Jump to content

COVID-19 lab leak theory: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Undid revision 1036460161 by PaleoNeonate (talk) this needs to be in the lead. Its bias if you don't show the entire thing, just cut the sentence in half to mislead people to one conclusion
Tedros called for lab audits, China refused.
Line 9: Line 9:
The '''COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis''' proposes that [[SARS-CoV-2]] (the virus that causes [[COVID-19]]) was leaked from a lab in [[Wuhan]], [[China]], resulting in the [[COVID-19 pandemic]].<ref name=BMJJuly2021>{{cite journal |last=Thacker |first=Paul D. |title=The covid-19 lab leak hypothesis: Did the media fall victim to a misinformation campaign? |journal=BMJ |date=8 July 2021 |volume=374 |pages=n1656 |doi=10.1136/bmj.n1656 |pmid=34244293 |s2cid=235760734 |url= https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1656 |issn=1756-1833|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="TheConvJune2021">{{cite web |last=Knight |first=Peter |title=COVID-19: Why lab-leak theory is back despite little new evidence |url= https://theconversation.com/covid-19-why-lab-leak-theory-is-back-despite-little-new-evidence-162215 |work=[[The Conversation (website)|The Conversation]] |date=21 June 2021}}</ref> The hypothesis is founded upon [[circumstantial evidence]] that the [[Wuhan Institute of Virology]] (WIV) is close in proximity to the early outbreak of the [[COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China#Discovery|COVID-19 pandemic in Wuhan]], Hubei Province, China.<ref>{{Cite web |url= https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/04/inside-the-the-viral-spread-of-a-coronavirus-origin-theory |title=Inside the Viral Spread of a Coronavirus Origin Theory |first=Joe |last=Pompeo |work=Vanity Fair |date=10 April 2020}}</ref> Other theories of a lab leak (including those describing the virus as "man-made") are based upon speculation and misrepresentations of scientific evidence.<ref name="Snopes" /><ref name="BaricGraham" /><ref name="TheHindu">{{cite news |last1=Krishnaswamy |first1=S. |last2=Govindarajan |first2=T. R. |title=The controversy being created about the origins of the virus that causes COVID-19 |url=https://frontline.thehindu.com/covid-19/the-controversy-being-created-about-the-origins-of-the-virus-that-causes-covid-19/article34998310.ece |work=[[Frontline (magazine)|Frontline]] |date=16 July 2021 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="Hakim">{{cite journal |last=Hakim |first=Mohamad S. |title=SARS‐CoV‐2, Covid‐19, and the debunking of conspiracy theories |journal=Reviews in Medical Virology |date=14 February 2021 |pages=e2222 |doi=10.1002/rmv.2222 |issn=1099-1654 |pmc=7995093 |pmid=33586302}}</ref> A central part of the hypothesis is that scientists from the Wuhan Institute of Virology were known to have collected SARS-like coronaviruses, and the allegation that the institute may have performed undisclosed risky work on those viruses.<ref>{{cite web |last=Baker |first=Nicholson |title=The Lab-Leak Hypothesis |work=Intelligencer |date=4 January 2021 |url= https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/coronavirus-lab-escape-theory.html |access-date=20 July 2021}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url= https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/06/29/1027290/gain-of-function-risky-bat-virus-engineering-links-america-to-wuhan/ |title=Inside the risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan |work=MIT Technology Review}}</ref>
The '''COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis''' proposes that [[SARS-CoV-2]] (the virus that causes [[COVID-19]]) was leaked from a lab in [[Wuhan]], [[China]], resulting in the [[COVID-19 pandemic]].<ref name=BMJJuly2021>{{cite journal |last=Thacker |first=Paul D. |title=The covid-19 lab leak hypothesis: Did the media fall victim to a misinformation campaign? |journal=BMJ |date=8 July 2021 |volume=374 |pages=n1656 |doi=10.1136/bmj.n1656 |pmid=34244293 |s2cid=235760734 |url= https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1656 |issn=1756-1833|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="TheConvJune2021">{{cite web |last=Knight |first=Peter |title=COVID-19: Why lab-leak theory is back despite little new evidence |url= https://theconversation.com/covid-19-why-lab-leak-theory-is-back-despite-little-new-evidence-162215 |work=[[The Conversation (website)|The Conversation]] |date=21 June 2021}}</ref> The hypothesis is founded upon [[circumstantial evidence]] that the [[Wuhan Institute of Virology]] (WIV) is close in proximity to the early outbreak of the [[COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China#Discovery|COVID-19 pandemic in Wuhan]], Hubei Province, China.<ref>{{Cite web |url= https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/04/inside-the-the-viral-spread-of-a-coronavirus-origin-theory |title=Inside the Viral Spread of a Coronavirus Origin Theory |first=Joe |last=Pompeo |work=Vanity Fair |date=10 April 2020}}</ref> Other theories of a lab leak (including those describing the virus as "man-made") are based upon speculation and misrepresentations of scientific evidence.<ref name="Snopes" /><ref name="BaricGraham" /><ref name="TheHindu">{{cite news |last1=Krishnaswamy |first1=S. |last2=Govindarajan |first2=T. R. |title=The controversy being created about the origins of the virus that causes COVID-19 |url=https://frontline.thehindu.com/covid-19/the-controversy-being-created-about-the-origins-of-the-virus-that-causes-covid-19/article34998310.ece |work=[[Frontline (magazine)|Frontline]] |date=16 July 2021 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="Hakim">{{cite journal |last=Hakim |first=Mohamad S. |title=SARS‐CoV‐2, Covid‐19, and the debunking of conspiracy theories |journal=Reviews in Medical Virology |date=14 February 2021 |pages=e2222 |doi=10.1002/rmv.2222 |issn=1099-1654 |pmc=7995093 |pmid=33586302}}</ref> A central part of the hypothesis is that scientists from the Wuhan Institute of Virology were known to have collected SARS-like coronaviruses, and the allegation that the institute may have performed undisclosed risky work on those viruses.<ref>{{cite web |last=Baker |first=Nicholson |title=The Lab-Leak Hypothesis |work=Intelligencer |date=4 January 2021 |url= https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/coronavirus-lab-escape-theory.html |access-date=20 July 2021}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url= https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/06/29/1027290/gain-of-function-risky-bat-virus-engineering-links-america-to-wuhan/ |title=Inside the risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan |work=MIT Technology Review}}</ref>


The idea that the virus was, either accidentally or deliberately, of laboratory origin, appeared early in the pandemic. It gained popularity through its promotion by political figures such as then-US President [[Donald Trump]], members of the Republican party, as well as its dissemination in American conservative media, fomenting tensions between the United States and China. It was subsequently widely dismissed as a [[conspiracy theory]].<ref name=BMJJuly2021/><ref name=TheConvJune2021/><ref name="FrutosMarch2021">{{cite journal |last1=Frutos |first1=Roger |last2=Gavotte |first2=Laurent |last3=Devaux |first3=Christian A. |title=Understanding the origin of COVID-19 requires to change the paradigm on zoonotic emergence from the spillover to the circulation model |journal=Infection, Genetics and Evolution |date=March 2021 |pages=104812 |doi=10.1016/j.meegid.2021.104812 |issn=1567-1348 |pmc=7969828 |pmid=33744401}}</ref> The idea returned to popular attention after the publication of a World Health Organization (WHO) report into the origins of the virus in March 2021. The WHO-convened study found the possibility of an accidental release to be "extremely unlikely", although [[Tedros Adhanom]], Director-General of the WHO, said that its conclusions were not definitive and data had been withheld from investigators.<ref name="reuters_tedros">{{cite news |last1=Miller |first1=John |last2=Nebehay |first2=Stephanie |title=Data withheld from WHO team probing COVID-19 origins in China: Tedros |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who-china-report-idUSKBN2BM26S |access-date=31 July 2021 |work=Reuters |date=31 March 2021 |language=en}}</ref> Following its publication, and US president [[Joe Biden]] ordered renewed investigations into the matter to be conducted by US intelligence agencies.
The idea that the virus was, either accidentally or deliberately, of laboratory origin, appeared early in the pandemic. It gained popularity through its promotion by political figures such as then-US President [[Donald Trump]], members of the Republican party, as well as its dissemination in American conservative media, fomenting tensions between the United States and China. It was subsequently widely dismissed as a [[conspiracy theory]].<ref name=BMJJuly2021/><ref name=TheConvJune2021/><ref name="FrutosMarch2021">{{cite journal |last1=Frutos |first1=Roger |last2=Gavotte |first2=Laurent |last3=Devaux |first3=Christian A. |title=Understanding the origin of COVID-19 requires to change the paradigm on zoonotic emergence from the spillover to the circulation model |journal=Infection, Genetics and Evolution |date=March 2021 |pages=104812 |doi=10.1016/j.meegid.2021.104812 |issn=1567-1348 |pmc=7969828 |pmid=33744401}}</ref> The idea returned to popular attention after the publication of a World Health Organization (WHO) report into the origins of the virus in March 2021. The WHO-convened study found the possibility of an accidental release to be "extremely unlikely", although [[Tedros Adhanom]], Director-General of the WHO, said that its conclusions were not definitive and data had been withheld from investigators.<ref name="reuters_tedros">{{cite news |last1=Miller |first1=John |last2=Nebehay |first2=Stephanie |title=Data withheld from WHO team probing COVID-19 origins in China: Tedros |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who-china-report-idUSKBN2BM26S |access-date=31 July 2021 |work=Reuters |date=31 March 2021 |language=en}}</ref> Following its publication, and US president [[Joe Biden]] ordered renewed investigations into the matter to be conducted by US intelligence agencies. Tedros subsequently called for “audits of relevant laboratories and research institutions" in the area.<ref>{{cite web |last1=CohenJul. 17 |first1=Jon |title=With call for ‘raw data’ and lab audits, WHO chief pressures China on pandemic origin probe |url=https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/who-chief-sharpens-call-china-further-help-probe-origin-pandemic |website=Science {{!}} AAAS |access-date=1 August 2021 |language=en |date=17 July 2021}}</ref> China refused saying it showed "disrespect" and "arrogance towards science".<ref>{{cite web |title=China slams WHO plan to audit Wuhan lab in study of Covid-19 origins |url=https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20210722-china-slams-who-plan-to-audit-wuhan-lab-in-study-of-covid-19-origins |website=France 24 |language=en |date=22 July 2021}}</ref>


Scientists have largely remained skeptical of a lab leak origin,<ref name="BaricGraham">{{cite journal |last1=Graham |first1=Rachel L. |last2=Baric |first2=Ralph S. |title=SARS-CoV-2: Combating Coronavirus Emergence |journal=Immunity |date=19 May 2020 |volume=52 |issue=5 |pages=734–736 |doi=10.1016/j.immuni.2020.04.016 |pmid=32392464 |pmc=7207110 |issn=1074-7613}}</ref> describing it as a remote possibility and citing a lack of supporting evidence.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Stanway |first1=Josh |last2=Horwitz |first2=David |title=COVID may have taken 'convoluted path' to Wuhan, WHO team leader says |url= https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who-china/covid-may-have-taken-convoluted-path-to-wuhan-who-team-leader-says-idUSKBN2A90BW |access-date=18 July 2021 |work=Reuters |date=10 February 2021}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web|last=Beaumont|first=Peter|date=2021-05-27|title=Did Covid come from a Wuhan lab? What we know so far|url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/27/did-covid-come-from-a-wuhan-lab-what-we-know-so-far|url-status=live|access-date=2021-07-26|website=[[The Guardian]]|language=en}}</ref> Most scientists agree that a natural origin is far more likely.<ref name="FrutosMarch2021"/><ref name="Consensus">See, for example, the following:
Scientists have largely remained skeptical of a lab leak origin,<ref name="BaricGraham">{{cite journal |last1=Graham |first1=Rachel L. |last2=Baric |first2=Ralph S. |title=SARS-CoV-2: Combating Coronavirus Emergence |journal=Immunity |date=19 May 2020 |volume=52 |issue=5 |pages=734–736 |doi=10.1016/j.immuni.2020.04.016 |pmid=32392464 |pmc=7207110 |issn=1074-7613}}</ref> describing it as a remote possibility and citing a lack of supporting evidence.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Stanway |first1=Josh |last2=Horwitz |first2=David |title=COVID may have taken 'convoluted path' to Wuhan, WHO team leader says |url= https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who-china/covid-may-have-taken-convoluted-path-to-wuhan-who-team-leader-says-idUSKBN2A90BW |access-date=18 July 2021 |work=Reuters |date=10 February 2021}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web|last=Beaumont|first=Peter|date=2021-05-27|title=Did Covid come from a Wuhan lab? What we know so far|url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/27/did-covid-come-from-a-wuhan-lab-what-we-know-so-far|url-status=live|access-date=2021-07-26|website=[[The Guardian]]|language=en}}</ref> Most scientists agree that a natural origin is far more likely.<ref name="FrutosMarch2021"/><ref name="Consensus">See, for example, the following:

Revision as of 07:14, 1 August 2021

The Wuhan Institute of Virology, the center of scrutiny of the theory.

The COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis proposes that SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) was leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China, resulting in the COVID-19 pandemic.[1][2] The hypothesis is founded upon circumstantial evidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) is close in proximity to the early outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China.[3] Other theories of a lab leak (including those describing the virus as "man-made") are based upon speculation and misrepresentations of scientific evidence.[4][5][6][7] A central part of the hypothesis is that scientists from the Wuhan Institute of Virology were known to have collected SARS-like coronaviruses, and the allegation that the institute may have performed undisclosed risky work on those viruses.[8][9]

The idea that the virus was, either accidentally or deliberately, of laboratory origin, appeared early in the pandemic. It gained popularity through its promotion by political figures such as then-US President Donald Trump, members of the Republican party, as well as its dissemination in American conservative media, fomenting tensions between the United States and China. It was subsequently widely dismissed as a conspiracy theory.[1][2][10] The idea returned to popular attention after the publication of a World Health Organization (WHO) report into the origins of the virus in March 2021. The WHO-convened study found the possibility of an accidental release to be "extremely unlikely", although Tedros Adhanom, Director-General of the WHO, said that its conclusions were not definitive and data had been withheld from investigators.[11] Following its publication, and US president Joe Biden ordered renewed investigations into the matter to be conducted by US intelligence agencies. Tedros subsequently called for “audits of relevant laboratories and research institutions" in the area.[12] China refused saying it showed "disrespect" and "arrogance towards science".[13]

Scientists have largely remained skeptical of a lab leak origin,[5] describing it as a remote possibility and citing a lack of supporting evidence.[14][15] Most scientists agree that a natural origin is far more likely.[10][16] Some scientists, despite concerns about the risks of politicization and polarization,[17] agree that the possibility of a lab leak should be examined as part of the ongoing investigations into the origin of COVID-19.[18][19]

Background

The first known infections from SARS‑CoV‑2 were discovered in Wuhan, China.[20] The original source of viral transmission to humans remains unclear, as does whether the virus became pathogenic before or after the spillover event.[21][22][23] Because many of the early infectees were workers at the Huanan Seafood Market,[24][25] it was originally suggested that the virus might have originated from bats or pangolins sold at the market.[23][26] It was later determined that no bats or pangolins were sold at the market.[27] University of Oxford researchers also announced they had visited the wet markets of Wuhan in November 2019 and found there were no bats or pangolins present. Bats are not commonly eaten in Central China.[28]

Other research indicates that the 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.[21][29] A March 2021 WHO-convened 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 another possible explanation, though considerably less likely.[30]

Research into the natural reservoir of the virus that caused the 2002–2004 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.[31][32][33] Analysis also indicates that a virus collected from Rhinolophus affinis in a cave in Yunnan province, about 2,000 km from Wuhan (designated RaTG13), has a 96% resemblance to SARS‑CoV‑2.[20][34][35] The RaTG13 virus genome is the closest known sequence to SARS-CoV-2,[30][36] but it is not its direct ancestor.[37] Other closely-related sequences were also identified in samples from local bat populations in Yunnan province.[38] 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.[39][40]

Bats, a large reservoir of betacoronaviruses, are considered the most likely natural reservoir of SARS‑CoV‑2.[30][41] Differences between bat coronaviruses and SARS‑CoV‑2 suggest that humans may have been infected via an intermediate host,[26] although the source of introduction into humans remains unknown.[42]

Previous novel disease outbreaks, such as HIV, H1N1, SARS, and the Ebola virus have also been the subject of conspiracy theories and allegations that the causative agent was created or escaped from a laboratory.[43] On a few occasions, such as the 2007 foot-and-mouth outbreak in the UK, laboratory leak incidents have occurred long after a new pathogen already emerged.[44]

Versions

Accidental release of a natural virus

This theory suggests the virus arose in humans from an accidental infection of laboratory workers by a natural sample.[10]

In March 2021, a WHO-convened report, written by a joint team of Chinese and international scientists,[19] was released which described this scenario as "extremely unlikely" and not supported by any available evidence.[45][46] The report stated that the possibility could not be wholly ruled out without further evidence.[10] Nature News described the 300-page report as the result of a "major investigation", stemming from the work of 34 international scientists, SARS-CoV-2 genome tests in early patients, analyses of nearly 1,000 samples from the Huanan Market and from hundreds of market animals, analyses of death certificates, and interviews with researchers at the WIV.[47] A small number of researchers said that they would not trust the report's conclusions because it was overseen by the Chinese government, but other scientists found the report convincing, and said there was no evidence of a laboratory origin for the virus.[47] 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 investigation because "further data and studies will be needed to reach more robust conclusions".[11][19][48] 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; Dominic Dwyer, another scientist from the WHO team, said there was "no obvious evidence" the virus had started at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.[11]

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.[49] Chinese officials described these criticisms as "an attempt to politicise the study".[50] 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.[51]

Deliberate genetic engineering

Claims of deliberate engineering of the virus were spread as early as February 2020, and gained the support of various anti-vaccine activists. Judy Mikovits and James Lyons-Weiler, two prominent figures of the movement, both claimed that SARS-CoV-2 was created in a laboratory, with Mikovits going further and stating, in Plandemic, a 2020 conspiracy theory film, that the virus was both deliberately engineered and deliberately released.[43] 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.[52]

Additional claims made to support such an hypothesis include the alleged presence of HIV sequences in the genetic material of the virus. This claim was notably promoted by the French Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier.[43] 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.[10][53][54]

Some allegations of deliberate engineering rest on the presence of a cytosine-guanine-guanine (CGG) codon doublet (which translates into two arginine amino acids) in the virus' RNA, more precisely in the crucial furin cleavage site. Proponents, including journalist Nicholas Wade, whose essay in favour of this hypothesis was published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, have used this to argue that, because of the documented lower presence of cytosine-guanine sequences in human pathogens, such a codon is evidence for a laboratory experiment.[4][43] This has been refuted by scientists, who note that the CGG codon is also present (and even more frequent) in other coronaviruses, including MERS-CoV,[55][56] and that a codon being rare does not mean it cannot be present. Furthermore, the large advantage in transmissibility gained by the presence of the furin cleavage site largely outweighs concerns that such sequences trigger disadvantageous immune responses from B-cells.[57][10]

Timeline

First appearance

The idea of a laboratory origin for SARS-CoV-2 was one of the earliest to emerge about the pandemic: the earliest known tweet to suggest so was published on 5 January 2020.[58]

The first media reports suggesting a SARS-CoV-2 lab leak appeared in the Daily Mail and The Washington Times in late January 2020.[58] 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".[59] 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. The 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.[60][61]

According to scientists and reporters contacted by The British Medical Journal, "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".[1] In February 2020, a letter was published in The Lancet by 27 co-authors that labelled alternate origin theories as conspiracy theories. Filippa Lentzos said some scientists "closed ranks" as a result, fearing for their careers and grants.[1] The letter was criticized by Jamie Metzl for "scientific propaganda and thuggery",[62] 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".[63][64]

The lab leak theory was disseminated in early 2020 by United States politicians and media, particularly US President Donald Trump, prominent Republicans, and conservative media (such as Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson, and former Breitbart News publisher and White House chief strategist Steve Bannon). All these groups had a reputation for using conspiracy rhetoric to blame other countries for American problems.[2][64] Trump had also referred to the virus as "kung flu",[65] and the administration also expressed the intention to sanction China.[66] In April 2020, Trump claimed to have evidence for the theory, but refused to produce it when requested.[67][64] 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 together to form larger, baseless conspiracy plots.[2] Facebook enacted a policy to remove discussion of the lab leak theory as misinformation; it lifted the ban a year later, in May 2021.[1][68][69]

The origin of COVID-19 became a source of friction in China–United States relations. 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.[70] The Chinese government had reacted slowly to the initial outbreak, downplaying the risk of human transmission and censoring criticism of its response.[71][72] 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.[73]

Renewed media attention

In early 2021, the hypothesis returned to popular debate due to renewed media discussion and circumstantial evidence.[2] Specifically, the resurgence was prompted by two events. Firstly, an article published in May by The Wall Street Journal claimed that several lab workers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology had fallen ill in November 2019 with COVID-19-like symptoms. The report was based on off-the-record briefings with intelligence officials.[2][64][74] The cases would have preceded 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.[75] The Guardian stated that the WSJ article did little to confirm, in terms of good, quality evidence, the possibility of a lab leak.[15] Secondly, it was shown that Peter Daszak, the key organiser of the February 2020 statement in The Lancet, had not disclosed connections to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.[2][64][1][76] An addendum was later published by The Lancet, in which Daszak listed his previous cooperation with Chinese researchers.[77]

After the publication of the WHO-convened report, politicians, talk show hosts, journalists, and some scientists advanced unsupported claims that SARS-CoV-2 may have come from the WIV.[17] In the United States, anti-China misinformation spread on social media, including baseless bio-weapon claims, fueled aggressive rhetoric towards people of Asian ancestry,[78] and the bullying of scientists.[17] Some scientists were worried their words would be misconstrued and used to support racist rhetoric.[65] 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.[79] 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,[4] and would cause Chinese scientists and authorities to share less rather than more data.[17]

Since May 2021, some media organizations softened previous language that described the laboratory leak theory as "debunked" or a "conspiracy theory".[80] However, the prevailing scientific view is that while an accidental leak is possible, it is extremely unlikely.[81][16][17] Some journalists and scientists have said that 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.[80][82][83][84]

On 27 May 2021, US president Joe Biden ordered the US intelligence community to investigate the origins of COVID-19, including this hypothesis, and provide a report within 90 days.[85] Half way into the investigation, an anonymous source told CNN that several Biden administration officials considered the lab leak theory as credible as the natural origins theory, but that hasty conclusions should be avoided.[86]

In July 2021, a HarvardPolitico 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.[87]

Claims and rebuttals

Pre-adaptation to humans

A paper examining how the virus emerged and adapted, which proposed an alternative model to the spillover model, also took into consideration the possibility of a lab leak and considered it unlikely.[88]

A group of vaccine developers from Flinders University and La Trobe University lead by Nikolai Petrovsky analysed the ACE2 bonding of the viral spike protein to 12 species (including humans) using computer modelling. Results suggested that SARS-CoV-2 was the most adapted to humans out of the species they modeled and that this could be consistent with an unidentified intermediary species, or adaptation in a lab environment.[89][90][better source needed]

Inadequate safety procedures

A number of scientists, including Ian Lipkin, have stated that the Wuhan Institute of Virology performed work on bats and bat SARS-like coronaviruses using inadequate safety procedures.[91] Researches at the institute did not consistently use adequate personal protective equipment while collecting coronavirus specimens from bats.[92] Scientists have also noted that experiments on chimeric bat coronaviruses were performed under suboptimal laboratory safety conditions.[91] Chimeric bat coronavirus research was done on some occasions at the institute at biosafety level 2 (BSL-2),[93] such research in the broader scientific community is done at BSL-3 and BSL-4.[94][95] Michal Lin stated the fact that such research was done at BSL-2 is a scandal in and of itself, independent of the issue of a laboratory accident.[91]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f 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. ISSN 1756-1833. PMID 34244293. S2CID 235760734.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g Knight, Peter (21 June 2021). "COVID-19: Why lab-leak theory is back despite little new evidence". The Conversation.
  3. ^ Pompeo, Joe (10 April 2020). "Inside the Viral Spread of a Coronavirus Origin Theory". Vanity Fair.
  4. ^ a b c Kasprak, Alex (16 July 2021). "The 'Occam's Razor Argument' Has Not Shifted in Favor of a COVID Lab Leak". Snopes.com. Retrieved 24 July 2021.
  5. ^ a b Graham, Rachel L.; Baric, Ralph S. (19 May 2020). "SARS-CoV-2: Combating Coronavirus Emergence". Immunity. 52 (5): 734–736. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2020.04.016. ISSN 1074-7613. PMC 7207110. PMID 32392464.
  6. ^ Krishnaswamy, S.; Govindarajan, T. R. (16 July 2021). "The controversy being created about the origins of the virus that causes COVID-19". Frontline.
  7. ^ Hakim, Mohamad S. (14 February 2021). "SARS‐CoV‐2, Covid‐19, and the debunking of conspiracy theories". Reviews in Medical Virology: e2222. doi:10.1002/rmv.2222. ISSN 1099-1654. PMC 7995093. PMID 33586302.
  8. ^ Baker, Nicholson (4 January 2021). "The Lab-Leak Hypothesis". Intelligencer. Retrieved 20 July 2021.
  9. ^ "Inside the risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan". MIT Technology Review.
  10. ^ a b c d e f 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: 104812. doi:10.1016/j.meegid.2021.104812. ISSN 1567-1348. PMC 7969828. PMID 33744401.
  11. ^ a b c Miller, John; Nebehay, Stephanie (31 March 2021). "Data withheld from WHO team probing COVID-19 origins in China: Tedros". Reuters. Retrieved 31 July 2021.
  12. ^ CohenJul. 17, Jon (17 July 2021). "With call for 'raw data' and lab audits, WHO chief pressures China on pandemic origin probe". Science | AAAS. Retrieved 1 August 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  13. ^ "China slams WHO plan to audit Wuhan lab in study of Covid-19 origins". France 24. 22 July 2021.
  14. ^ Stanway, Josh; Horwitz, David (10 February 2021). "COVID may have taken 'convoluted path' to Wuhan, WHO team leader says". Reuters. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
  15. ^ a b Beaumont, Peter (27 May 2021). "Did Covid come from a Wuhan lab? What we know so far". The Guardian. Retrieved 26 July 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  16. ^ a b See, for example, the following:
  17. ^ a b c d e Maxman, Amy (27 May 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. Retrieved 17 July 2021.
  18. ^ 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. ISSN 0362-4331.
  19. ^ a b c Mallapaty, Smriti (1 April 2021). "After the WHO report: What's next in the search for COVID's origins". Nature News. pp. 337–338. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-00877-4. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
  20. ^ a b 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.
  21. ^ a b Cohen, J. (January 2020). "Wuhan seafood market may not be source of novel virus spreading globally". Science. doi:10.1126/science.abb0611.
  22. ^ 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.
  23. ^ a b 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.
  24. ^ 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". Lancet. 395 (10223): 497–506. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5. PMC 7159299. PMID 31986264.
  25. ^ 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". Lancet. 395 (10223): 507–513. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30211-7. PMC 7135076. PMID 32007143.
  26. ^ a b 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.
  27. ^ 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.
  28. ^ Macdonald, David. "The wet market sources of Covid-19: bats and pangolins have an alibi | University of Oxford". Oxford Science Blog.
  29. ^ 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. 41 (3): 247–257. doi:10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2020.022. PMC 7231477. PMID 32351056.
  30. ^ a b c Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) (PDF) (Report). World Health Organization. 24 February 2020. Archived (PDF) from the original on 29 February 2020. Retrieved 5 March 2020.
  31. ^ 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.
  32. ^ "Bat SARS-like coronavirus isolate bat-SL-CoVZC45, complete genome". National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). 15 February 2020. Archived from the original on 4 June 2020. Retrieved 15 February 2020.
  33. ^ "Bat SARS-like coronavirus isolate bat-SL-CoVZXC21, complete genome". National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). 15 February 2020. Archived from the original on 4 June 2020. Retrieved 15 February 2020.
  34. ^ "Bat coronavirus isolate RaTG13, complete genome". National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). 10 February 2020. Archived from the original on 15 May 2020. Retrieved 5 March 2020.
  35. ^ 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. ISSN 1553-7374. PMC 7224457. PMID 32407364.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  36. ^ 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. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 33199918. S2CID 226984973.
  37. ^ "The 'Occam's Razor Argument' Has Not Shifted in Favor of a Lab Leak". Snopes.com. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
  38. ^ 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. ISSN 0092-8674. PMC 8188299. PMID 34147139.
  39. ^ Singh, Devika; Yi, Soojin V. (April 2021). "On the origin and evolution of SARS-CoV-2". Experimental & Molecular Medicine. 53 (4): 537–547. doi:10.1038/s12276-021-00604-z. ISSN 1226-3613.
  40. ^ 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. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-78703-6.
  41. ^ 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". Lancet. 395 (10224): 565–574. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30251-8. PMC 7159086. PMID 32007145.
  42. ^ O'Keeffe, J.; Freeman, S.; Nicol, A. (21 March 2021). The Basics of SARS-CoV-2 Transmission. Vancouver, British Columbia: 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.
  43. ^ a b c d Gorski, David (31 May 2021). "The origin of SARS-CoV-2, revisited". Science-Based Medicine.
  44. ^ "A brief, terrifying history of viruses escaping from labs: 70s Chinese pandemic was a lab mistake". nationalpost. Retrieved 27 July 2021.
  45. ^ Huang, Yanzhong (8 April 2021). "What the WHO Investigation Reveals About the Origins of COVID-19". Retrieved 15 June 2021.
  46. ^ "WHO-convened global study of origins of SARS-CoV-2: China Part". World Health Organization. Retrieved 21 May 2021. WHO gratefully acknowledges the work of the joint team, including Chinese and international scientists and WHO experts who worked on the technical sections of this report, and those who worked on studies to prepare data and information for the joint mission.
  47. ^ a b Maxman, Amy (30 March 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. Retrieved 17 July 2021.
  48. ^ "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. Retrieved 31 July 2021.
  49. ^ Gan, Nectar (31 March 2021). "14 countries and WHO chief accuse China of withholding data from coronavirus investigation". CNN.com. Retrieved 31 May 2021.
  50. ^ 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. ISSN 0140-6736. 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.
  51. ^ 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. ISSN 0140-6736. PMC 8032220. PMID 33838748.
  52. ^ 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. 9 (1): 545–547. doi:10.1080/22221751.2020.1738279. ISSN 2222-1751. PMC 7144200. PMID 32148173.
  53. ^ 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. 9 (1): 378–381. doi:10.1080/22221751.2020.1727299. ISSN 2222-1751. PMC 7033698. PMID 32056509.
  54. ^ 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. 9 (1): 505–507. doi:10.1080/22221751.2020.1733440. ISSN 2222-1751. PMC 7054935. PMID 32102621.
  55. ^ Chen, Ye; Xu, Quanming; Yuan, Xiaomin; Li, Xinxin; Zhu, Ting; Ma, Yanmei; Chen, Ji-Long (15 December 2017). "Analysis of the codon usage pattern in Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus". Oncotarget. 8 (66): 110337–110349. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.22738. PMC 5746386. PMID 29299151.
  56. ^ 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.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  57. ^ Krieg, A. M.; Yi, A. K.; Matson, S.; Waldschmidt, T. J.; Bishop, G. A.; Teasdale, R.; Koretzky, G. A.; Klinman, D. M. (6 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. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 7700380. S2CID 4261304.
  58. ^ a b "Timeline: How the Wuhan lab-leak theory suddenly became credible". The Washington Post. 25 May 2021. Retrieved 19 July 2021.
  59. ^ Cohen, Jon (31 January 2020). "Mining coronavirus genomes for clues to the outbreak's origins". Science Magazine.
  60. ^ "独家|石正丽回应质疑 专家一致认为新冠病毒非人造".
  61. ^ "模糊不清的"零号病人"与新冠病毒来源争议". BBC News 中文.
  62. ^ Lonas, Lexi (9 June 2021). "WHO adviser accuses COVID-19 lab-leak theory critics of 'thuggery'". TheHill. Retrieved 19 June 2021.
  63. ^ "Did COVID-19 Leak From A Lab? A Reporter Investigates — And Finds Roadblocks". NPR.org. Retrieved 19 June 2021.
  64. ^ a b c d e Eban, Katherine (3 June 2021). "The Lab-Leak Theory: Inside the Fight to Uncover COVID-19's Origins". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 19 July 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  65. ^ a b "The science around the lab leak theory hasn't changed. But here's why some scientists have". NBC News. Retrieved 27 July 2021.
  66. ^ 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.
  67. ^ "Trump claims to have evidence coronavirus started in Chinese lab but offers no details". The Guardian. 1 May 2020. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
  68. ^ "Facebook no longer treating 'man-made' Covid as a crackpot idea". POLITICO. Retrieved 27 July 2021.
  69. ^ "Facebook lifts ban on posts claiming Covid-19 was man-made". the Guardian. 27 May 2021. Retrieved 27 July 2021.
  70. ^ Areddy, James T. (26 May 2020). "China Rules Out Animal Market and Lab as Coronavirus Origin". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 29 May 2020.
  71. ^ Peel, Michael; Mitchell, Tom; Liu, Xinning; Yu, Sun (17 October 2020). "China and Covid-19: what went wrong in Wuhan?". Financial Times. Retrieved 29 July 2021.
  72. ^ Kang, Dake (29 April 2021). "Wuhan officials face questions, anger over virus response". Associated Press. Retrieved 29 July 2021.
  73. ^ Kirchgaessner, Stephanie; Graham-Harrison, Emma; Lily, Kuo (11 April 2020). "China clamping down on coronavirus research, deleted pages suggest". The Guardian. Retrieved 29 July 2021.
  74. ^ 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. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 26 July 2021.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  75. ^ "First Covid-19 case happened in November, China government records show - report". The Guardian. 13 March 2020.
  76. ^ Spence, Madeleine. "The rise and fall of British virus hunter Peter Daszak". The Times. ISSN 0140-0460. Retrieved 26 July 2021.
  77. ^ Editors 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. {{cite journal}}: |last1= has generic name (help)
  78. ^ Alba, Davey (19 March 2021). "How Anti-Asian Activity Online Set the Stage for Real-world Violence". The New York Times.
  79. ^ 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. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 33986172. S2CID 234487267. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)
  80. ^ a b Stanage, Niall (25 May 2021). "The Memo: Media face hard questions on Trump, Wuhan lab". The Hill. Retrieved 2 June 2021.
  81. ^ "WHO-convened global study of origins of SARS-CoV-2: China Part". World Health Organization. Retrieved 3 July 2021.
  82. ^ Elliott, Philip. "How Distrust of Donald Trump Muddled the COVID-19 'Lab Leak' Debate". Time. Retrieved 7 June 2021.
  83. ^ Folmer, Kaitlyn; Salzman, Sony; Pezenik, Sasha; Abdelmalek, Mark; Bruggeman, Lucien. "Nature-based or lab leak? Unraveling the debate over the origins of COVID-19". ABC News. 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.
  84. ^ Chow, Denise (16 June 2021). "There's still no evidence of a Chinese lab leak. But here's what's changed, scientists say". NBC News – via Yahoo News. Chan said there had been trepidation among some scientists about publicly discussing the lab leak hypothesis for fear that their words could be misconstrued or used to support racist rhetoric about how the coronavirus emerged.
  85. ^ "Covid: Biden orders investigation into virus origin as lab leak theory debated". BBC News. 27 May 2021. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
  86. ^ Bertrand, Natasha; Brown, Pamela; Williams, Katie Bo; Cohen, Zachary (16 July 2021). "Senior Biden officials finding that Covid lab leak theory as credible as natural origins explanation". CNN.com. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
  87. ^ Ollstein, Alice Miranda. "Politico–Harvard poll: Most Americans believe COVID leaked from lab". Politico. Retrieved 19 July 2021.
  88. ^ 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: 104812. doi:10.1016/j.meegid.2021.104812. ISSN 1567-1348. PMC 7969828. PMID 33744401.
  89. ^ "Lab leak theory, once 'political dynamite,' gains credibility in new study". news.yahoo.com.
  90. ^ "COVID-19 origins still a mystery" (Press release). Flinders University – via EurekAlert.
  91. ^ a b c "Inside the risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 27 July 2021.
  92. ^ "Chinese Lab with Checkered Safety Record Draws Scrutiny over COVID-19 | Voice of America - English". www.voanews.com. Retrieved 27 July 2021.
  93. ^ Guo, Hua; Hu, Bing-Jie; Yang, Xing-Lou; Zeng, Lei-Ping; Li, Bei; Ouyang, Songying; Shi, Zheng-Li (2020). "Evolutionary Arms Race between Virus and Host Drives Genetic Diversity in Bat Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Related Coronavirus Spike Genes". Journal of Virology. 94 (20). doi:10.1128/jvi.00902-20. PMC 7527062. PMID 32699095.
  94. ^ Lipkin, W. Ian (2012). "Biocontainment in Gain-of-Function Infectious Disease Research". mBio. 3 (5). doi:10.1128/mbio.00290-12. PMC 3484385. PMID 23047747.
  95. ^ Sallard, Erwan; Halloy, José; Casane, Didier; Decroly, Etienne; van Helden, Jacques (1 April 2021). "Tracing the origins of SARS-COV-2 in coronavirus phylogenies: a review". Environmental Chemistry Letters. 19 (2): 769–785. doi:10.1007/s10311-020-01151-1. ISSN 1610-3661. PMC 7859469. PMID 33558807.