and suspicions that some evidence supported it.[164][165] NIH director Francis Collins was concerned at the time that discussion of the possibility could damage "international harmony".[166] After the discovery of similar viruses in nature, more research into the genome, and the availability of more genomic sequences from the early days of the pandemic, these scientists publicly stated they supported the zoonotic theory as the most likely explanation.[167][168][2][169]

Some journalists and scientists said they dismissed or avoided discussing the lab leak theory during the first year of the pandemic as a result of perceived polarization resulting from Donald Trump's embrace of the theory.[149][170][171][172] The chair of the Board of Governors of the American Academy of Microbiology, Arturo Casadevall, said that, he (like many others) previously underestimated the lab leak hypothesis "mainly because the emphasis then [early in the pandemic] was on the idea of a deliberately engineered virus". However, by May 2021 it was a "long-simmering concern" in scientific circles, and that he perceived "greater openness" to it.[173]

Coverage in 2021

In early 2021, the hypothesis returned to popular debate due to renewed media discussion.[148] The renewed interest was prompted by two events. First, an article published in May by The Wall Street Journal reported that lab workers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology fell ill with COVID-19-like symptoms in November 2019. The report was based on off-the-record briefings with intelligence officials.[148][113][174] The cases would precede official reports from the Chinese government stating the first known cases were in December 2019, although unpublished government data suggested the earliest cases were detected in mid-November.[175][176] The Guardian stated that the WSJ article did little to confirm, in terms of good, quality evidence, the possibility of a lab leak;[177] a declassified report from the National Intelligence Council likewise said that the fact the researchers were hospitalized was unrelated to the origins of the outbreak.[178] Second, it was shown that Peter Daszak, the key organiser of the February 2020 statement in The Lancet, did not disclose connections to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.[18][148][113][179] An addendum was later published by The Lancet, in which Daszak listed his previous cooperation with Chinese researchers.[180]

After the publication of the WHO-convened report, politicians, talk show hosts, journalists, and some scientists advanced claims that SARS-CoV-2 may have come from the WIV.[34] DRASTIC also contributed to its promotion, particularly via Twitter.[110] In July 2021, a Harvard–Politico survey indicated that 52 percent of Americans believed that COVID-19 originated from a lab leak, while 28 percent believed that COVID-19 originated from an infected animal in nature.[28]

After May 2021, some media organizations softened previous language that described the laboratory leak theory as "debunked" or a "conspiracy theory".[170] However, the prevailing scientific view remained that while an accidental leak was possible, it was highly unlikely.[31][34]

Coverage in 2022

In October 2022, Republican members of a United States Senate committee issued an "interim report" in which they said a lab leak origin for SARS-CoV-2 was more likely than a natural origin.[181][182][183] The interim report mostly relies on existing public evidence and cited problems with the Chinese government's "lack of transparency".[184] In a joint ProPublica and Vanity Fair article, journalists Katherine Eban and Jeff Kao opined that dispatches between Chinese diplomats "point to a catastrophe in the making: political pressure to excel, inadequate resources to safeguard risky work, and an effort to skirt blame once a crisis hit."[183] Bacteriologist and lab leak theory proponent Richard Ebright noted that the report offered little, if any, new evidence.[181] Evolutionary biologist Michael Worobey commented that the document seemed to be either "a cynical effort to try to win Republican votes" in the imminent midterm elections, or "a bunch of staffers with no ability to understand the science who stumbled across a bunch of misinformation and disinformation-filled tweets."[185] Virologist Angela Rasmussen described the report as "an embarrassingly bad use of taxpayer money and resources."[181]

References
  1. Gorski DH (1 August 2022). "The rise and fall of the lab leak hypothesis for the origin of SARS-CoV-2". Science-Based Medicine.
  2. Holmes EC, Goldstein SA, Rasmussen AL, Robertson DL, Crits-Christoph A, et al. (September 2021). "The origins of SARS-CoV-2: A critical review". Cell (Review). 184 (19): 4848–4856. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2021.08.017. PMC 8373617. PMID 34480864. Under any laboratory escape scenario, SARS-CoV-2 would have to have been present in a laboratory prior to the pandemic, yet no evidence exists to support such a notion and no sequence has been identified that could have served as a precursor.
  3. Gorski, David (31 May 2021). "The origin of SARS-CoV-2, revisited". Science-Based Medicine. Archived from the original on 1 June 2021. Retrieved 19 July 2021. The second [version of the lab leak] is the version that "reasonable" people consider plausible, but there is no good evidence for either version.
  4. Holmes, Edward C. (14 August 2022). "The COVID lab leak theory is dead. Here's how we know the virus came from a Wuhan market". The Conversation. Retrieved 4 September 2022. For the lab leak theory to be true, SARS-CoV-2 must have been present in the Wuhan Institute of Virology before the pandemic started. This would convince me. But the inconvenient truth is there’s not a single piece of data suggesting this. There’s no evidence for a genome sequence or isolate of a precursor virus at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Not from gene sequence databases, scientific publications, annual reports, student theses, social media, or emails. Even the intelligence community has found nothing. Nothing. And there was no reason to keep any work on a SARS-CoV-2 ancestor secret before the pandemic.
  5. Dyer, Owen (27 July 2021). "Covid-19: China stymies investigation into pandemic's origins". BMJ. 374: n1890. doi:10.1136/bmj.n1890. PMID 34315713. n1890.
  6. Baker, Nicholson (4 January 2021). "The Lab-Leak Hypothesis". New York Intelligencer. Archived from the original on 20 January 2021. Retrieved 20 July 2021.
  7. Jacobsen, Rowan (29 June 2021). "Inside the risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan". MIT Technology Review. Archived from the original on 20 July 2021. Retrieved 20 July 2021. Ebright believes one factor at play was the cost and inconvenience of working in high-containment conditions. The Chinese lab's decision to work at BSL-2, he says, would have 'effectively increas[ed] rates of progress, all else being equal, by a factor of 10 to 20'.
  8. Kilander, Gustaf (16 September 2022). "Lancet report claiming Covid could have come from US lab prompts anger". The Independent. Retrieved 31 October 2022.
  9. Krishnaswamy, S.; Govindarajan, T. R. (16 July 2021). "The controversy being created about the origins of the virus that causes COVID-19". Frontline. Chennai. Archived from the original on 23 July 2021. Retrieved 30 July 2021.
  10. Kasprak, Alex (16 July 2021). "The 'Occam's Razor Argument' Has Not Shifted in Favor of a COVID Lab Leak". Snopes. Archived from the original on 6 August 2021. Retrieved 24 July 2021.
  11. Hakim, Mohamad S. (14 February 2021). "SARS‐CoV‐2, Covid‐19, and the debunking of conspiracy theories". Reviews in Medical Virology. 31 (6): e2222. doi:10.1002/rmv.2222. PMC 7995093. PMID 33586302.
  12. Kessler, Glen (25 May 2021). "Timeline: How the Wuhan lab-leak theory suddenly became credible". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 25 July 2021. Retrieved 19 July 2021.
  13. Bandeira, Luiza; Aleksejeva, Nika; Knight, Tessa; Le Roux, Jean. WEAPONIZED: HOW RUMORS ABOUT COVID-19'S ORIGINS LED TO A NARRATIVE ARMS RACE (PDF). The Atlantic Council. Archived (PDF) from the original on 26 April 2022. Retrieved 17 January 2022.
  14. Wallace-Wells, Benjamin (27 May 2021). "The Sudden Rise of the Coronavirus Lab-Leak Theory". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on 18 February 2022. Retrieved 17 January 2022.
  15. Ruwitch, John (31 March 2021). "Theory That COVID Came From A Chinese Lab Takes On New Life In Wake Of WHO Report". NPR. Archived from the original on 2 December 2021. Retrieved 17 January 2022.
  16. Frutos, Roger; Gavotte, Laurent; Devaux, Christian A. (March 2021). "Understanding the origin of COVID-19 requires to change the paradigm on zoonotic emergence from the spillover to the circulation model". Infection, Genetics and Evolution. 95: 104812. doi:10.1016/j.meegid.2021.104812. PMC 7969828. PMID 33744401. See i.a. "The origin of SARS-Cov-2 is still passionately debated since it makes ground for geopolitical confrontations and conspiracy theories besides scientific ones...The marginal conspiracy theory of a voluntary released of an engineered virus forwarded by the press, blogs and politicians is not supported by any data."
  17. "Covid origin: Why the Wuhan lab-leak theory is being taken seriously". BBC News. 27 May 2021. Archived from the original on 30 June 2021. Retrieved 16 January 2022.
  18. Thacker, Paul D. (8 July 2021). "The covid-19 lab leak hypothesis: Did the media fall victim to a misinformation campaign?". BMJ. 374: n1656. doi:10.1136/bmj.n1656. PMID 34244293. S2CID 235760734.
  19. Miller, John; Nebehay, Stephanie (31 March 2021). "Data withheld from WHO team probing COVID-19 origins in China: Tedros". Reuters. Archived from the original on 31 July 2021. Retrieved 31 July 2021.
  20. Moritsugu, Ken (22 July 2021). "China rebuffs WHO's terms for further COVID-19 origins study". Associated Press. Archived from the original on 5 September 2021. Retrieved 6 September 2021. Zeng ... added that speculation that staff and graduate students at the lab had been infected and might have started the spread of the virus in the city was untrue.
  21. Nakashima, Ellen; Achenbach, Joel (27 August 2021). "U.S. spy agencies rule out possibility the coronavirus was created as a bioweapon, say origin will stay unknown without China's help". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 29 August 2021. Retrieved 29 August 2021.
  22. Barnes, Julian E. (29 October 2021). "Origin of Virus May Remain Murky, U.S. Intelligence Agencies Say". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 17 December 2021. Retrieved 17 December 2021.
  23. Merchant, Nomaan (27 August 2021). "US intelligence still divided on origins of coronavirus". Associated Press. Archived from the original on 29 August 2021. Retrieved 29 August 2021.
  24. Nakashima, Ellen; Abutaleb, Yasmeen; Achenbach, Joel (24 August 2021). "Biden receives inconclusive intelligence report on covid origins". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 26 August 2021. Retrieved 27 August 2021.
  25. Cohen, Jon (27 August 2021). "COVID-19's origins still uncertain, U.S. intelligence agencies conclude". Science. doi:10.1126/science.abm1388. S2CID 240981726. Archived from the original on 31 August 2021. Retrieved 29 August 2021. The first, and most important, takeaway is that the IC is 'divided on the most likely origin' of the pandemic coronavirus and that both hypotheses are 'plausible.'
  26. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (27 August 2021). Unclassified Summary of Assessment on COVID-19 Origins (PDF) (Report). Archived (PDF) from the original on 18 December 2021. Retrieved 9 September 2021.
  27. Brown, Larisa (30 May 2021). "Covid: Wuhan lab leak is 'feasible', say British spies". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 19 February 2022. Retrieved 19 February 2022.
  28. Ollstein, Alice Miranda (9 July 2021). "POLITICO-Harvard poll: Most Americans believe Covid leaked from lab". Politico. Retrieved 13 September 2022.
  29. Smith, Alexander (10 June 2022). "WHO makes U-turn, urging further investigation on 'lab leak' theory in new Covid report". NBC News. Archived from the original on 10 June 2022. Retrieved 10 June 2022.
  30. "China calls COVID 'lab leak' theory a lie after WHO report". CP24. The Associated Press. 10 June 2022. Archived from the original on 10 June 2022. Retrieved 10 June 2022.
  31. See, for example, the following:
    News sources describing this as a majority view:
    • Maxmen, Amy; Mallapaty, Smriti (8 June 2021). "The COVID lab-leak hypothesis: what scientists do and don't know". Nature. 594 (7863): 313–315. Bibcode:2021Natur.594..313M. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-01529-3. PMID 34108722. S2CID 235395594.
    • "The 'Occam's Razor Argument' Has Not Shifted in Favor of a Lab Leak". Snopes.com. 16 July 2021. Archived from the original on 6 August 2021. Retrieved 18 July 2021. Shi's team concluded that SARS-CoV-2 was 79% identical to SARS-CoV-1 and 96% identical to a virus her team had sampled from bats in a mineshaft in 2013. This information formed the basis of the widely accepted conclusion that SARS-CoV-2's ancestor was a bat virus.
    • Ling, Justin (15 June 2021). "The Lab Leak Theory Doesn't Hold Up". Foreign Policy. Archived from the original on 1 July 2021. Retrieved 4 August 2021. Over the past year, I've spoken with a slew of researchers, scientists, and public health experts: Their takes on the origins of COVID-19 generally fall into two camps. Most say that the virus is very likely natural and that theories around the Wuhan Institute of Virology are a possible explanation, but they're unlikely. The other group, a minority, says both theories are more or less equally valid and that the lab leak theory is in desperate need of more study.
    • Sohn, Rebecca (3 June 2021). "A Very Calm Guide to the Lab Leak Theory". Slate Magazine. Archived from the original on 3 August 2021. Retrieved 4 August 2021. Most experts still tend to think the virus has a natural origin.

    Academic review articles which describe this as the mainstream view:
  32. Mallapaty, Smriti (15 April 2021). "After the WHO report: what's next in the search for COVID's origins". Nature. 592 (7854): 337–338. Bibcode:2021Natur.592..337M. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-00877-4. PMID 33790440. S2CID 232481786. Archived from the original on 8 June 2021. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
  33. Zimmer, Carl; Gorman, James; Mueller, Benjamin (27 May 2021). "Scientists Don't Want to Ignore the 'Lab Leak' Theory, Despite No New Evidence". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 1 June 2021. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
  34. Maxmen, Amy (3 June 2021). "Divisive COVID 'lab leak' debate prompts dire warnings from researchers". Nature. 594 (7861): 15–16. Bibcode:2021Natur.594...15M. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-01383-3. PMID 34045757. S2CID 235232290. Archived from the original on 27 May 2021. Retrieved 20 July 2021.
  35. Jacobsen, Rowan (13 May 2021). "Top researchers are calling for a real investigation into the origin of covid-19". MIT Technology Review. Archived from the original on 4 August 2021. Retrieved 4 August 2021. The lab leak hypothesis has already become highly political. In the US, it has been embraced most loudly by Republican lawmakers and conservative media figures... The resulting polarization has had a chilling effect on scientists, some of whom have been reluctant to express their own concerns, says Relman.
  36. Zimmer, Carl; Mueller, Benjamin (26 February 2022). "New Research Points to Wuhan Market as Pandemic Origin". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 1 November 2022.
  37. Pekar JE, Magee A, Parker E, Moshiri N, Izhikevich K, et al. (August 2022). "The molecular epidemiology of multiple zoonotic origins of SARS-CoV-2". Science. 377 (6609): 960–966. doi:10.1126/science.abp8337. PMC 9348752. PMID 35881005.
  38. Worobey M, Levy JI, Malpica Serrano L, Crits-Christoph A, Pekar JE, et al. (August 2022). "The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan was the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic". Science. 377 (6609): 951–959. doi:10.1126/science.abp8715. PMC 9348750. PMID 35881010.
  39. Maxmen, Amy (27 February 2022). "Wuhan market was epicentre of pandemic's start, studies suggest". Nature. 603 (7899): 15–16. Bibcode:2022Natur.603...15M. doi:10.1038/d41586-022-00584-8. PMID 35228730. S2CID 247168739.
  40. Mannix L (2 August 2022). "'The siren has sounded': Scientists pinpoint COVID's origin". Sydney Morning Herald.
  41. Jones, Kate E.; Patel, Nikkita G.; Levy, Marc A.; Storeygard, Adam; Balk, Deborah; Gittleman, John L.; Daszak, Peter (February 2008). "Global trends in emerging infectious diseases". Nature. 451 (7181): 990–993. Bibcode:2008Natur.451..990J. doi:10.1038/nature06536. PMC 5960580. PMID 18288193.
  42. Haider, Najmul; Rothman-Ostrow, Peregrine; Osman, Abdinasir Yusuf; et al. (26 November 2020). "COVID-19—Zoonosis or Emerging Infectious Disease?". Frontiers in Public Health. 8: 596944. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2020.596944. PMC 7725765. PMID 33324602.
  43. O'Keeffe, J.; Freeman, S.; Nicol, A. (21 March 2021). The Basics of SARS-CoV-2 Transmission. Vancouver: National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health (NCCEH). ISBN 978-1-988234-54-0. Archived from the original on 12 May 2021. Retrieved 12 May 2021.
  44. Cohen, J. (January 2020). "Wuhan seafood market may not be source of novel virus spreading globally". Science. doi:10.1126/science.abb0611. S2CID 214574620. Archived from the original on 27 January 2020. Retrieved 20 July 2021.
  45. Eschner, K. (28 January 2020). "We're still not sure where the Wuhan coronavirus really came from". Popular Science. Archived from the original on 30 January 2020. Retrieved 30 January 2020.
  46. Andersen, K. G.; Rambaut, A.; Lipkin, W. I.; Holmes, E. C.; Garry, R. F. (April 2020). "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2". Nature Medicine. 26 (4): 450–452. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0820-9. PMC 7095063. PMID 32284615.
  47. WHO-convened global study of origins of SARS-CoV-2: China Part (PDF) (Report). World Health Organization. 6 April 2021. pp. 7–10. Archived (PDF) from the original on 25 June 2021. Retrieved 4 August 2021.
  48. Lu, R.; Zhao, X.; Li, J.; Niu, P.; Yang, B.; Wu, H.; et al. (February 2020). "Genomic characterisation and epidemiology of 2019 novel coronavirus: implications for virus origins and receptor binding". The Lancet. 395 (10224): 565–574. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30251-8. PMC 7159086. PMID 32007145.
  49. Cyranoski, D. (March 2020). "Mystery deepens over animal source of coronavirus". Nature. 579 (7797): 18–19. Bibcode:2020Natur.579...18C. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-00548-w. PMID 32127703.
  50. Benvenuto, D.; Giovanetti, M.; Ciccozzi, A.; Spoto, S.; Angeletti, S.; Ciccozzi, M. (April 2020). "The 2019-new coronavirus epidemic: Evidence for virus evolution". Journal of Medical Virology. 92 (4): 455–459. doi:10.1002/jmv.25688. PMC 7166400. PMID 31994738.
  51. "Bat SARS-like coronavirus isolate bat-SL-CoVZC45, complete genome". Genebank. National Center for Biotechnology Information. 15 February 2020. Archived from the original on 4 June 2020. Retrieved 15 February 2020.
  52. "Bat SARS-like coronavirus isolate bat-SL-CoVZXC21, complete genome". Genebank. National Center for Biotechnology Information. 15 February 2020. Archived from the original on 4 June 2020. Retrieved 15 February 2020.
  53. Zhou, P.; Yang, X. L.; Wang, X. G.; Hu, B.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, W.; et al. (March 2020). "A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin". Nature. 579 (7798): 270–273. Bibcode:2020Natur.579..270Z. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7. PMC 7095418. PMID 32015507.
  54. "Bat coronavirus isolate RaTG13, complete genome". Genebank. National Center for Biotechnology Information. 10 February 2020. Archived from the original on 15 May 2020. Retrieved 5 March 2020.
  55. Liu, Ping; Jiang, Jing-Zhe; Wan, Xiu-Feng; Hua, Yan; Li, Linmiao; Zhou, Jiabin; Wang, Xiaohu; Hou, Fanghui; Chen, Jing; Zou, Jiejian; Chen, Jinping (14 May 2020). "Are pangolins the intermediate host of the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2)?". PLOS Pathogens. 16 (5): e1008421. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1008421. PMC 7224457. PMID 32407364.
  56. Mallapaty, Smriti (24 September 2021). "Closest known relatives of virus behind COVID-19 found in Laos". Nature. 597 (7878): 603. Bibcode:2021Natur.597..603M. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-02596-2. PMID 34561634. S2CID 237626322.
  57. Zhou, Peng; Yang, Xing-Lou; Wang, Xian-Guang; Hu, Ben; Zhang, Lei; Zhang, Wei; Si, Hao-Rui; Zhu, Yan; Li, Bei; Huang, Chao-Lin; Chen, Hui-Dong (December 2020). "Addendum: A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin". Nature. 588 (7836): E6. Bibcode:2020Natur.588E...6Z. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2951-z. PMID 33199918. S2CID 226984973.
  58. Zhou, Hong; Ji, Jingkai; Chen, Xing; Bi, Yuhai; Li, Juan; Wang, Qihui; et al. (June 2021). "Identification of novel bat coronaviruses sheds light on the evolutionary origins of SARS-CoV-2 and related viruses". Cell Host & Microbe. 29 (7): 1031–1033. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2021.06.008. PMC 8188299. PMID 34147139.
  59. Singh, Devika; Yi, Soojin V. (April 2021). "On the origin and evolution of SARS-CoV-2". Experimental & Molecular Medicine. Seoul. 53 (4): 537–547. doi:10.1038/s12276-021-00604-z. ISSN 1226-3613. PMC 8050477. PMID 33864026.
  60. Zhu, Zhenglin; Meng, Kaiwen; Meng, Geng (December 2020). "Genomic recombination events may reveal the evolution of coronavirus and the origin of SARS-CoV-2". Scientific Reports. 10 (1): 21617. Bibcode:2020NatSR..1021617Z. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-78703-6. PMC 7728743. PMID 33303849.
  61. Goraichuk, Iryna V.; Arefiev, Vasiliy; Stegniy, Borys T.; Gerilovych, Anton P. (September 2021). "Zoonotic and Reverse Zoonotic Transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2". Virus Research. 302: 198473. doi:10.1016/j.virusres.2021.198473. PMC 8188804. PMID 34118360.
  62. MacLean, Oscar A.; Lytras, Spyros; Weaver, Steven; Singer, Joshua B.; Boni, Maciej F.; Lemey, Philippe; Kosakovsky Pond, Sergei L.; Robertson, David L. (12 March 2021). "Natural selection in the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 in bats created a generalist virus and highly capable human pathogen". PLOS Biology. 19 (3): e3001115. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3001115. PMC 7990310. PMID 33711012.
  63. Kumar, Sudhir; Tao, Qiqing; Weaver, Steven; Sanderford, Maxwell; Caraballo-Ortiz, Marcos A; Sharma, Sudip; Pond, Sergei L K; Miura, Sayaka (4 May 2021). "An Evolutionary Portrait of the Progenitor SARS-CoV-2 and Its Dominant Offshoots in COVID-19 Pandemic". Molecular Biology and Evolution. 38 (8): 3046–3059. doi:10.1093/molbev/msab118. PMC 8135569. PMID 33942847.
  64. Pekar, Jonathan; Worobey, Michael; Moshiri, Niema; Scheffler, Konrad; Wertheim, Joel O. (23 April 2021). "Timing the SARS-CoV-2 index case in Hubei province". Science. 372 (6540): 412–417. Bibcode:2021Sci...372..412P. doi:10.1126/science.abf8003. PMC 8139421. PMID 33737402. This analysis pushes human-to-human transmission back to mid-October to mid-November of 2019 in Hubei Province, China, with a likely short interval before epidemic transmission was initiated.
  65. To, Kelvin Kai-Wang; Sridhar, Siddharth; Chiu, Kelvin Hei-Yeung; Hung, Derek Ling-Lung; Li, Xin; Hung, Ivan Fan-Ngai; Tam, Anthony Raymond; et al. (22 March 2021). "Lessons learned 1 year after SARS-CoV-2 emergence leading to COVID-19 pandemic". Emerging Microbes & Infections. Shanghai / London. 10 (1): 507–535. doi:10.1080/22221751.2021.1898291. PMC 8006950. PMID 33666147. We predicted in 2007 that 'the presence of a large reservoir of SARS-CoV-like viruses ... together with the culture of eating exotic mammals ... is a time bomb. The possibility of the reemergence of SARS and other novel viruses from animals or laboratories ... should not be ignored'.
  66. Huang, C.; Wang, Y.; Li, X.; Ren, L.; Zhao, J.; Hu, Y.; et al. (February 2020). "Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China". The Lancet. 395 (10223): 497–506. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5. PMC 7159299. PMID 31986264.
  67. Chen, N.; Zhou, M.; Dong, X.; Qu, J.; Gong, F.; Han, Y.; et al. (February 2020). "Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study". The Lancet. 395 (10223): 507–513. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30211-7. PMC 7135076. PMID 32007143.
  68. Xiao, Xiao; Newman, Chris; Buesching, Christina D.; Macdonald, David W.; Zhou, Zhao-Min (7 June 2021). "Animal sales from Wuhan wet markets immediately prior to the COVID-19 pandemic". Scientific Reports. 11 (1): 11898. Bibcode:2021NatSR..1111898X. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-91470-2. PMC 8184983. PMID 34099828.
  69. Macdonald, David (7 June 2021). "The wet market sources of Covid-19: Bats and pangolins have an alibi". University of Oxford Science Blog. Archived from the original on 27 June 2021. Retrieved 20 July 2021.
  70. Maxmen, Amy; Mallapaty, Smriti (17 June 2021). "The COVID lab-leak hypothesis: what scientists do and don't know". Nature. 594 (7863): 313–315. Bibcode:2021Natur.594..313M. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-01529-3. PMID 34108722. S2CID 235395594.
  71. Li, Wendong; Shi, Zhengli; Yu, Meng; Ren, Wuze; Smith, Craig; Epstein, Jonathan H; Wang, Hanzhong; et al. (28 October 2005). "Bats Are Natural Reservoirs of SARS-Like Coronaviruses". Science. 310 (5748): 676–679. Bibcode:2005Sci...310..676L. doi:10.1126/science.1118391. PMID 16195424. S2CID 2971923. Archived from the original on 28 April 2022. Retrieved 23 July 2020. Further studies in field epidemiology, laboratory infection, and receptor distribution and usage are being conducted to assess potential roles played by different bat species in SARS emergence.
  72. "Coronavirus: Was US money used to fund risky research in China?". BBC News. 2 August 2021. Archived from the original on 7 August 2021. Retrieved 8 August 2021.
  73. Kessler, Glen (18 May 2021). "Analysis - Fact-checking the Paul-Fauci flap over Wuhan lab funding". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 6 July 2021. Retrieved 19 July 2021.
  74. Menachery, Vineet D.; Yount, Boyd L.; Debbink, Kari; Agnihothram, Sudhakar; Gralinski, Lisa E.; Plante, Jessica A.; Graham, Rachel L.; Scobey, Trevor; Ge, Xing-Yi; Donaldson, Eric F.; Randell, Scott H. (9 November 2015). "A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence". Nature Medicine. 21 (12): 1508–1513. doi:10.1038/nm.3985. PMC 4797993. PMID 26552008.
  75. Cyranoski, David (1 February 2017). "Inside the Chinese lab poised to study world's most dangerous pathogens". Nature. 542 (7642): 399–400. Bibcode:2017Natur.542..399C. doi:10.1038/nature.2017.21487. PMID 28230144. S2CID 4399920.
  76. Rasmussen AL (January 2021). "On the origins of SARS-CoV-2". Nature Medicine. 27 (1): 9. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-01205-5. PMID 33442004.
  77. "Reply to Science Magazine" (PDF). sciencemag.org: 9. Archived (PDF) from the original on 6 December 2020. Retrieved 12 November 2020.
  78. Stacey, Kiran (28 May 2021). "Covid-19 Lab-Leak Theory Puts Wuhan Research in Spotlight". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 4 September 2021. Retrieved 9 September 2021. BSL-2 facilities are usually used for work of only moderate risk, where researchers can experiment at open benches wearing only lab coats and gloves. 'If this work was happening, it should definitely not have been happening at BSL-2,' said Ebright. 'That is roughly equivalent to a standard dentist office.'
  79. Cortez, Michelle Fay (27 June 2021). "The Last—And Only—Foreign Scientist in the Wuhan Lab Speaks Out". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 3 July 2021. Retrieved 3 August 2021. There were strict protocols and requirements aimed at containing the pathogens being studied, Anderson said... The Wuhan Institute of Virology is large enough that Anderson said she didn't know what everyone was working on at the end of 2019.
  80. Yu, Wen-Bin; Tang, Guang-Da; Zhang, Li; T. Corlett, Richard (2020). "Decoding the evolution and transmissions of the novel pneumonia coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2 / HCoV-19) using whole genomic data". Zoological Research. Kunming, Yunnan. 41 (3): 247–257. doi:10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2020.022. PMC 7231477. PMID 32351056.
  81. Knapton, Sarah (22 February 2022). "Wuhan lab leak believed 'behind closed doors' to be likeliest origin of Covid, expert says". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 22 February 2022. Retrieved 25 February 2022.
  82. Artika, I. Made; Ma'roef, Chairin Nisa (May 2017). "Laboratory biosafety for handling emerging viruses". Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Biomedicine. Hong Kong. 7 (5): 483–491. doi:10.1016/j.apjtb.2017.01.020. PMC 7103938. PMID 32289025.
  83. "Infections caught in laboratories are surprisingly common". The Economist. 24 August 2021. Archived from the original on 25 February 2022. Retrieved 25 February 2022.
  84. Parry, J. (2004). "Breaches of safety regulations are probable cause of recent SARS outbreak, WHO says". World Health Organization. 328 (7450): 1222. doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7450.1222-b. PMC 416634. PMID 15155496.
  85. "Guidelines for Safe Work Practices in Human and Animal Medical Diagnostic Laboratories". www.cdc.gov. MMWR CDC. Archived from the original on 8 March 2022. Retrieved 11 March 2022. The more that laboratorians become aware of and adhere to recommended, science-based safety precautions, the lower the risk...incidents such as minor scrapes or cuts, insignificant spills, or unrecognized aerosols occur even more frequently and might not cause an exposure that results in an LAI. In this report, "laboratory exposures" refer to events that put employees at risk for an LAI and events that result in actual acquisition of LAIs...The first four routes [parenteral inoculations, spills and splashes onto skin, ingestion, animal bites and scratches] are relatively easy to detect, but they account for <20% of all reported LAIs
  86. Begley, Sharon. "U.S. Lifts Moratorium on Funding Controversial, High-Risk Virus Research". Scientific American. Archived from the original on 11 March 2022. Retrieved 11 March 2022.
  87. Willman, David; Muller, Madison (26 August 2021). "A science in the shadows". Washington Post. Archived from the original on 5 March 2022. Retrieved 11 March 2022.
  88. Gregg, Michael B.; Hinman, Alan R.; Craven, Robert B. (17 November 1978). "The Russian Flu: Its History and Implications for This Year's Influenza Season". JAMA. 240 (21): 2260–2263. doi:10.1001/jama.1978.03290210042022. ISSN 0098-7484. PMID 702749. Archived from the original on 21 April 2022. Retrieved 13 March 2022.
  89. "Outbreak Deja Vu: Rumor, Conspiracies, Folklore Link Disease Narratives". www.wbur.org. Archived from the original on 14 April 2022. Retrieved 11 March 2022.
  90. Leonard, Marie-Jeanne; Philippe, Frederick L. (2021). "Conspiracy Theories: A Public Health Concern and How to Address It". Frontiers in Psychology. 12: 682931. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.682931. PMC 8355498. PMID 34393910.
  91. McKie, Robin (22 August 2021). "The Wuhan lab leak theory is more about politics than science". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 5 September 2021. Retrieved 6 September 2021.
  92. "Former CDC director believes coronavirus came from lab in China". CNN Video. 26 March 2021. Archived from the original on 25 July 2021. Retrieved 2 August 2021. One of them is in the lab, and one of them, which is the more likely, ... is that it likely was below the radar screen in China, spreading in the community ... which allowed it, when it first got recognized clinically, to be pretty well adapted.
  93. Goldstein, Stephen (5 April 2021). "Op-Ed: Why Redfield Is Wrong on SARS-CoV-2 Origins". MedPage Today. Archived from the original on 2 August 2021. Retrieved 2 August 2021.
  94. Crossley, Gabriel (22 July 2021). "China rejects WHO plan for study of COVID-19 origin". Reuters. Archived from the original on 6 September 2021. Retrieved 6 September 2021.
  95. Maxmen, Amy (8 April 2021). "WHO report into COVID pandemic origins zeroes in on animal markets, not labs". Nature. 592 (7853): 173–174. Bibcode:2021Natur.592..173M. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-00865-8. PMID 33785930. S2CID 232429241.
  96. Huang, Yanzhong (31 March 2021). "What the WHO Investigation Reveals About the Origins of COVID-19 — And About the Vulnerabilities of the System Protecting Global Health". Foreign Affairs. Archived from the original on 3 June 2021. Retrieved 15 June 2021. In 2004, SARS twice escaped a Beijing lab ... Chinese scientists have identified lax biosafety regulation as a concern even in high-level biosafety labs such as the Wuhan Institute.
  97. "WHO Director-General's remarks at the Member State Briefing on the report of the international team studying the origins of SARS-CoV-2". World Health Organization. 30 March 2021. Archived from the original on 25 April 2021. Retrieved 31 July 2021.
  98. Forsyth, James (13 August 2021). "How China tried to suppress the lab leak investigation". The Spectator. Archived from the original on 13 August 2021. Retrieved 13 August 2021.
  99. "WHO scientist puts COVID lab leak theory back under spotlight". Al Jazeera. 13 August 2021. Archived from the original on 13 August 2021. Retrieved 14 August 2021.
  100. Gan, Nectar (31 March 2021). "14 countries and WHO chief accuse China of withholding data from coronavirus investigation". CNN. Archived from the original on 3 June 2021. Retrieved 31 May 2021.
  101. Zarocostas, John (10 April 2021). "Calls for transparency after SARS-CoV-2 origins report". The Lancet. 397 (10282): 1335. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00824-2. PMC 8032220. PMID 33838748. S2CID 233186234. Health diplomats speaking on condition of anonymity said that senior Chinese officials viewed the statements as an attempt to politicise the study.
  102. "Following report, WHO chief calls for deeper probe into lab-leak theory on Covid-19 origins". France 24. 30 March 2021. Archived from the original on 31 May 2021. Retrieved 6 August 2021.
  103. Westcott, Ben; Yee, Isaac; Xiong, Yong (22 July 2021). "Chinese government rejects WHO plan for second phase of Covid-19 origins study". CNN. Archived from the original on 23 July 2021. Retrieved 23 July 2021.
  104. Cohen, Jon (17 July 2021). "With call for 'raw data' and lab audits, WHO chief pressures China on pandemic origin probe". Science. doi:10.1126/science.abl4763 (inactive 31 July 2022). Archived from the original on 24 July 2021. Retrieved 1 August 2021.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of July 2022 (link)
  105. "China slams WHO plan to audit Wuhan lab in study of Covid-19 origins". France 24. 22 July 2021. Archived from the original on 1 August 2021. Retrieved 1 August 2021.
  106. Buckley, Chris (22 July 2021). "China denounces the W.H.O.'s call for another look at the Wuhan lab as 'shocking' and 'arrogant.'". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 22 July 2021. Retrieved 23 July 2021.
  107. "Covid: China rejects WHO plan for second phase of virus origin probe". BBC News. 23 July 2021. Archived from the original on 30 July 2021. Retrieved 6 August 2021.
  108. "WHO "open" to probing "new evidence" of COVID-19 lab leak origin theory, accepts "key pieces of data" still missing". CBS News. Associated Press. 10 June 2022. Archived from the original on 11 June 2022. Retrieved 19 June 2022.
  109. Cohen, Jon. "From 'open-minded' to 'underwhelming,' mixed reactions greet latest COVID-19 origin report". www.science.org. Archived from the original on 12 June 2022. Retrieved 23 June 2022.
  110. Ryan, Jackson (15 April 2021). "How the coronavirus origin story is being rewritten by a guerrilla Twitter group". CNET. Archived from the original on 16 June 2021. Retrieved 1 June 2021.
  111. Zhou, Peng; Yang, Xing-Lou; Wang, Xian-Guang; Hu, Ben; Zhang, Lei; Zhang, Wei; Si, Hao-Rui; Zhu, Yan; Li, Bei; Huang, Chao-Lin; Chen, Hui-Dong; Chen, Jing; Luo, Yun; Guo, Hua; Jiang, Ren-Di; Liu, Mei-Qin; Chen, Ying; Shen, Xu-Rui; Wang, Xi; Zheng, Xiao-Shuang; Zhao, Kai; Chen, Quan-Jiao; Deng, Fei; Liu, Lin-Lin; Yan, Bing; Zhan, Fa-Xian; Wang, Yan-Yi; Xiao, Geng-Fu; Shi, Zheng-Li (March 2020). "A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin". Nature. 579 (7798): 270–273. Bibcode:2020Natur.579..270Z. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7. ISSN 1476-4687. PMC 7095418. PMID 32015507.
  112. Zhou, Peng; Yang, Xing-Lou; Wang, Xian-Guang; Hu, Ben; Zhang, Lei; Zhang, Wei; Si, Hao-Rui; Zhu, Yan; Li, Bei; Huang, Chao-Lin; Chen, Hui-Dong; Chen, Jing; Luo, Yun; Guo, Hua; Jiang, Ren-Di; Liu, Mei-Qin; Chen, Ying; Shen, Xu-Rui; Wang, Xi; Zheng, Xiao-Shuang; Zhao, Kai; Chen, Quan-Jiao; Deng, Fei; Liu, Lin-Lin; Yan, Bing; Zhan, Fa-Xian; Wang, Yan-Yi; Xiao, Geng-Fu; Shi, Zheng-Li (December 2020). "Addendum: A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin". Nature. 588 (7836): E6. Bibcode:2020Natur.588E...6Z. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2951-z. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 33199918. S2CID 226984973. Archived from the original on 22 November 2021. Retrieved 21 November 2021.
  113. Eban, Katherine (3 June 2021). "The Lab-Leak Theory: Inside the Fight to Uncover COVID-19's Origins". Vanity Fair. Archived from the original on 6 June 2021. Retrieved 19 July 2021.
  114. Frutos, Roger; Javelle, Emilie; Barberot, Celine; Gavotte, Laurent; Tissot-Dupont, Herve; Devaux, Christian A. (March 2022). "Origin of COVID-19: Dismissing the Mojiang mine theory and the laboratory accident narrative". Environmental Research. 204 (Pt B): 112141. Bibcode:2022ER....204k2141F. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2021.112141. ISSN 0013-9351. PMC 8490156. PMID 34597664.
  115. Kormann, Carolyn (12 October 2021). "The Mysterious Case of the COVID-19 Lab-Leak Theory". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on 28 October 2021. Retrieved 29 October 2021.
  116. Robertson L (21 May 2021). "The Wuhan Lab and the Gain-of-Function Disagreement". FactCheck.org. Archived from the original on 8 June 2021. Retrieved 4 June 2021.
  117. Bryant CC (25 June 2021). "How risky is 'gain of function' research? Congress scrutinizes China". The Christian Science Monitor. Archived from the original on 6 July 2021. Retrieved 19 July 2021.
  118. John Cohen (31 July 2021). "Wuhan coronavirus hunter Shi Zhengli speaks out". Science. 369 (6503): 487–488. doi:10.1126/science.369.6503.487. PMID 32732399. S2CID 220892287. Archived from the original on 24 December 2021. Retrieved 25 December 2021.
  119. Gu, Haogao; Chu, Daniel K W; Peiris, Malik; Poon, Leo L M (14 May 2020). "Multivariate analyses of codon usage of SARS-CoV-2 and other betacoronaviruses". Virus Evolution. 6 (1): veaa032. doi:10.1093/ve/veaa032. ISSN 2057-1577. PMC 7223271. PMID 32431949.
  120. Krieg, Arthur M.; Yi, Ae-Kyung; Matson, Sara; Waldschmidt, Thomas J.; Bishop, Gail A.; Teasdale, Rebecca; Koretzky, Gary A.; Klinman, Dennis M. (April 1995). "CpG motifs in bacterial DNA trigger direct B-cell activation". Nature. 374 (6522): 546–549. Bibcode:1995Natur.374..546K. doi:10.1038/374546a0. PMID 7700380. S2CID 4261304.
  121. Hou, Wei (December 2020). "Characterization of codon usage pattern in SARS-CoV-2". Virology Journal. 17 (1): 138. doi:10.1186/s12985-020-01395-x. PMC 7487440. PMID 32928234.
  122. Federman, Daniel Engber, Adam (25 September 2021). "The Lab-Leak Debate Just Got Even Messier". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 29 October 2021. Retrieved 29 October 2021.
  123. "Scientists Square Off Over Covid, Wuhan, and Peter Daszak". Undark Magazine. 24 November 2021. Archived from the original on 29 December 2021. Retrieved 30 December 2021.
  124. Zimmer, Carl; Mueller, Benjamin (21 October 2021). "Bat Research Group Failed to Submit Virus Studies Promptly, N.I.H. Says". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 27 October 2021. Retrieved 29 October 2021.
  125. Zimmer, Carl; Gorman, James (20 June 2021). "Fight Over Covid's Origins Renews Debate on Risks of Lab Work". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 28 October 2021. Retrieved 27 October 2021. Sorting out the balance of risks and benefits of the research has proved over the years to be immensely challenging. And now, the intensity of the politics and rhetoric over the lab leak theory threatens to push detailed science policy discussions to the sidelines. "It's just going to make it harder to get back to a serious debate," said Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health who has urged the government to be more transparent about its support of gain-of-function research.
  126. Smith, Michael (18 June 2021). "Conspiracy, cover-up or distraction: the lab leak theory is back". Australian Financial Review. Sydney. Archived from the original on 13 July 2021. One of the problems we have as scientists is our words are co-opted by people who have a political agenda," says Rodrigo. "What we say can become fodder for conspiracy theories. This is not an issue of a particular country's problem. If the lab leak hypothesis is plausible and is shown to be true then this is an issue into how we manage labs and research facilities. It is not about China. It is about research facilities and how we manage that everywhere.
  127. Evans, Nicholas G. (26 August 2020). "Human Infection Challenge Studies: a Test for the Social Value Criterion of Research Ethics". mSphere. 5 (4). doi:10.1128/mSphere.00669-20. PMC 7364225. PMID 32669462.
  128. Dapcevich M (20 May 2021). "Did Fauci Fund 'Gain of Function' Research, Thereby Causing COVID-19 Pandemic?". Snopes. Archived from the original on 8 July 2021. Retrieved 19 July 2021.
  129. "In Major Shift, NIH Admits Funding Risky Virus Research in Wuhan". Vanity Fair. 22 October 2021. Archived from the original on 24 November 2021. Retrieved 27 November 2021.
  130. "Was NIH-funded work on MERS virus in China too risky? Science examines the controversy". www.science.org. Archived from the original on 28 November 2021. Retrieved 27 November 2021.
  131. "NIH says grantee failed to report experiment in Wuhan that created a bat virus that made mice sicker". www.science.org. Archived from the original on 27 November 2021. Retrieved 27 November 2021.
  132. The Origins of COVID-19: an investigation of the Wuhan Institute of Virology (PDF). Washington D.C.: Michael T. McCaul/U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee. 2021. Archived (PDF) from the original on 26 August 2021. Retrieved 27 August 2021.
  133. "The world needs a proper investigation into how covid-19 started". The Economist. 21 August 2021. Archived from the original on 27 August 2021. Retrieved 27 August 2021.
  134. "Scientists slam Indian study that fueled coronavirus rumors". Nikkei Asia. Archived from the original on 14 January 2022. Retrieved 11 January 2022.
  135. "Quick retraction of a faulty coronavirus paper was a good moment for science". STAT. 3 February 2020. Archived from the original on 7 January 2022. Retrieved 11 January 2022.
  136. "French Nobel prize winner: 'Covid-19 was made in lab'". The Connexion. Monaco. 18 April 2020. Archived from the original on 26 April 2020. Retrieved 1 September 2021.
  137. "Le coronavirus, fabriqué à partir du virus du sida ? La thèse très contestée du professeur Montagnier". Le Monde (in French). 17 April 2020. Archived from the original on 4 September 2021. Retrieved 1 September 2021.
  138. Xiao, Chuan; Li, Xiaojun; Liu, Shuying; Sang, Yongming; Gao, Shou-Jiang; Gao, Feng (14 February 2020). "HIV-1 did not contribute to the 2019-nCoV genome". Emerging Microbes & Infections. Shanghai / London. 9 (1): 378–381. doi:10.1080/22221751.2020.1727299. PMC 7033698. PMID 32056509.
  139. Liu, Shan-Lu; Saif, Linda J.; Weiss, Susan R.; Su, Lishan (26 February 2020). "No credible evidence supporting claims of the laboratory engineering of SARS-CoV-2". Emerging Microbes & Infections. Shanghai / London. 9 (1): 505–507. doi:10.1080/22221751.2020.1733440. PMC 7054935. PMID 32102621.
  140. Hao, Pei; Zhong, Wu; Song, Shiyang; Fan, Shiyong; Li, Xuan (8 March 2020). "Is SARS-CoV-2 originated from laboratory? A rebuttal to the claim of formation via laboratory recombination". Emerging Microbes & Infections. Shanghai / London. 9 (1): 545–547. doi:10.1080/22221751.2020.1738279. PMC 7144200. PMID 32148173.
  141. Koyama, Takahiko; Lauring, Adam; Gallo, Robert Charles; Reitz, Marvin (24 September 2020), Reviews of "Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route", Biological and Chemical Sciences, Rapid Reviews: Covid-19, MIT Press, ISSN 2692-4072, archived from the original on 8 October 2020
  142. Warmbrod, Kelsey Lane; West, Rachel M.; Connell, Nancy D.; Gronvall, Gigi Kwik (21 September 2020). In Response: Yan et al Preprint—Examinations of the Origin of SARS-CoV-2 (PDF) (Report). Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. Archived (PDF) from the original on 26 September 2020. Retrieved 26 September 2020.
  143. Qin, Amy; Wang, Vivian; Hakim, Danny (20 November 2020). "How Steve Bannon and a Chinese Billionaire Created a Right-Wing Coronavirus Media Sensation". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 30 April 2021. Retrieved 23 January 2022.
  144. Oreskes, Naomi (1 September 2021). "The Lab-Leak Theory of COVID's Origin Is Not Totally Irrational". Scientific American. Archived from the original on 17 August 2021.
  145. Cohen, Jon (31 January 2020). "Mining coronavirus genomes for clues to the outbreak's origins". Science. doi:10.1126/science.abb1256. S2CID 214373002.
  146. "独家|石正丽回应质疑 专家一致认为新冠病毒非人造". Caixin (in Zhuang). Beijing. 5 February 2020. Archived from the original on 5 February 2020. Retrieved 20 July 2021.
  147. "模糊不清的"零号病人"与新冠病毒来源争议". BBC News 中文 (in Simplified Chinese). 18 February 2020. Archived from the original on 2 March 2020. Retrieved 20 July 2021.
  148. Knight, Peter (21 June 2021). "COVID-19: Why lab-leak theory is back despite little new evidence". The Conversation. Melbourne. Archived from the original on 18 July 2021. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
  149. Chow, Denise (16 June 2021). "The science around the lab leak theory hasn't changed. But here's why some scientists have". NBC News. Archived from the original on 6 August 2021. Retrieved 27 July 2021.
  150. Stein, Jeff; Leonnig, Carol D.; Dawsey, Josh; Shih, Gerry (30 April 2020). "U.S. officials crafting retaliatory actions against China over coronavirus as President Trump fumes". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 15 June 2021. Retrieved 19 July 2021.
  151. Singh, Maanvi; Davidson, Helen; Borger, Julian (1 May 2020). "Trump claims to have evidence coronavirus started in Chinese lab but offers no details". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 18 July 2021. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
  152. Lima, Christiano (26 May 2021). "Facebook no longer treating 'man-made' Covid as a crackpot idea". Politico. Archived from the original on 26 July 2021. Retrieved 27 July 2021.
  153. Hern, Alex (27 May 2021). "Facebook lifts ban on posts claiming Covid-19 was man-made". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 5 July 2021. Retrieved 27 July 2021.
  154. Kirchgaessner, Stephanie; Graham-Harrison, Emma; Lily, Kuo (11 April 2020). "China clamping down on coronavirus research, deleted pages suggest". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 11 April 2020. Retrieved 29 July 2021.
  155. Areddy, James T. (26 May 2020). "China Rules Out Animal Market and Lab as Coronavirus Origin". Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 17 February 2021. Retrieved 29 May 2020.
  156. Alba, Davey (19 March 2021). "How Anti-Asian Activity Online Set the Stage for Real-world Violence". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 16 June 2021. Retrieved 20 July 2021.
  157. Bloom, Jesse D.; Chan, Yujia Alina; Baric, Ralph S.; Bjorkman, Pamela J.; Cobey, Sarah; Deverman, Benjamin E.; Fisman, David N.; Gupta, Ravindra; Iwasaki, Akiko; Lipsitch, Marc; Medzhitov, Ruslan; Neher, Richard A.; Nielsen, Rasmus; Patterson, Nick; Stearns, Tim; van Nimwegen, Erik; Worobey, Michael; Relman, David A. (14 May 2021). "Investigate the origins of COVID-19". Science. 372 (6543): 694. Bibcode:2021Sci...372..694B. doi:10.1126/science.abj0016. PMID 33986172. S2CID 234487267. Archived from the original on 17 June 2021. Retrieved 14 January 2022.
  158. Gan, Nectar; Yeung, Jessie (28 May 2021). "China counters Biden's Covid probe with a US military base conspiracy theory". CNN. Archived from the original on 28 June 2022. Retrieved 28 June 2022.
  159. Buckley, Chris (22 July 2021). "China denounces the W.H.O.'s call for another look at the Wuhan lab as 'shocking' and 'arrogant.'". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 24 July 2021. Retrieved 24 July 2021.
  160. Schafer, Bret. "China Fires Back at Biden with Conspiracy Theories About Maryland Lab". Foreign Policy. Archived from the original on 27 July 2021. Retrieved 26 July 2021.
  161. Thacker, Paul D (1 October 2021). "Covid-19: Lancet investigation into origin of pandemic shuts down over bias risk". BMJ. 375: n2414. doi:10.1136/bmj.n2414. PMID 34598923. S2CID 238241044.
  162. Lonas, Lexi (9 June 2021). "WHO adviser accuses COVID-19 lab-leak theory critics of 'thuggery'". The Hill. Archived from the original on 24 June 2021.
  163. "Did COVID-19 Leak From A Lab? A Reporter Investigates — And Finds Roadblocks". National Public Radio. Archived from the original on 18 June 2021. Retrieved 19 June 2021.
  164. Hibbett, Maia; Grim, Ryan (12 January 2022). "House Republicans Release Text of Redacted Fauci Emails on Covid Origins". The Intercept. Archived from the original on 15 January 2022. Retrieved 16 January 2022.
  165. Dilanian, Ken; Perrette, Amy; Chow, Denise (4 June 2021). "Fauci's emails don't prove a Wuhan conspiracy, but raise further questions". NBC News. Archived from the original on 16 January 2022. Retrieved 16 January 2022.
  166. Sarah Knapton (11 January 2022). "Scientists believed Covid leaked from Wuhan lab - but feared debate could hurt 'international harmony'". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022. Retrieved 14 January 2022.
  167. Gorman, James; Zimmer, Carl (14 June 2021). "Scientist Opens Up About His Early Email to Fauci on Virus Origins". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 18 June 2021. Retrieved 15 January 2022.
  168. "New Data Leads To Rethinking (Once More) Where The Pandemic Actually Began". www.wbur.org. Archived from the original on 15 January 2022. Retrieved 15 January 2022.
  169. "Spike: The Virus v the People review – Sage scientist's revelatory Covid memoir". the Guardian. 25 July 2021. Archived from the original on 15 January 2022. Retrieved 15 January 2022.
  170. Stanage, Niall (25 May 2021). "The Memo: Media face hard questions on Trump, Wuhan lab". The Hill. Archived from the original on 3 June 2021. Retrieved 2 June 2021.
  171. Elliott, Philip. "How Distrust of Donald Trump Muddled the COVID-19 'Lab Leak' Debate". Time. Archived from the original on 4 June 2021. Retrieved 7 June 2021.
  172. Folmer, Kaitlyn; Salzman, Sony; Pezenik, Sasha; Abdelmalek, Mark; Bruggeman, Lucien (14 June 2021). "Nature-based or lab leak? Unraveling the debate over the origins of COVID-19". ABC News. Archived from the original on 18 June 2021. Retrieved 20 July 2021. Political voices in favor of the lab-leak theory, particularly from President Donald Trump, served to polarize the issue further and largely pushed the scientific community away from a willingness to consider the lab-leak theory.
  173. Casadevall, Arturo; Weiss, Susan R.; Imperiale, Michael J. (31 August 2021). "Can Science Help Resolve the Controversy on the Origins of the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic?". mBio. 12 (4): e0194821. doi:10.1128/mBio.01948-21. PMC 8406229. PMID 34334001.
  174. Hinshaw, Michael R. Gordon, Warren P. Strobel and Drew (23 May 2021). "Intelligence on Sick Staff at Wuhan Lab Fuels Debate on Covid-19 Origin". Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 25 July 2021. Retrieved 26 July 2021.
  175. "First Covid-19 case happened in November, China government records show - report". The Guardian. 13 March 2020. Archived from the original on 20 March 2020. Retrieved 26 July 2021.
  176. Ma, Josephine (13 March 2020). "Coronavirus: China's First Confirmed Covid-19 Case Traced Back to November 17". South China Morning Post. Hong Kong. Archived from the original on 13 March 2020. Retrieved 19 November 2021. The first case of someone in China suffering from Covid-19 ... can be traced back to November 17, according to government data seen by the South China Morning Post.
  177. Beaumont, Peter (27 May 2021). "Did Covid come from a Wuhan lab? What we know so far". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 28 July 2021. Retrieved 26 July 2021.
  178. Katie Bo Lillis (29 October 2021). "US Intelligence community releases full declassified report that does not determine origin of Covid-19". CNN. Archived from the original on 29 October 2021. Retrieved 29 October 2021. The IC [intelligence community] assesses that information indicating that several WIV researchers reported symptoms consistent with COVID-19 in autumn 2019 is not diagnostic of the pandemic's origins. Even if confirmed, hospital admission alone would not be diagnostic of COVID-19 infection.
  179. Spence, Madeleine. "The rise and fall of British virus hunter Peter Daszak". The Times. Archived from the original on 27 July 2021. Retrieved 26 July 2021.
  180. Εditors of The Lancet (June 2021). "Addendum: competing interests and the origins of SARS-CoV-2". The Lancet. 397 (10293): 2449–2450. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01377-5. PMC 8215723. S2CID 235494625.
  181. Mueller, Benjamin; Zimmer, Carl (27 October 2022). "G.O.P. Senator's Report on Covid Origins Suggests Lab Leak, but Offers Little New Evidence". The New York Times. Retrieved 29 October 2022.
  182. "Senate GOP report argues lab-leak theory is most likely origin of covid". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 29 October 2022.
  183. "COVID-19 Origins: Investigating a "Complex and Grave Situation" Inside a Wuhan Lab". Vanity Fair. 28 October 2022. Retrieved 29 October 2022.
  184. Weixel, Nathaniel (28 October 2022). "Senate GOP report on COVID origin suggests lab leak is 'most likely'". The Hill. Retrieved 29 October 2022.
  185. Cohen J (28 October 2022). "Republican Senate staff tout lab-leak theory of the pandemic's origin". Science.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.