Critical Examination of the Arguments for a Lab Origin of SARS-CoV-2

Thoughts on the Feasibility of the Lab Leak Hypothesis

As the topic of lab leak continues to come up, here are my thoughts:

1. Lack of Evidence for the Spread of Artificially Created Viruses

   Is there any solid evidence that lab created viruses, particularly those produced through Gain-of-Function (GoF) research, can spread naturally? So far, no scientifically controlled animal experiments have convincingly demonstrated this.

2. Questionable Significance of DARPA Research Proposals

   The research proposals attributed to DARPA could have been deliberately placed and do not necessarily have a direct connection to SARS-CoV-2. These proposals provide no conclusive evidence regarding the origin of the virus and can just as easily be viewed as speculative conjecture.

3. Genetic Evidence is Not Sufficiently Robust

   1. Insufficient Sequence Validation:

      The virus and its sequence have never been fully validated. Neither the CDC, RKI, nor China CDC have sequenced the virus in true isolation (i.e., without other genetic material). Notably, the genome’s terminal sequences were never conclusively verified. The clinical relevance of the sequence is unknown.

   2. Furin Cleavage Site:

      The furin cleavage site, often cited as evidence of manipulation, can also be found in human genetic material. Its short length further limits its reliability as evidence.

   3. HIV Insertion Hypothesis:

      The theory that SARS-CoV-2 contains so-called HIV inserts has been debunked. These sequences are too short, may be coincidental, are incomplete, and are not supported by further studies. The original paper making this claim was retracted.

4. Questioning the Novelty of SARS-CoV-2

   1. The claim that the virus is novel is difficult to prove, as previous research did not use the same methods. Neither the primers nor the test volume used previously were designed to detect it.

   2. There is evidence that antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 reacted years before the official outbreak, and there may be SARS-CoV-2 sequences from as early as March 2019. These observations cast doubt on the assertion that SARS-CoV-2 is genuinely novel.

5. Causality Remains Unproven

   1. Causality cannot be scientifically established based on a single patient from whom the virus was sequenced. Estimates suggest that 60–80% of suspected causes of lung diseases generally remain unknown. How, then, can causality be proven solely based on the sequence from one patient?

   2. Additionally, the PCR test used as evidence is based on this sequence and was applied to sick individuals, with its results being treated as proof of causality. However, it is often overlooked that the test is not clinically validated, meaning its ability to predict the clinical etiology has not been established.

   → Under these circumstances, no reliable causality can be inferred.

Conclusion

While a lab leak remains unproven and may never be definitively confirmed, a far more pressing issue is the need for critical scrutiny of virology as a discipline and its methodologies. It is important to consider that findings based on sequencing and PCR may, in some cases, reflect methodological artifacts rather than biological reality.

Note

I want to clarify that I have no conflicts of interest. I have no relationship, contact, or financial connection with the individuals associated with the lab leak theory or any government agencies. These are solely my personal, well-informed thoughts, and any suggestions to the contrary are unfounded.

More Resources

Here’s a poster with an English and German Version of this article.

Sources