“COVID-19 originated from a laboratory in China.”

In its report, SAGO considered available evidence for the main hypotheses for the origins of COVID-19 and concluded that "the weight of available evidence… suggests zoonotic spillover… either directly from bats or through an intermediate host." The report states that "as things stand, all hypotheses must remain on the table, including zoonotic spillover and lab leak." It also notes that "no definitive evidence" has yet been obtained to establish the exact origin and that WHO has requested, but not received, more detailed data from China on early cases, animals sold at markets in Wuhan, and work done and biosafety conditions at Wuhan laboratories.

The second hypothesis is the so-called "lab-leak theory," suggesting that a new variant may have accidentally escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) during serial passage or gain-of-function research on SARS-related viruses. Some circumstantial evidence seems to support this theory, such as reports that some WIV researchers showed COVID-like symptoms early on, records of high-risk coronavirus experiments led by Dr. Shi Zhengli’s team, and the fact that the earliest outbreak occurred in Wuhan. However, the viruses used in these experiments were not physically present but rather consisted of synthesized genetic sequences, meaning they were not complete, nor infectious viral particles capable of replication, and the pseudo-virus experiments conducted to test human cell entry lacked the ability to replicate. The article also notes that the third hypothesis, that the virus was deliberately engineered as a biological weapon, "lacks scientific credibility" and that China suffered massive losses during the pandemic, making a deliberate biological weapon origin implausible.

Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus. We do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible. The most likely origin of SARS-CoV-2 involves natural selection in an animal host before zoonotic transfer, or natural selection in humans following zoonotic transfer.

An independent group that studied the origins of SARS-CoV-2 for the World Health Organization (WHO) published its full findings today, which said though most available and accessible scientific evidence supports a jump from animals to people, it can't rule out the second of the two main hypotheses, an accidental lab-related event. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said, "As things stand, all hypotheses must remain on the table, including zoonotic spillover and lab leak," noting that China hasn't provided detailed data on early cases, animals sold at Wuhan markets, or work and biosafety conditions at Wuhan laboratories.

Using spatial analyses of case locations and environmental sampling, we show that early COVID-19 cases in December 2019 were geospatially centred on the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. The detection of SARS-CoV-2–positive environmental samples, including cages, carts and other surfaces, in the western section of the market where live mammals were sold provides strong evidence of a live-animal market origin of the pandemic. Although our study cannot identify the specific animal species that served as the intermediate host, the patterns we document are not consistent with an origin at the Wuhan Institute of Virology or any other laboratory.

The page asserts that "The virus possesses a biological characteristic that is not found in nature" and claims that "data shows that all COVID-19 cases stem from a single introduction into humans." It emphasizes that "Wuhan is home to China’s foremost SARS research lab, which has a history of conducting gain-of-function research (gene altering and organism supercharging) at inadequate biosafety levels" and states that "Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) researchers were sick with COVID-like symptoms in the fall of 2019, months before COVID-19 was discovered at the wet market." The document concludes that "a lab-related incident involving gain-of-function research is the most likely origin of COVID-19."

This review states that "the current body of evidence most strongly supports a zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2" and that "no verified data have been made public that directly demonstrate a laboratory accident or engineering." The authors evaluate genetic and epidemiological data and conclude that "SARS-CoV-2 shows no tell-tale signs of genetic manipulation" and is "closely related to known bat coronaviruses," consistent with natural evolution. They acknowledge that "a laboratory-related accident cannot be entirely excluded," but emphasize that "there is at present no conclusive evidence to support it as the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic."

A press release from the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic states that it "recently reviewed classified U.S. Department of State (State Department) documents that credibly suggest COVID-19 originated from a lab related accident in Wuhan, China." It adds: "The documents also strongly convey that the Chinese Communist Party attempted to cover-up the lab leak and that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) maintains a relationship with the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA)." The release claims that "mounting evidence continues to point to a lab related accident in Wuhan, China as the likely origin of the COVID-19 pandemic."

Many virologists and evolutionary biologists say that the genetic features of SARS-CoV-2 and its early spread are most consistent with a zoonotic origin. They note that no evidence has yet emerged that SARS-CoV-2, or any close progenitor, was present in a laboratory before the outbreak. However, the article also acknowledges that some scientists argue that a laboratory accident remains a possibility and call for more transparency and data from Chinese laboratories.

A commentary by 21 scientists published in the journal Cell refuted the view that the novel coronavirus leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology laboratory. They pointed out that there is no evidence that any early confirmed COVID-19 cases had any connection with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and no evidence that before the pandemic the institute possessed or had researched any progenitor of SARS-CoV-2. During the pandemic, extensive contact tracing of early cases found no cases related to laboratory staff at the institute, and in March 2020 researchers in Shi Zhengli’s lab at the institute all tested seronegative for SARS-CoV-2. The scientists therefore concluded that there is no evidence to support any scenario of laboratory escape.

After a nearly two-year investigation, the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic finds it is reasonable to conclude that the preponderance of circumstantial evidence supports a laboratory-related incident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology as the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic. The report details biosafety concerns, undisclosed research on SARS-like coronaviruses, and the lack of a clear zoonotic source as factors that, taken together, make a lab-related origin more likely than natural emergence.

Pediatric infectious disease specialist Dr. Paul Offit describes evidence pointing to a market-origin: "all the early cases of SARS‑CoV‑2, the cause of COVID, occurred in the southwestern section of the Huanan wholesale seafood market and then spread concentrically out from that part of the market." He explains that investigators "found genetic evidence of SARS‑CoV‑2 virus in all of those samples" from carts, cages, and equipment, and that they also found mammalian DNA from raccoon dogs and other susceptible animals, calling this "clear evidence that that's where the virus started and how it started." He argues that claims that Wuhan Institute of Virology researchers created a pandemic strain and got sick are "not true" and that "there's again no evidence for that," concluding that "this was, as one would expect, an animal to human spillover event."