COVID-19 lab leak theory: Difference between revisions

Extended-protected article
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Apparent pre-adaptation for human transmission: second removal of information based solely on a pre-print. This content violates WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:PREPRINTS. Do not add again without talk page consensus, per ArbCom sanctions.
Line 84: Line 84:


A second 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]], concluding that is best adapted to humans out of the species they modeled. The authors said their results could be consistent with either an as-yet unidentified intermediary species, or adaptation in a lab environment.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Lab leak theory, once 'political dynamite,' gains credibility in new study |url= https://news.yahoo.com/lab-leak-theory-once-political-dynamite-gains-credibility-201329270.html |work=news.yahoo.com}}</ref><ref>{{Cite press release |title=COVID-19 origins still a mystery |url= https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-06/fu-cos062421.php |publisher=Flinders University |via=[[American Association for the Advancement of Science#Publications|EurekAlert]]}}</ref>
A second 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]], concluding that is best adapted to humans out of the species they modeled. The authors said their results could be consistent with either an as-yet unidentified intermediary species, or adaptation in a lab environment.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Lab leak theory, once 'political dynamite,' gains credibility in new study |url= https://news.yahoo.com/lab-leak-theory-once-political-dynamite-gains-credibility-201329270.html |work=news.yahoo.com}}</ref><ref>{{Cite press release |title=COVID-19 origins still a mystery |url= https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-06/fu-cos062421.php |publisher=Flinders University |via=[[American Association for the Advancement of Science#Publications|EurekAlert]]}}</ref>

A third group from the [[Broad Institute]], including [[Alina Chan]], Shing Hei Zhan and Benjamin Deverman published a preprint on [[Biorxiv]], The paper was picked up by British tabloid the [[Daily Mail]], [[Newsweek]] under dramatic headlines.<ref>https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/06/25/1027140/lab-leak-alina-chan/ </ref><ref>https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2020/09/09/alina-chan-broad-institute-coronavirus/ </ref>


== See also ==
== See also ==

Revision as of 02:36, 22 July 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 responsible for the COVID-19 disease, leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China, resulting in the pandemic.[1][2] The hypothesis draws mainly upon the seeming 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][4] A central part of the hypothesis is that scientists from 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.[5][6][7]

Rumors of a lab leak first began spreading on Chinese social media in January 2020, alleging that the virus was made in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.[8] The first mention of this origin scenario in the science press was by Professor Richard Ebright in a 31 January 2020 interview with Science Magazine saying that 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"[9] The first mentions in Chinese Mass media were a 5 February report from Caixin carrying an official denial from the WIV about the infected lab worker, and a later BBC China article reporting the story along with a 14 February proposal from Chinese President Xi Jinping to incorporate biosafety into Chinese law.[10][11] On February 16, the Washington Post reported that Senator Republican Tom Cotton repeated a "conspiracy theory" Fox News’s Sunday Morning Futures, which was later retracted.[12]. Later comments in March from US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, US President Donald Trump, and conservative media amplified the issue and it was dismissed as a conspiracy theory with racist motivations.[2] In early 2021, some politicians and journalists reversed course and said the hypothesis warranted serious consideration and investigation.[1]

Scientists have largely remained skeptical of the a lab leak origin,[13][14] describing it as a remote possibility and citing a lack of supporting evidence.[15][16] The idea has been described by some researchers as a conspiracy theory,[17][18] with the scientific consensus being that a natural origin is the most likely.[19][failed verification] Some scientists, despite misgivings, agree that more investigation into the origins is warranted.[20][21]

Scientific background

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

The first known infections from SARS‑CoV‑2 were discovered in Wuhan, China.[22] The original source of viral transmission to humans remains unclear, as does whether the virus became pathogenic before or after the spillover event.[23][24][25] Because many of the early infectees were workers at the Huanan Seafood Market,[26][27] it was originally suggested that the virus might have originated from bats sold at the market.[25][28] It was later determined that no bats or pangolins were sold there.[29] 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 there. They stated that "bats are not typically eaten in Central China".[30]

Other research indicates that visitors may have introduced the virus to the market, which then facilitated rapid expansion of the infections.[23][31] 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, but less likely, explanation.[32]

Research into the natural reservoir of the virus that caused the 2002–2004 SARS outbreak has resulted in the discovery of many SARS-like bat coronaviruses, most originating in horseshoe bats. Phylogenetic analysis indicates that samples taken from Rhinolophus sinicus show a resemblance of 80% to SARS‑CoV‑2.[33][34][35] Phylogenetic analysis also indicates that a virus from Rhinolophus affinis, collected in Yunnan province, about 2,000 km from Wuhan, and designated RaTG13, has a 96% resemblance to SARS‑CoV‑2.[22][36][37] The RaTG13 virus sequence collected by researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology is the closest known sequence to SARS-CoV-2,[32][38] but it is not its direct ancestor.[39] Other closely-related sequences were also identified in samples from local bat populations in Yunnan province.[40]

Bats are considered the most likely natural reservoir of SARS‑CoV‑2.[32][41] Differences between the bat coronavirus and SARS‑CoV‑2 suggest that humans may have been infected via an intermediate host;[28] although the source of introduction into humans remains unknown.[42]

Versions

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, were 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.[44]

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 analysis shows that the common sequences are short and 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.[17][45][46]

Gain-of-function research

One idea used to support a laboratory origin invokes previous gain-of-function research on coronaviruses. 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.[47] The exact meaning of "gain of function" is disputed among experts.[48][49]

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).[48] Citing an essay by science writer Nicholas Wade, Carlson alleged that Fauci had directed research to make bat viruses more infectious to humans.[50] In a hearing the next day, US 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".[48][51] Both Fauci and NIH Director Francis Collins denied that the US government supported such research.[48][49][50] 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.[51]

A 2017 study of chimeric bat coronaviruses at the WIV listed NIH as a sponsor; however, NIH funding was only related to sample collection. Based on this and other evidence, The Washington Post rated the claim of an NIH connection to gain-of-function research on coronaviruses as "two pinocchios", representing "significant omissions and/or exaggerations".[52][51]

Accidental release of a natural virus

Another theory suggests the virus arose in humans from an accidental infection of laboratory workers by a natural sample.[17] Misinformation and confusion about the weight of evidence and likelihood of this scenario has been widespread.[18]

In March 2021, an investigatory report released by the WHO described this scenario as "extremely unlikely" and not supported by any available evidence.[53] The report stated that the possibility could not be wholly ruled out without further evidence.[17] The investigation behind this report operated as a joint collaboration between Chinese and international scientists.[54][55] 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.[56] 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.[56]

After the publication of the report, politicians, talk show hosts, journalists, and some scientists advanced unsupported claims that SARS-CoV-2 may have come from the WIV.[57] In the United States, calls to investigate a laboratory leak reached a "fever pitch," fueling aggressive rhetoric resulting in antipathy towards people of Asian ancestry,[57][58] and the bullying of scientists.[59][60][61] The United States, European Union, and 13 other countries criticised the WHO-convened study, calling for transparency from China and access to the raw data and original samples.[62] Chinese officials described these criticisms as an attempt to politicise the study.[63] 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.[64]

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.[65] 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, and would cause Chinese scientists and authorities to share less rather than more data.[57]

Since May 2021, some media organizations softened previous language that described the laboratory leak theory as "debunked" or a "conspiracy theory".[66] However, the scientific consensus is that while an accidental leak is possible, it is extremely unlikely.[67][19][68] 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.[66][69][70][71]

Timeline

First appearance

See also: COVID-19 misinformation § Wuhan lab origin

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.[72] Such an idea is not unique to COVID-19, with previous major disease outbreaks, such as HIV, H1N1, SARS, and the Ebola virus also having been the subject of conspiracy theories and allegations that the causative agent was created or escaped from a laboratory.[43]

The first media reports suggesting a SARS-CoV-2 lab leak appeared in the Daily Mail and The Washington Times in late January 2020.[72] 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"[73] An 5 February report from Caixin described these rumors as originating from a paper by an Indian scholar posted to bioRxiv that was later withdrawn, and a later BBC China report that on 14 February, Chinese President Xi Jinping proposed for biosafety to be incorporated into law, which was affected the next day to "strengthen the management of laboratories", especially those working with viruses.[74][75]

It was initially spread 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][76] In April 2020, Trump claimed to have evidence for the theory, but refused to produce it when requested.[77][76] The administration also expressed the intention to sanction China.[78] 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 this one–were being combined together to form larger, baseless conspiracy plots.[2]

Renewed media attention

In early 2021, the hypothesis returned to popular debate due to renewed media discussion and circumstantial evidence.[2]

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.[79] 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.[80]

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.[81]

Claims and rebuttals

Apparent pre-adaptation for human transmission

According to several studies[citation needed] which claimed to have identified pre-adaptation of the SARS-COV-2 for human transmission, the authors described their findings as relating to possible lab origins of the virus. Other reports suggest this adaptation may be explained by undetected circulation and adaptation to humans prior to initial identification of the virus causing disease in humans.[82]

In mid 2020, a group of scientists including Birger Sørensen, Angus Dalgleish, and Andres Susrud observed that SARS-COV-2 appeared well adapted for human transmission from its early emergence. Their co-authored paper included claims of possible genetic engineering, which they submitted to a journal and were edited out in the peer review process.[83][84] According to an article in Norwegian periodical Minerva, Sørensen and Dalgleish suspected "foul play and political considerations" in the rejection of their paper, and have tried again to get their full paper peer-reviewed by a reputable journal.[85]

A second 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, concluding that is best adapted to humans out of the species they modeled. The authors said their results could be consistent with either an as-yet unidentified intermediary species, or adaptation in a lab environment.[86][87]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b 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 Knight, Peter. "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. ^ "Did the coronavirus escape from a Chinese lab? Here's what we know". NBC News. 4 May 2020. Retrieved 20 July 2021.
  5. ^ Baker, Nicholson (4 January 2021). "The Lab-Leak Hypothesis". Intelligencer. Retrieved 20 July 2021.
  6. ^ "The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora's box at Wuhan?". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved 20 July 2021.
  7. ^ "Inside the risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan". MIT Technology Review.
  8. ^ Dunleavy, Brian P. (18 February 2020). "WHO confirms experts' presence at coronavirus epicenter in China". UPI. Retrieved 20 July 2021.
  9. ^ Cohen, Jon (31 January 2020). "Mining coronavirus genomes for clues to the outbreak's origins". Science Magazine.
  10. ^ "独家|石正丽回应质疑 专家一致认为新冠病毒非人造".
  11. ^ "模糊不清的"零号病人"与新冠病毒来源争议". BBC News 中文.
  12. ^ https://thehill.com/homenews/media/556418-washington-post-issues-correction-on-2020-report-on-tom-cotton-lab-leak-theory
  13. ^ Gorman, James; Zimmer, Carl (14 June 2021). "Scientist Opens Up About His Early Email to Fauci on Virus Origins". The New York Times. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
  14. ^ 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.
  15. ^ Stanway, Josh; Horwitz, David (10 February 2021). "COVID may have taken 'convoluted path' to Wuhan, WHO team leader says". Reuters. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
  16. ^ Maxmen, Amy; Mallapaty, Smriti (8 June 2021). "The COVID lab-leak hypothesis: what scientists do and don't know". Nature. pp. 313–315. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-01529-3. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
  17. ^ a b c d 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.
  18. ^ a b 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.
  19. ^ a b See, for example, the following:
  20. ^ 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.
  21. ^ 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.
  22. ^ 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.
  23. ^ a b Cohen, J. (January 2020). "Wuhan seafood market may not be source of novel virus spreading globally". Science. doi:10.1126/science.abb0611.
  24. ^ 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.
  25. ^ 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.
  26. ^ 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.
  27. ^ 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.
  28. ^ 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.
  29. ^ 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 – via www.nature.com.
  30. ^ Macdonald, David. "The wet market sources of Covid-19: bats and pangolins have an alibi | University of Oxford". Oxford Science Blog.
  31. ^ 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.
  32. ^ 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.
  33. ^ 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.
  34. ^ "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.
  35. ^ "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.
  36. ^ "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.
  37. ^ 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)
  38. ^ 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.
  39. ^ "The 'Occam's Razor Argument' Has Not Shifted in Favor of a Lab Leak". Snopes.com. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
  40. ^ 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. Archived from the original on 18 June 2021. Retrieved 18 June 2021.
  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 Gorski, David (31 May 2021). "The origin of SARS-CoV-2, revisited". Science-Based Medicine.
  44. ^ 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.
  45. ^ 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.
  46. ^ 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.
  47. ^ Rasmussen, Angela L. (January 2021). "On the origins of SARS-CoV-2". Nature Medicine. 27 (1): 9. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-01205-5. PMID 33442004.
  48. ^ a b c d Robertson, Lori (21 May 2021). "The Wuhan Lab and the Gain-of-Function Disagreement". FactCheck.org. Retrieved 4 June 2021.
  49. ^ a b Bryant, C. C. (25 June 2021). "How risky is 'gain of function' research? Congress scrutinizes China". The Christian Science Monitor.
  50. ^ a b Dapcevich, Madison (20 May 2021). "Did Fauci Fund 'Gain of Function' Research, Thereby Causing COVID-19 Pandemic?". Snopes.
  51. ^ a b c Kessler, Glenn (18 May 2021). "Analysis: Fact-checking the Paul–Fauci flap over Wuhan lab funding". The Washington Post.
  52. ^ Kessler, Glenn. "About the Fact Checker". The Washington Post. Retrieved 13 July 2021.
  53. ^ "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.
  54. ^ Mallapaty, Smriti (1 April 2021). "After the WHO report: what's next in the search for COVID's origins". Nature. pp. 337–338. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-00877-4. Retrieved 15 June 2021.
  55. ^ Huang, Yanzhong (8 April 2021). "What the WHO Investigation Reveals About the Origins of COVID-19". Retrieved 15 June 2021.
  56. ^ 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.
  57. ^ a b c 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.
  58. ^ Alba, Davey (19 March 2021). "How Anti-Asian Activity Online Set the Stage for Real-world Violence". The New York Times.
  59. ^ Mello, M. M.; Greene, J. A.; Sharfstein, J. M. (August 2020). "Attacks on Public Health Officials During COVID-19". JAMA. 324 (8): 741–742. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.14423. PMID 32777019. S2CID 221099095.
  60. ^ Izri, Touria (27 October 2020). "Winnipeg epidemiologist faces online threats, as concerns about COVID-19 misinformation deepen". Winnipeg. Experts say the hostility against public health officials is being fueled in part by online conspiracy theories.
  61. ^ Marcelo, Philip (20 April 2021). "They were experts in viruses, and now in pitfalls of fame". AP News. Retrieved 16 June 2021.
  62. ^ Gan, Nectar (31 March 2021). "14 countries and WHO chief accuse China of withholding data from coronavirus investigation". CNN.com. Retrieved 31 May 2021.
  63. ^ 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.
  64. ^ 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.
  65. ^ 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)
  66. ^ a b Stanage, Niall (25 May 2021). "The Memo: Media face hard questions on Trump, Wuhan lab". The Hill. Retrieved 2 June 2021.
  67. ^ "WHO-convened global study of origins of SARS-CoV-2: China Part". World Health Organization. Retrieved 3 July 2021.
  68. ^ Maxmen, Amy (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.
  69. ^ Elliott, Philip. "How Distrust of Donald Trump Muddled the COVID-19 'Lab Leak' Debate". Time. Retrieved 7 June 2021.
  70. ^ 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.
  71. ^ 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.
  72. ^ a b "Timeline: How the Wuhan lab-leak theory suddenly became credible". The Washington Post. Retrieved 19 July 2021.
  73. ^ Cohen, Jon (31 January 2020). "Mining coronavirus genomes for clues to the outbreak's origins". Science Magazine.
  74. ^ "独家|石正丽回应质疑 专家一致认为新冠病毒非人造".
  75. ^ "模糊不清的"零号病人"与新冠病毒来源争议". BBC News 中文.
  76. ^ a b 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)
  77. ^ "Trump claims to have evidence coronavirus started in Chinese lab but offers no details". The Guardian. 1 May 2020. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
  78. ^ 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.
  79. ^ "Covid: Biden orders investigation into virus origin as lab leak theory debated". BBC News. 27 May 2021. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
  80. ^ 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.
  81. ^ Ollstein, Alice Miranda. "Politico–Harvard poll: Most Americans believe COVID leaked from lab". Politico. Retrieved 19 July 2021.
  82. ^ Frutos, Roger; Gavotte, Laurent; Devaux, Christian A. (18 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: Journal of Molecular Epidemiology and Evolutionary Genetics in Infectious Diseases: 104812. doi:10.1016/j.meegid.2021.104812. PMC 7969828. PMID 33744401.
  83. ^ Fridstrøm, Aksel; Andresen, Nils August (2 July 2020). "The most logical explanation is that it comes from a laboratory". Minerva.
  84. ^ Editor, Letters to the (1 June 2021). "Letters: Covid-19, Wuhan and the terrifying possibility of biological warfare" – via The Telegraph. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  85. ^ Fridstrøm, Aksel (13 July 2020). "The fight for a controversial article". Minerva (in Norwegian). Retrieved 20 July 2021.
  86. ^ "Lab leak theory, once 'political dynamite,' gains credibility in new study". news.yahoo.com.
  87. ^ "COVID-19 origins still a mystery" (Press release). Flinders University – via EurekAlert.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1034830501"