What is the source of COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2)? | Rootclaim
- Source: What is the source of COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2)? | RootclaimArchived: July 16, 2026
- Contagion and mortality
- Outbreak location: Wuhan
- Virus sources near Wuhan
- Chimera
- Furin cleavage
- Already well adapted
- WIV lab procedures
- Infections at WIV
- WIV disassociation
- Chinese response
- Missing evidence
Source: What is the source of COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2)? | Rootclaim
Archived: July 16, 2026
Contagion and mortality
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
Zoonotic
91%
Lab escape
0.8%
Bioweapon
÷10
1.8%
Zoonotic collection
7%
COVID-19 is more contagious than the typical flu, but not as fatal as recent viruses like MERS or SARS. Overall, it is not particularly well-suited as a traditional bioweapon, and COVID-19 broke out during a relatively peaceful time. This indicates that, if it was used as a bioweapon, it would probably not be released as a method of killing people but for a different purpose such as disrupting the world economy.
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
Zoonotic
91%
Lab escape
0.8%
Bioweapon
÷10
1.8%
Zoonotic collection
7%
Outbreak location: Wuhan
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
Zoonotic
÷20
51%
Lab escape
9%
Bioweapon
÷15
1.4%
Zoonotic collection
÷2
38%
The COVID-19 outbreak was first recorded in Wuhan, one of the larger cities in China. Large cities are often the initial breakout sites of zoonotic pandemics, but in that sense Wuhan is no more likely than any other city. It also isn’t a particularly desirable target for releasing a bioweapon.
However,
Wuhan stands out for housing the Wuhan Institute of Virology, one of only a few labs engaged in
gain-of-function
research.
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
Zoonotic
÷20
51%
Lab escape
9%
Bioweapon
÷15
1.4%
Zoonotic collection
÷2
38%
Virus sources near Wuhan
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
Zoonotic
68%
Lab escape
÷2
6%
Bioweapon
÷2
0.9%
Zoonotic collection
÷2
25%
There are no obvious natural sources for COVID-19 in the Wuhan area (Hubei province). The most similar coronavirus is found among bats that don’t live nearby, and scientists have not been able to pinpoint the exact point where SARS-CoV-2 transferred to humans. On the other hand,
the initial cluster of cases in the Wuhan wet market is significantly more likely if the virus originated
zoonotically
.
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
Zoonotic
68%
Lab escape
÷2
6%
Bioweapon
÷2
0.9%
Zoonotic collection
÷2
25%
Chimera
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
Zoonotic
÷8
46%
Lab escape
32%
Bioweapon
4.9%
Zoonotic collection
÷8
17%
SARS-CoV-2 has parts in common with two different viruses, but those individual viruses do not share these similarities with each other, indicating it is a
chimera
. Such chimeras are found both in nature and in labs that conduct
gain-of-function
research. However, this specific
chimera
seems less likely to combine in nature, while the
WIV
WIV
The WIV is the Wuhan Institute of Virology, China’s first Biosafety Level 4 lab. It has been at the forefront of international research into coronaviruses, led by Dr. Shi Zhengli.
is known to have access to both viruses.
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
Zoonotic
÷8
46%
Lab escape
32%
Bioweapon
4.9%
Zoonotic collection
÷8
17%
Furin cleavage
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
Zoonotic
÷8
13%
Lab escape
72%
Bioweapon
11%
Zoonotic collection
÷8
4.7%
SARS-CoV-2 has a
furin cleavage site
- an amino acid sequence that causes the protease furin to cut the virus in a way that facilitates its entry into cells. This feature is missing in related coronaviruses, and its placement in the genetic code looks like an insertion rather than a mutation, making it less likely to develop in nature.
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
Zoonotic
÷8
13%
Lab escape
72%
Bioweapon
11%
Zoonotic collection
÷8
4.7%
Already well adapted
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
Zoonotic
7%
Lab escape
×2
79%
Bioweapon
×2
12%
Zoonotic collection
2.6%
It appears that there was one index case of COVID-19, rather than multiple jumps from nature to humans, as was the case in many other pandemics. Additionally, SARS-CoV-2 was already well adapted for human infection from the first known cases.
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
Zoonotic
7%
Lab escape
×2
79%
Bioweapon
×2
12%
Zoonotic collection
2.6%
WIV lab procedures
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
Zoonotic
3.8%
Lab escape
×2
87%
Bioweapon
7%
Zoonotic collection
×2
2.8%
There is some evidence regarding lax security and procedures at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, including other coronaviruses that seem to have escaped the confines of the lab.
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
Zoonotic
3.8%
Lab escape
×2
87%
Bioweapon
7%
Zoonotic collection
×2
2.8%
Infections at WIV
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
Zoonotic
×1
3.8%
Lab escape
×1
87%
Bioweapon
×1
7%
Zoonotic collection
×1
2.8%
A U.S. intelligence report showed that three researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology sought hospital care in November 2019, though the exact illness is not known. However,
the
WIV
reported no COVID-19 infections or serological evidence of previous COVID-19 infections among their researchers.
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
Zoonotic
×1
3.8%
Lab escape
×1
87%
Bioweapon
×1
7%
Zoonotic collection
×1
2.8%
WIV disassociation
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
Zoonotic
2%
Lab escape
×2
92%
Bioweapon
3.5%
Zoonotic collection
×1.5
2.3%
The
WIV
explicitly stated that they were not working on SARS-CoV-2 prior to the outbreak.
However, on December 30, when Dr. Shi Zheng-Li was informed of the COVID-19 outbreak, changes were made to her bat virus database, making it look like she was trying to dissociate her lab’s research from the COVID-19 outbreak.
Then, in January 2020,
WIV
researchers published a paper claiming to have found a previously unknown coronavirus named RaTG13 that was a 96% match with SARS-CoV-2.
But RaTG13 is a new name given to BtCoV/4991, a coronavirus that the
WIV
WIV
The WIV is the Wuhan Institute of Virology, China’s first Biosafety Level 4 lab. It has been at the forefront of international research into coronaviruses, led by Dr. Shi Zhengli.
discovered (along with many other viruses) when they examined a bat cave after six miners contracted a pneumonia-like disease and three died.
This, and other anomalies surrounding
WIV
’s handling of RaTG13, are indicative of attempts to minimize
WIV
involvement.
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
Zoonotic
2%
Lab escape
×2
92%
Bioweapon
3.5%
Zoonotic collection
×1.5
2.3%
Chinese response
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
Zoonotic
1.4%
Lab escape
×1.5
94%
Bioweapon
2.4%
Zoonotic collection
×1.5
2.3%
The official Chinese response was not transparent, though not particularly surprising even if the virus developed
zoonotically
. They restricted WHO access, destroyed samples, and withheld information, which might be construed as an attempt to hide evidence that could be used to blame China for COVID-19. Additionally, they sent Major General Chen Wei from the Academy of Military Medical Sciences to oversee COVID-19 efforts at the
WIV
, which could potentially indicate the involvement of a bioweapon, but it is probably immaterial.
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
Zoonotic
1.4%
Lab escape
×1.5
94%
Bioweapon
2.4%
Zoonotic collection
×1.5
2.3%
Missing evidence
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
Zoonotic
3.2%
Lab escape
÷2.4
89%
Bioweapon
÷1.2
4.5%
Zoonotic collection
÷1.7
3.2%
If the COVID-19 pandemic was the result of a virus developed in a lab - and got out either as the result of an accident or released on purpose as a bioweapon - there are certain pieces of evidence that could have emerged by now, but so far did not.
-
No whistleblowers have given first hand testimony or exposed evidence of any link between COVID-19 and a lab, even though some doctors and researchers have spoken out about other incidents where they believed that China mishandled information regarding COVID-19.
-
There were no published records of SARS-CoV-2 in virus databases or research grants.
-
Wuhan was not immediately cordoned off when the first cases appeared.
Name
Effect
Updated Likelihoods
Zoonotic
3.2%
Lab escape
÷2.4
89%
Bioweapon
÷1.2
4.5%
Zoonotic collection
÷1.7
3.2%
Write a comment