The short case for a lab origin

SARS-CoV-2 is an unusual SARS coronavirus and the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak emerged without a trace in animals, traces we’d expect if this was natural spillover. All the ways SARS-CoV-2 and its outbreak are unusual are easily explained by a lab leak using well-documented evidence of the specific coronavirus research in Wuhan labs.

SARS-CoV-2 emerged in Wuhan. Wuhan’s population of 10 million people accounts for less than 1% of the over 1 billion people who live near wildlife SARS coronaviruses or SE Asian animal trade networks, yet it is the city with one of the largest coronavirus research labs conducting gain of function work on SARS coronaviruses. SARS-CoV-2 emerged with several features of its genome that have either never been seen in 1,000 years of SARS coronavirus evolution (a furin cleavage site) or which are extremely unlikely in wild coronaviruses but exactly what to expect for a lab-made infectious clone (the restriction map of an infectious clone).

In all the ways SARS-CoV-2 is unusual among wild coronaviruses, it is consistent with a research product we would expect from grants & research activities at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. WIV scientists proposed in the 2018 DEFUSE grant to insert a furin cleavage site inside a SARS-CoV infectious clone. DEFUSE wasn’t funded, but the proposed research was inexpensive and many other, similar grants by the WIV were funded - the researchers had means to conduct the work they proposed in DEFUSE. A little over a year after DEFUSE was submitted, SARS-CoV-2 emerged in Wuhan, a population with <1% chance of SARS CoV emergence, containing a 1-in-1000 year furin cleavage site insertion and the restriction map of an infectious clone.

Research claiming the outbreak started in an animal market is flawed by neglecting biases in case ascertainment, and omitting cases and viral sequences preceding the wet market with no wet market connection. Animal traders at the market were slightly less likely to have their stalls test positive compared to vegetable traders. Researchers have looked for reservoirs and found none. While H5N1 has caused a massive outbreak in birds with cases all around the world, and while SARS-CoV-1 caused a widespread outbreak across Guangdong province with multiple spillover events, SARS-CoV-2 emerged in a singular outbreak in Wuhan, leaving no trace of infected animals, animal traders, or animal trade networks.

In the fall of 2019, long before the Chinese government reported an outbreak to the WHO, there were many epidemiological anomalies in Wuhan. The Wuhan Institute of Virology took its database of coronaviruses offline. China began hoarding personal protective equipment. The Wuhan Institute of Virology was shut-down, 3 CoV workers in Wuhan sought hospital care with symptoms consistent with COVID-19 and other seasonal respiratory illnesses, yet the leading CoV researcher at the WIV claimed nobody was sick and nothing unusual happened in their labs in autumn 2019. Two coronavirus researchers - Huang Yanling and Zhou Yusen - are mysteriously missing or dead.

To recap, SARS-CoV-2 is highly unusual among wild coronaviruses. Every way in which SARS-CoV-2 is unusual was detailed in a 2018 research proposal for bioengineering work at the WIV. The proposed research was cheap & the researchers had the means to fund it. Of all the places in SE Asia, SARS-CoV-2 emerged walking distance from the labs that proposed this work. We have found no infected animals, animal traders, or animal trade networks. There were many epidemiological anomalies surrounding coronavirus researchers & labs prior to the first cases reported to the WHO. Coronavirus researchers in Wuhan have been untruthful and others are dead or missing. That is the evidence.

One can reasonably combine available evidence to assess SARS-CoV-2 most likely emerged in Wuhan as a result of gain-of-function research activities as proposed 1 year earlier. The 2018 grant provides diagnostic information on the location of emergence and the most unusual features of the SARS-CoV-2 genome. A lab origin would explain the lack of infected animals, animal traders, and animal trade networks. A lab origin would explain the epidemiological anomalies surrounding coronavirus researchers & labs in the fall of 2019, the unshared database, the untruthfulness of researchers, and the mystery of missing coronavirus researchers in China.

It is much more difficult for a zoonotic origin to explain the entirety of the geographic, genomic, and epidemiological features of SARS-CoV-2, its emergence, the Chinese government, and the behavior of labs studying SARS-CoVs in Wuhan.

That’s the short case for a lab origin. For the longer version, see here.