This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcut WP:NOLABLEAK

In regards to a possible laboratory accident or " lab leak" of SARS-CoV-2 from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, top quality medical sources describe a lab leak as "highly unlikely", "extremely unlikely", "massive online speculations", "speculations, rumours, and conspiracy theories", "not evidence-based", and "opinion-based narratives".

Top quality, WP:MEDRS sources

Lab leak?

In light of social media speculation about possible laboratory manipulation and deliberate and/or accidental release of SARS-CoV-2, Andersen et al. theorize about the virus' probable origins, emphasizing that the available data argue overwhelmingly against any scientific misconduct or negligence (Andersen et al., 2020)

Immunity, May 19, 2020 ^[1]

In their commentary they wrote "there are speculations, rumours and conspiracy theories that SARS-CoV-2 is of laboratory origin" and that "some people have alleged that the human SARS-CoV-2 was leaked directly from a laboratory in Wuhan where a bat CoV (RaTG13) was recently reported". However, authors have not cited any authenticated source or literature that has claimed the "laboratory engineering".

Le infezioni in medicina (Italian), September 1, 2020 ^[2]

Another unconfirmed hypothesis that has received mixed response is the possibility of the virus originating in Wuhan's Centre of Disease Control and Prevention, located just 300 yards away from Wuhan's animal market or the Wuhan Institute of Virology located eight miles away from the animal market. Conspiracy theories about a possible accidental leak from either of these laboratories known to be experimenting with bats and bat CoVs that has shown some structural similarity to human SARS-CoV-2 has been suggested, but largely dismissed by most authorities.

Postgraduate Medical Journal, February 1, 2021 ^[3]

Our initial findings suggest that the introduction through an intermediary host species is the most likely pathway and one that will require more studies and more specific targeted research.

Similarly and connected to this hypothesis is also the one including the possibility of transmission through the trade of frozen cold-chain products.

There we are making the difference between the introduction of the virus into the human population and the possibility of the circulation of the virus through long-distance and through different settings or the introduction of the virus into a particular setting like a market for example.

Then the hypothesis of a direct spill-over from an original animal source into the human population is also a possible pathway and is also generating recommendation for future studies.

However, the findings suggest that the laboratory incident hypothesis is extremely unlikely to explain introduction of the virus into the human population and therefore is not a hypothesis that will imply to suggest future studies into our work to support our future work into the understanding of the origin of the virus.

World Health Organization, February 9, 2021 ^[4]

Despite these massive online speculations, scientific evidence does not support this accusation of laboratory release theory. Yet, it is difficult and time‐consuming to rule out the laboratories as the original source completely. It is highly unlikely that SARS‐CoV‐2 was accidentally released from a laboratory since no direct ancestral virus is identified in the current database. The complete genome of SARS‐CoV‐2 is deposited in the public database shortly after the outbreaks based on advanced next generation sequencing technologies. There is also no record of laboratory accidents at the WIV, and the former SARS‐CoV accident did not occur at the WIV. Additionally, a recent study further supported the natural origin of SARS‐CoV‐2 from viruses found in Rhinolophus sp. However, an independent forensic investigation is probably the only course of action to prove or disprove this speculation.

Reviews in Medical Virology, February 14, 2021 ^[5]

Another hypothesis is the accidental infection of laboratory staff working on naturally occurring Sarbecoviruses. Accidents happen and have already been reported during the SARS epidemic in Taiwan, Singapore and China (Webster, 2004; WHO, 2004). This is not limited to SARS-CoV (Heymann et al., 2004). When it happened in Beijing in 2004, the information was immediately released and an investigation involving both WHO and Chinese governmental agencies was conducted, patients were identified and treated (WHO, 2004). There is today no evidence that such an accident had happened with SARS-CoV-2. Because of the incubation period of COVID-19, the weak symptoms, the significant rate of asymptomatic patients and the low virulence (with an estimated fatality rate of 3.26%, but more likely around 1% to 2% which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV with 9.6%), an accident could have easily remained unnoticed. But staff members of the Wuhan Institute of Virology have all been tested negative indicating that no accident occurred there (Cohen, 2020). One must remember that SARS-CoV-2 was never found in the wild and that RaTG13 does not exist as real virus but instead only as a sequence in a computer (Zhou et al., 2020a; Ge et al., 2016). It is a virtual virus which thus cannot leak from a laboratory. This hypothesis has been considered as "extremely unlikely" by the official WHO investigation team (Dyer, 2021). Therefore, although a laboratory accident can never be definitively excluded, there is currently no evidence to support it.

Infection, Genetics and Evolution, March 18, 2021 ^[6]

As for the vast majority of human viruses, the most parsimonious explanation for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonotic event. The documented epidemiological history of the virus is comparable to previous animal market-associated outbreaks of coronaviruses with a simple route for human exposure. The contact tracing of SARS-CoV-2 to markets in Wuhan exhibits striking similarities to the early spread of SARS-CoV to markets in Guangdong, where humans infected early in the epidemic lived near or worked in animal markets. Zoonotic spillover by definition selects for viruses able to infect humans. Although strong safeguards should be consistently employed to minimize the likelihood of laboratory accidents in virological research, those laboratory escapes documented to date have almost exclusively involved viruses brought into laboratories specifically because of their known human infectivity.
There is currently no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has a laboratory origin. There is no evidence that any early cases had any connection to the WIV, in contrast to the clear epidemiological links to animal markets in Wuhan, nor evidence that the WIV possessed or worked on a progenitor of SARS-CoV-2 prior to the pandemic. The suspicion that SARS-CoV-2 might have a laboratory origin stems from the coincidence that it was first detected in a city that houses a major virological laboratory that studies coronaviruses. Wuhan is the largest city in central China with multiple animal markets and is a major hub for travel and commerce, well connected to other areas both within China and internationally. The link to Wuhan therefore more likely reflects the fact that pathogens often require heavily populated areas to become established (Pekar et al., 2021).

Cell, 16 September 2021 ^[7]

"One specific narrative states that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) team led by Dr. Shi Zheng Li visited the Mojiang mine in 2012 following an accident involving six miners and that they collected SARS-CoV-2 from this mine. Rahalkar and Bahulikar, and followers, make a clear link between the Mojiang mine incident, WIV and SARS-CoV-2. Here, we show, based on the clinical reports, that the Mojiang miners did not developed(sic) COVID-19 or even SARS and were not infected by SARS-CoV-2. We thus dismiss the Mojiang mine as the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Dismissing the Mojiang mine theory leaves the laboratory leak narrative without any scientific support thus making it simply an opinion-based narrative."
"RaTG13 is not a virus but only a sequence generated by metagenomics (Ge et al., 2016; Zhou et al., 2020b). Therefore, there is no evidence that this sequence corresponds to any real and viable virus or even that all reads are coming from the same virus. ... It has no physical existence and thus cannot leak from a laboratory. Furthermore, considering the very high number of mutations separating RaTG13 from SARS-CoV-2 and their phylogenetic distance, RaTG13 can hardly be considered a progenitor of SARS-CoV-2 even if it corresponded to a real virus. The suggested engineering of SARS-CoV-2 for gain of function through in vitro synthesis from the RaTG13 sequence is a narrative making no sense from an operational standpoint. Engineering a complete virus is beyond current technical possibilities."
"... furin activation sites are naturally occurring in different viruses, including coronaviruses, and thus cannot be a proof of genetic engineering (Frutos et al., 2021)." "WIV has conducted gain-of-function experiments but it was in the framework of an official and publicly available NIH grant ... All spike proteins tested were genetically distant from those of SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13. The swapping of spike proteins only led to slight variations. ... This work showed that the consequences of gain-of-function experiments on SARS-CoV-2-like viruses were extremely limited and certainly not to the magnitude of an epidemic as imagined by tenants of a laboratory accident."
"As a conclusion, there is no evidence to support the Mojiang mine origin of SARS-CoV-2 and any of the laboratory leak theories. ... These narratives are not evidence-based scientific conclusions. ... In a time of geopolitical conflicts characterized by hidden agendas, false information and manipulations, it is essential to rely only on scientific and evidence-based conclusions and to avoid opinion-based narratives."

Environmental Research, 2 October 2021 ^[8]

Zoonotic origin?

"The suspected animal-to-human jumping of 4 betacoronaviruses including the human coronaviruses OC43(1890), SARS-CoV-1(2003), MERS-CoV(2012), and SARS-CoV-2(2019) indicates their significant pandemic potential. The presence of a large reservoir of coronaviruses in bats and other wild mammals, culture of mixing and selling them in urban markets with suboptimal hygiene, habit of eating exotic mammals in highly populated areas, and the rapid and frequent air travels from these areas are perfect ingredients for brewing rapidly exploding epidemics." (abstract)
"The origin of SARS-CoV-2 is still unknown. Recombination is a frequent event for the viral subgenus Sarbecovirus, which contains SARS-CoV, bat SARS related CoV, and SARS-CoV-2. Some studies suggested that the bat SARS-CoV-2-like coronaviruses are recombinants of lineages related to SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2, and SARS-CoV-2 may result from recombinations between these bat SARS related coronavirus and the pangolin SARS related coronavirus [55, 56]. However, another study suggested that recombination may not be involved in the generation of SARS-CoV-2, but the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 shares the same ancestral trait as bat viruses. The divergence date between SARS-CoV-2 and bat sarbecovirus has been estimated to be 1948." (later in the article – no mention of labs or leaks or anything)

Emerging Microbes & Infections, March 2021. ^[9]

Since SARS-CoV-2 very likely has a zoonotic origin, it is important to identify the original animal reservoir to prevent future similar outbreaks. Therefore, during the last months, a significant number of different animal species were either sampled in the field or experimentally infected with SARS-CoV-2, in order to evaluate their susceptibility to infection and to assess their potential as animal reservoirs.

Advances in Virus Research, April 2021. ^[10]

"The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 has resulted in a health crisis not witnessed since the 1918–19 Spanish influenza pandemic. The most plausible origin of SARS-CoV-2 is natural selection of the virus in an animal host followed by zoonotic transfer."

The Lancet. Respiratory Medicine, May 2021. ^[11]

"There is a strong evidence that SARS‐CoV‐2 virus originated in bats; however, the intermediate animal host is still unknown. Several studies showed that pangolins, snakes, turtles, and mink are all possible intermediate hosts, however, further investigations are needed. It is worth mentioning that recent findings that analyse the probable animal reservoir to Covid‐19 suggest the snake as a reservoir, based on relative synonymous codon usage bias. 67 However, the missing link or intermediate link for animal to human transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2 from a recent study suggests the DNA and protein sequence of Malayan pangolins. 69"
"SARS‐CoV‐2 was first identified in Wuhan city in China in hospitalized patients who previously visited the Huanan wet seafood market where various animals including chickens, pigs, pangolins, bats, snakes, frogs, rabbits, and marmots are sold for human consumption, proposing a suitable environment for zoonotic infection spill‐over to humans. Scientists believe that these traditional Chinese practices might be responsible for the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic in humans and that the recurrent interactions between humans and animals without proper biosafety measures present a substantial risk for the occurrence of zoonotic diseases. Zoonotic CoVs have crossed the species barrier twice in the past 2 decades (SARS‐CoV; 2002 and MERS‐CoV; 2012). Thus, scientists have speculated that SARS‐CoV‐2 resulted from a zoonotic spillover event as well. Zoonotic CoVs need to propagate in their zoonotic reservoirs, and then, seek the chances to spillover via intermediate hosts into susceptible human targets, where they can maintain human‐to‐human transmission. Bats have been revealed as the natural hosts for several human CoVs, including HCoV‐NL63, HCoV‐229E, SARS‐CoV, and MERS‐CoV. Genome sequence analysis confirmed that SARS‐CoV‐2 is 96% identical to the bat CoV RaTG13 at the whole‐genomic level, and hence bats are believed to be the primary source of origin for the novel SARS‐CoV‐2. However, the intermediate host that is yet to be elucidated. Researchers proposed two hypotheses for the emergence of SARS‐CoV‐2: (1) Natural selection may have occurred in an animal host before transmission to mankind; and (2) natural selection of viruses may have occurred in humans after zoonotic transmission. In this regard, studies involving the use of animal models or cell culture are in need to help clarify these two scenarios."

Reviews in Medical Virology, November 2020. ^[12]

SARS-CoV-2 has a zoonotic origin, similar to the causative viruses of these previous outbreaks. The repetitive introduction of animal viruses into human populations resulting in disease outbreaks suggests that similar future epidemics are inevitable.

Experimental and Molecular Medicine, April 2021. ^[13]

The emergence of a zoonotic pathogen in humans, such as SARS-CoV-2, was not unpredicted. Of the novel or re-emerging infectious diseases affecting humans in the 21st century, most (75%) have been zoonotic in origin, with their natural reservoirs being other vertebrates. The majority (over 70%) of these diseases with zoonotic origin have originated from wildlife, such as HIV/AIDS, the Ebola virus, and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Globally, known events of zoonotic disease emerging from wildlife have significantly increased over the past 80 years, raising public health, economic, societal and environmental concerns, as exemplified by the COVID-19 pandemic. The current weight of evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2, or its progenitor, probably emerged in humans from a zoonotic source in Wuhan, China, where it was first identified in 2019. Although evidence on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 are inconclusive, bats have been suggested to be the most probable evolutionary source for the virus.

The Lancet. Planetary Health, November 2021. ^[14]

References