# data[].attributes.body
They were doing small experiments and a natural spill over could have happened but wasn’t likely. Even after investigating they couldn’t find the actual cause of the spread of covid or how it got out of laboratory facilities.

# data[].attributes.body
Covid-19 wasn’t made to be a biological weapon and suspect that someone from inside was spreading miss information to scare others. They were just studying sicknesses for other animals and they was a type of mutation of Covid-19 that one of the animals had and they were trying to see what it was.

# data[].attributes.body
When the pandemic first started I thought that it was a failed experiment to solve another problem but then people started putting out other theories out that it was spread on purpose. Mainly since it was affecting certain people which were the elderly and people with health problems such as diabetes and asthma many others. Others would say that is was made so that the government could track people and see what they are doing.

# data[].attributes.body
While I was looking through different articles and seeing what a lot of people thought some of the evidence they had to believe their own theory. Most of them sounded crazy and didn’t take there time to look for evidence to make there ideas seem a little bit true unlike some that looked into open records and used what they read to make there claims sound more believable.

# data[].attributes.body
They also believe that it came from studies from animals that had the disease/ virus like a zoonotic transmission. There had already been studies showing that a similar virus was happening from camels to humans and that lab was doing research on it and they think that the bats in that area would have caused the pandemic to happen since they had given signs of have a variant of covid and there virus and covid-19 were 96% similar to each other

# data[].attributes.body
What I came to see after looking into peoples ideas/ theories is that they were trying to blame/ justify why the pandemic started. So made a little sense while others just sounded crazy

# data[].attributes.body
In the first article I found it said that not much information was found in the public records and they weren’t truly sure the cause of covid-19 since there was a lot going on in the regain were it started and multiple agencies were looking into the cause but were sent into dead ends

# data[].attributes.body
Some people believe that it was made in a lab on purpose to lower the world population and help the government track what people are doing

# data[].attributes.body
It is believed that it started from some experiments having to do with finding a cure to a variant that animals had of covid and also that it came from a fish market in the area around the laboratory in Wuhan. Others believe that it was made in purpose and are using the animals as an excuse

# data[].attributes.body
The theories started after many of the elderly and people with medical conditions were dying first so were people from lower classes and poor areas were also dying off first and also since the government and a lot of jobs were requiring for people to get the covid-19 vaccination

# data[].attributes.body
People started looking into why there wasn’t much info for the out break and the causes of why covid happened. When looking into it they saw that some Chinese journalists had been imprisoned because they were able to find out that they were working off of government grants. So that’s when people started saying that covid-19 was made on purpose.

# data[].attributes.body
Some doctors believe that the pandemic was caused to some experiments gone wrong and trying to find a way to end it or find out the correct reason covid started and spread all over the world.

# data[].attributes.body
They were studying a covid that was happening in bats and were doing many kinds of experiments and one of the got leaked on accident or artificially. Since the original experiments were happening 900 km away from the lab were covid-19 came from.

# data[].attributes.body
They believe that it came from a seafood market in Wuhan but didn’t look much into it since the laboratory was in the same city. Then they looked further into it and saw that it could have come from the lab since they were doing some experiments with covid variants that was happening to some animals in the area. So they could have transmitted that to the market through the animals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON-The Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic held a hearing on " Investigating the Origins of COVID-19 " to gather facts about the origination of the virus that has claimed nearly seven million lives globally. At the hearing, several of the witnesses pointed to how the science, facts, and evidence point to a lab leak in Wuhan.
Key Hearing Takeaways Knowing the origin of COVID-19 is fundamental to helping predict and prevent future pandemics.
Select Subcommittee Chairman Brad Wenstrup opened the hearing by emphasizing how knowing the origin of the virus is essential to helping predict and prevent future pandemics, protecting health and national security, and preparing the United States for the future. He pledged that the Select Subcommittee will thoroughly, responsibly, and honestly investigate the origin of COVID-19.

Dr. Jamie Metzl, Ph.D., senior fellow at the Atlantic Council said in an opening statement, "If we do not get to the bottom of what went wrong with the COVID-19 pandemic, if we fail in our efforts to fearlessly understand all shortcomings and shore up the vulnerabilities this crisis has so clearly exposed, the victims of the next pandemic, our children and grandchildren, will ask us why we failed to protect when we knew what was at stake and had the chance."
Mounting evidence continues to show that COVID-19 may have originated from a lab in Wuhan, China.
Dr. Robert Redfield, former director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), testified how science indicates COVID-19 infections were likely the result of an accidental lab leak in Wuhan. His conclusion is based on the biology of the virus itself and unusual actions in and around Wuhan in 2019, including gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

Nicholas Wade-the former science and health editor at the New York Times, and former editor of Science and Nature- testified how Drs. Fauci and Collins used unverified data to dismiss the lab leak theory in favor of natural transmission.

Jamie Metzl testified how China's government destroyed samples, hid records, imprisoned Chinese journalists, prevented Chinese scientists from saying or writing anything on pandemic origins without prior government approval, actively spread misinformation, and prevented an evidence-based investigation.
The mainstream media downplayed-and even denied-the scientific theory that COVID-19 emerged from the WIV.
Nicholas Wade testified about the campaign to discredit the lab leak theory. He pointed out that scientists kept in line with the natural origin camp led by Drs. Fauci and Collins because of their dependence on government grants and that the media failed to challenge the forced narrative.

All witnesses agreed that the possibility of COVID-19 originating from a lab is not a conspiracy theory.
Member Highlights
Subcommittee Chairman Dr. Wenstrup (R-Ohio.) asked witnesses whether it is critical to investigate the origin of COVID-19. All witnesses answered yes. Chairman Wenstrup also raised concern about gain-of-function research, which Dr. Redfield defined during the hearing as altering a pathogen to increase either transmissibility or pathogenicity.

Subcommittee Chairman Wenstrup: "In your expert opinion was the Wuhan Institute conducting gain-of-function research on a batch of coronaviruses?"

Dr. Redfield: "Absolutely."

Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.) noted that after raising concerns to experts and the World Health Organization that COVID-19 may have originated in a lab in Wuhan, China, and urging Dr. Fauci to investigate the origins of the pandemic, Dr. Redfield was excluded from calls related to the origins of the pandemic.

Rep. Malliotakis: "Why do you think you were excluded from those calls?"

Dr. Redfield: "It was told to me that they wanted a single narrative and that I obviously had a different point of view."

Dr. Redfield added: "If you really want to be truthful, it's antithetical to science. Science has debate, and they squashed any debate."

Scientists, including Dr. Fauci, then drafted a paper arguing COVID-19's proximal origins to animals at a wet market.

Rep. Malliotakis: "Do you think that this paper does hide the truth?"

Dr. Redfield: "I think it's an inaccurate paper that basically was part of a narrative that they were creating."

Rep. Malliotakis also warned that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) may have been funding gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at the WIV.

Rep. Malliotakis: "Is it likely that American tax dollars funded the gain-of-function research that created this virus?"

Dr. Redfield: I think it did, not only from NIH, but from the State Department, USAID and DOD."

Rep. Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa), who has expertise publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals, asked why the scientific community dangerously suppressed evidence that COVID-19 may have originated from a lab.
"There is, as you said Dr. Metzl, extraordinary circumstantial evidence that this came from a lab. "I don't know why the authors didn't want to state this, they did not want to have the scientific conversation and dialogue, why they wanted to obfuscate and suppress the truth, or even have a debate about the origins of COVID-19. "Was it for personal financial gain? Was it to hide U.S. financial interest into the Wuhan Institute of Virology indirectly? Was it to suppress the revelation that there was perhaps gain-of-function research that had been prohibited in the United States? Or were they concerned that a conspiracy would develop that it was bioterrorism? "I would state that their suppression and obfuscation has led to the exact mistrust and conspiracy theories that they may have tried to avoid."
Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Colo.) and Dr. Redfield discussed unusual actions at the WIV in September 2019.

Rep. Lesko: "Do you believe we can have certainty that the virus did not come from the Wuhan lab and that U.S. funding was not used for coronavirus research?"

Dr. Redfield: "Absolutely we cannot do that. It's now declassified now, but in September 2019, three things happened in that lab. One, they deleted the sequences. That is highly irregular-researchers don't usually like to do that. Second, they commanded the command and control of the lab from civilian control to military control. Highly unusual. And the third thing they did, which I think is really telling, is they let a contractor re-do the ventilation system in that laboratory. There is strong evidence there was a significant event in that laboratory in September 2019."

Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) warned that the media downplayed, discredited, and silenced voices of experts sounding the alarm that COVID-19 may have originated from a lab in Wuhan, China.

Chairman Comer: "Would you agree that the scientific establishment used the media to downplay the lab leak theory?"

Mr. Wade: "I think the media was used in this particular campaign to establish the natural origin theory.
"The scientific community is very afraid to speak up on political issues. I think the reason is that government grants are handed out through the system of peer-reviewed committees. You don't want any single scientist on your peer-review committee to vote against, because you won't get your grant - it's so competitive. Therefore, scientists are very reluctant to say anything that's politically divisive or turn other scientists off against them. This means that they cannot be relied upon in the way that we would like them to be independent and forthright and call it as they see it."
Comer: "Was there science available to make such an unequivocal statement against the possibility of a lab leak that early on in February of 2020?"

Witnesses Dr. Metzl, Mr. Wade, and Dr. Redfield all answered, "No."

Comer: "Is the possibility COVID-19 leaked from a lab a conspiracy theory?"

Witnesses answered, "No."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
COVID Origins Hearing Wrap Up: Facts, Science, Evidence Point to a Wuhan Lab Leak - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

Discussions and questions on the origin of the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been frequently raised and widely debated among all communities since the first large-scale outbreak was detected in December 2019. COVID-19 has rapidly acquired a pandemic status, leading to the death of more than six hundred thousand people all across the world at the time of writing. Thus, it is crucial to discover its origin to prevent another viral outbreak [ 1]. The main theories regarding the origin of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) are that it arose naturally, as a zoonotic infection, that it was deliberately engineered as a bioweapon [ 2, 3], or that it has accidentally leaked out from a bio lab in China by researchers that were studying a virus related to the SARS coronavirus. Therefore, this leads to a highly debatable question: is COVID-19 a man-made or a naturally occurring disease?

Coronavirus is an enveloped virus with a single-stranded, positive-sense ribonucleic acid genome. It contains a total of four genera: alpha, beta, gamma, and delta. The beta genus is classified into four lineages from A to D. Scientific evidence showed that the virus causing COVID-19 belongs to the B lineage of the beta coronavirus group, which is the same group of another epidemic-causing virus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS coronavirus). Because of this similarity, it was named SARS-COV-2 [ 4, 5].

Argument: a naturally mutated virus

Considering the previous pandemic, it can be inferred that COVID-19 is most probably a disease due to zoonotic transmission. This is supported by studies showing that SARS coronavirus originates from direct contact between humans and civets. Another novel coronavirus, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), has also been discovered because of its direct transmission to humans from dromedary camels [ 6]. Retrospective analysis of a few early confirmed cases in Wuhan last year shows that this contagious disease is transmitted through direct person-to-person contact. According to the scientific evidence available, bats are inferred to be the host animals responsible for starting the transmission chain of this virus. Up to 96% similarity was found between SARS-COV-2 and the bat coronavirus using whole-genome analysis [ 7]. This theory was supported by other studies that have been summarized in detail elsewhere [ 8, 9]. A study supported this suggestive finding by using sequence-based analysis and artificial intelligence on the genomic sequence of the novel coronavirus [ 10]. Snakes were found to be the most probable wildlife repository for the virus compared with other animals [ 11]. Conversely, another study suggested that SARS-COV-2 could have originated from bats but with pangolins as the possible intermediate hosts [ 12].

In addition to the theory that COVID-19 is transmitted from bats to humans, it was found that natural selection is the reason behind the binding of the mutated SARS-COV-2 spike protein to the human-like angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor. Besides that, the polybasic cleavage site of this novel coronavirus shows a possibility that it arises through a natural-occurring evolutionary process. The criterion for the enhancement of binding between a precursor virus and the ACE2 receptor is concluded elsewhere [ 13]. On the other hand, there was an inference on the origin of SARS-COV-2 where the precursor of the virus acquired genomic features through adaptation after a zoonotic transmission and the insertion of its polybasic cleavage site during direct transmission between humans [ 14].

Counterargument: a man-made virus

While study results proposed and supported the theory of COVID-19 as a resultant of a naturally-occurring event, there is another suggestive theory stating SARS-COV-2 is an intentionally engineered virus that was unintentionally released from a bio lab in Wuhan, China. The origins of the epidemic and the "probable" bat source have raised skepticism. The Wuhan Institute of Virology report stated that the source - bat-related coronavirus - was found in the southern area of Yunnan, same as the origin of the SARS-COV-2 outbreak [ 11]. Comparatively, the adjacent Wuhan Institute of Virology had raised a higher possibility of this disaster pandemic by spending $44 million on the National Biosafety Laboratory (Level 4). Naturally, the origins of the epidemic were investigated. All the studies of Shi Zhengli, the lead virologist from the institute, on bat related coronaviruses were centered in the southern, subtropical areas of Yunnan. However, the outbreak occurred in Wuhan, which is almost 900 km from Yunnan. This cliffhanger seems to point to a possibility that this novel strain of coronavirus was leaked out artificially. Even though the Chinese government discredited the possibility of a lab origin based on genetic studies, the distance of the epicenter from the bat caves raises questions.

Moreover, it is widely known that studies involving the study of the transmission of bat SARS-like coronaviruses using cell culture and animal models such as laboratory mice have been conducted for many years all across the world. Based on the scientific evidence, it is possible that an inadvertent laboratory released the progenitor of SARS-COV-2. Theoretically, mutation of the receptor-binding-domain (RBD) of SARS-COV-2 through adaptation during its passage in cell culture is possible since this was observed in previous SARS coronavirus passage studies [ 15]. However, a recent study provided a more parsimonious explanation on the alterations of the SARS-COV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD) through recombination or mutations with more robust evidence [ 16]. The mechanism of both the polybasic cleavage site and O-glycosylation also raised a disagreement against the theory of culture-based scenarios being the origin of COVID-19. There is no detailed explanation and scientific evidence on the hypothesis regarding the generation of SARS-COV-2 through cell culture or animal passage, which would have required prior isolation of a precursor virus with high similarity in the genomic sequence. The RBD of viruses from Rhinolophus affinis bat and Malayan pangolins (Manis javanica) have a remarkably lower affinity to the angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors, albeit the two sources contain coronaviruses similar to SARS-COV-2 [ 14]. Results from other non-coronavirus studies have demonstrated that the criterion for generating a polybasic cleavage site is either the repeated passage of the virus in cell culture or animals with ACE2 receptors similar to those of humans, which were also not discussed in detail in the context of SARS-COV-2.

Furthermore, another research suggested that involvement of the immune system is needed for the generation of O-glycosylation in the virus. Therefore, it is improbable for it to have happened as a result of cell-culture passage [ 17]. Although no scientist has come forth with any definite evidence that proves human manipulation of the virus using any genetic engineering method, there are situations involving human intervention that have been reported [ 18]. It must be noted that some important features of the spike protein on SARS-COV-2 have also raised suspicions on whether the virus is man-made [ 19, 20]. This is because both S1 and S2 sites of the spike protein demonstrated optimal portions, which facilitates the penetration of the virus' RNA into the living cell that could weaken the host defense of the host [ 2]. Besides, similar sequences were also indicated in the proteins endonuclease (nsp15) and 2′ -O-MTase (nsp16), among other sites of SARS-COV-2 [ 21].

Final perspectives

Many hypotheses on the original source of SARS-COV-2 and COVID-19 have been made, which still lack concrete evidence that supports their statement. Among them, the theory involving recombination, convergence, and adaptation of SARS-COV-2 have been put in the limelight, suggesting a possibility in the evolutionary pathway for SARS-COV-2 [ 22]. Most scientific reports believe that the polybasic cleavage site and mutation of the spike proteins are the mechanisms behind the adaptation of this beta coronavirus group of SARS-COV-2 to humans [ 14]. The alterations in the receptor-binding domain of the surface protein (S) of SARS-COV-2 result in its effective binding to human ACE2 receptors, especially in the human respiratory airway, which increases the transmission ability of the virus. Moreover, results of a recent retrospective study conducted in Zhejiang, China, showed one amino acid position loss and four single amino acid mutations in SARS-COV-2 with greater similarity to humans than viruses [ 23]. Apart from that, genomic and strong evidence of the similarity between SARS-COV-2, bat-coronavirus, and pangolin-coronavirus at the whole genome level has also been discovered. Alterations of the S1-2 junction of coronavirus, including mutations, insertions and deletions, demonstrates that the generation of polybasic cleavage sites is achieved through a natural evolutionary process [ 14].

In conclusion, all these specific features observed in SARS-COV-2 helps scientists to rule out the idea that this pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus is the result of a man-made action that could be either engineered in the laboratory or further created as a bioweapon out of conspiracy. Recent discoveries revealed evidence of the presence of the virus around the world before it emerged in Asia. There is growing evidence of its true origin as a global organism that was waiting for favorable conditions to emerge instead of originating in China. Recent testing of sewage in Barcelona had suggested that the virus may have been present in the Spanish city in March 2019, many months before China identified the pathogen in the city of Wuhan in December 2019. Based on the results available, it is most probably that this is a natural-born virus that emerged from an animal host, most likely a bat, without any direct pieces of evidence about its intermediate host. Nevertheless, researchers are yet to find a definitive answer to which animal serves as an intermediate host for this virus and disease. Besides, questions on the role of SARS-CoV-2 in T cells have been raised, especially with evidence from recent postmortem findings of its preferential impact on CD 4+ and CD 8+ T cells [ 24- 26]. Therefore, further studying of all microorganisms is mandatory in order to understand how they evolve, how they live, and how they transmit, which may be the key solution in hindering the spread of COVID-19.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SARS-COV-2 as an artificial creation: scientific arguments and counterarguments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Discussions and questions on the origin of the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been frequently raised and widely debated among all communities since the first large-scale outbreak was detected in December 2019. COVID-19 has rapidly acquired a pandemic status, leading to the death of more than six hundred thousand people all across the world at the time of writing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Origins of SARS-CoV-2 | Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new report confirming a Wuhan seafood market as SARS-CoV-2's origin shines a light on the need for critical research to prevent future pandemics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, the Internet has been teeming with provocative conspiracy theories that the novel coronavirus was (1) created in a Wuhan, China, lab and deployed as a bioweapon or (2) derived from bats, grown on tissue culture, intentionally or accidentally transmitted to a researcher, and released into the community.

Politicians have touted these theories in an attempt to blame China for the pandemic, and a discredited US scientist recently released a book and now-banned video claiming that wealthy people deliberately spread COVID-19 to boost vaccination rates. And late last week, an unsubstantiated NBC News report on cell phone location data suggested that the Wuhan lab temporarily shut down after a "hazardous event" in October.

Even Kristian Andersen, PhD, a professor in the Department of Immunology and Microbiology at Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, and lead author of a research letter published Mar 17 in Nature Medicine on the origins of the virus, first thought that COVID-19 was just as likely to have been accidentally released from a lab as it was to have come from nature.

But that was before he learned more about COVID-19 and related coronaviruses, which have features already seen in nature. "There are lots of data and lots of evidence, as well as previous examples of this coming from nature," he said. "We have exactly zero evidence or data of this having any connection to a lab."

And while Andersen, like other prominent virologists, says that he can't completely rule out the possibility that the virus came from a lab, the odds of that happening are very small. He says the new coronavirus clearly originated in nature, "no question about it by now."

Conspiracy theory #1: Chinese bioweapon

COVID-19 is sufficiently unlike other viruses to have been created from them, and making a virus in the lab from scratch would be "virtually impossible," said Stanley Perlman, MD, PhD, professor of microbiology and immunology and pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Iowa in Iowa City. "I don't think we know enough about coronaviruses-or any virus-to be able to deliberately make a virus for release," he said.

James Le Duc, PhD, professor of microbiology and immunology and director of the Galveston National Laboratory at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, said that engineering COVID-19 "would have taken an incredible amount of ingenuity. People's imaginations are running wild."

Andersen said that the virus's receptor binding domain, which makes it an efficient human pathogen, is also found in coronaviruses in pangolins, scaly anteaters proposed as an intermediary host between bats and humans. "It's something that's fully natural, so it's not something that happens in tissue culture," he said.

Angela Rasmussen, PhD, an associate research scientist in the Center for Infection and Immunity at Columbia University in New York City, said computer modeling suggests that the receptor-binding domain of the spike protein in SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is suboptimal, "meaning that someone designing an optimal receptor-binding domain sequence probably would not 'engineer' the sequence that evolved in SARS-CoV-2," she said.

"Furthermore, there are no genetic similarities with other virus backbones used in any of the known reverse genetics systems for betacoronaviruses. This suggests that this virus was not engineered."

Another COVID-19 feature, its furin cleavage site, which allows the virus to infect human cells, diminishes in tissue culture, Andersen said. "I think it could probably still infect people, I just think much less efficiently," he added.

Furthermore, he questions why anyone would go through the work of creating a new virus when they could simply take an existing virulent pathogen like the SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) or MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) coronaviruses and make them even worse, as all bioweapons programs so far have done.

"It doesn't make any sense to make a new virus that you don't know can cause disease in humans and try to create a bioweapon out of it," Andersen said. "That would be a really bad bioweapons person."

Conspiracy theory #2: Lab release of natural virus

For many years around the world, scientists have studied bat coronaviruses by capturing bats in caves and isolating and growing in tissue culture the coronaviruses that they carry to see if they can infect human cells.

Called gain-of-function research, these studies improve a pathogen's ability to cause disease so that researchers can characterize its interactions with humans, allowing evaluation of its potential to cause a pandemic and informing public health, preparedness, and development of potential therapeutics and vaccines.

Shi Zhengli, PhD, director of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a biosafety level 4 (BSL-4) lab in China relatively close (25 to 35 kilometers [15 to 22 miles]) to the Wuhan live-animal market at the epicenter of China's outbreak, has extensively published the genetic sequences of isolates from the bat coronaviruses she studies.

None of them match those of COVID-19, Andersen said, something Shi herself confirmed in a recent interview in Scientific American. "If she would have published a sequence for the virus and then this pops up, then we would have known it came from the lab," Andersen said. "There's no evidence for this, but there is plenty of evidence against it."

Le Duc said that Shi's work on bat coronaviruses has shown that "these viruses exist in nature, and some of them have characteristics that would allow them to be transmissible among humans. The fact that we're seeing it today is not a surprise to folks that have been working in this field."

And although "certainly, accidents happen in laboratories," the high level of biocontainment at Shi's lab makes it unlikely, he said. BSL-4 labs have the most stringent biosafety protocols, which may include airflow systems, sealed containers, positive-pressure personal protective equipment (PPE), extensive training, and highly controlled access to the building.

Having attended conferences at which Shi has spoken about her work, Le Duc said she is a highly reputable scientist. "She's always been extremely open, transparent, and collaborative, and I have no reason to doubt that she's telling the truth," he said.

Plus, Andersen said the likelihood of a researcher becoming unknowingly infected with the coronavirus while wearing full PPE and then going to the Wuhan market is "fleeting compared to the alternative hypothesis, which is that we as humans, because we live amongst animals carrying these viruses-bats, but also many other intermediate hosts-and, of course, we don't go around wearing PPE, we naturally get into contact with these viruses all the time."

Yet a virus with pandemic potential is exceedingly rare, he said. "If these viruses were really frequent, we would all be dead by coronaviruses by now," Andersen said. "We would have coronavirus pandemics all the time. We don't, but they do pop up every 10 years or so, on average."

Rasmussen said that the most plausible scenario is a "natural zoonotic spillover," adding that serology studies have shown that some people in China living near bat caves have antibodies against bat SARS-like coronaviruses in their blood, "suggesting that people are exposed to related viruses in the course of their daily lives, so it's not implausible that SARS-CoV-2 emerged in humans through a chance encounter between a human and a wild bat or some other animal."

Doubts about ever pinpointing origin

Perlman said scientists may never be able to track down the origins of the virus or its intermediary host. "I think it's really an important issue, figuring out where the virus comes from, but it's just a hard business finding it," he said.

It's human nature, he said, to want to blame someone for a natural but catastrophic event like the pandemic. "Something bad happens, and someone has to be responsible for it," he said.

Even so, Perlman decried the use of unproven origin theories to push agendas. "I think it's been used way too much as a political issue," he said. "This politicization of this is very unfortunate."

But Andersen said he thinks theories do deserve exploration, even if to ultimately refute them. "It's important that we don't dismiss them out of hand," he said. "We need to look at the data and say 'what does the data tell us?' And the data in this case are very strong."
-This story was updated an hour after it was posted on May 12 to add quotes from Angela Rasmussen, PhD. -On May 13 information was added to clarify the relative distance of the BSL-4 lab to the live-animal market in Wuhan.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scientists: 'Exactly zero' evidence COVID-19 came from a lab

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, the Internet has been teeming with provocative conspiracy theories that the novel coronavirus was (1) created in a Wuhan, China, lab and deployed as a bioweapon or (2) derived from bats, grown on tissue culture, intentionally or accidentally transmitted to a researcher, and released into the community.