The Great COVID Origin Debate: Science or a Circus?

The argument about the origins of COVID-19 has been anything but calm. What started as a scientific inquiry now feels more like a never-ending bar brawl, with punches thrown from every direction. Forget lab coats—maybe it’s time for boxing gloves.

Two camps have formed in this pandemic-origin saga. On one side, you’ve got the folks who say it all began at a live animal market in Wuhan, China. On the other hand, you’ve got the lab leak theorists claiming that SARS-CoV-2 (the nasty coronavirus behind COVID-19) escaped from a nearby lab studying similar viruses. Both stories seem plausible enough to keep the conspiracy theorists busy for years.

The Market Hypothesis: A Roaring Crowd

Supporters of the live market theory have been particularly loud in recent months, trying their best to shut down alternative explanations. In August, an anonymous editorial in a major medical journal took a swipe at the lab leak theory, dismissing it as the kind of stuff you’d find in a blockbuster movie script rather than a peer-reviewed study.

Meanwhile, another journal cried foul, saying scientists were being harassed for dismissing the lab leak theory. But with a masterclass in hypocrisy, the same article ridiculed a junior researcher supporting the lab-leak theory, calling her work “conjecture, correlation, and anecdote.” It’s like they threw a boomerang and didn’t expect it to come flying back at them.

But hey, at least we all agree on one thing: SARS-CoV-2 was definitely at the Wuhan market. Samples taken from market stalls and drains in early January 2020 showed traces of the virus. A recent analysis in Cell even suggested that the market strains could have been the ancestors of the virus that went global. Seems convincing, right?

Well, not so fast.

The Market Data: Flawed from the Start?

Before you get too comfortable with the “market theory solved everything” narrative, consider this: all those market samples were collected weeks after the outbreak began. And—wait for it—none of those samples came from live animals. By the time the market was closed, the animals were gone, and nobody had thought to test them before they were whisked away. Seems like a bit of an oversight, don’t you think?

For this reason alone, most experts, including yours truly, consider these findings as suggestive at best, but far from a slam dunk.

And let’s be honest, it’s not exactly groundbreaking to say the virus was in the market. The real question is: how did it get there in the first place?

The Bat Connection: A Missing Link

No one in their right mind believes the virus originated in Wuhan itself. The natural hosts of SARS-like coronaviruses are bats—horseshoe bats, to be precise. But here’s the kicker: there are no bat colonies carrying SARS-CoV-2-like viruses anywhere within 1,500 kilometres of Wuhan.

So, if the virus did enter the market, it had to come from somewhere else. Yet, despite extensive searches along the supply chains of animals sold in Wuhan, not a trace of SARS-CoV-2 has been found.

This leaves open the rather intriguing possibility: Could a person, rather than an animal, have brought the virus into the market?

The Human Factor: Not Out of the Question

It’s entirely possible that humans were the culprits here. Many of the earliest cases of COVID-19 weren’t linked to the market at all. In fact, some of the viruses close to the base of the SARS-CoV-2 family tree were from people with no known connection to the market. A cluster of cases even came from Guangdong Province, hundreds of miles from Wuhan.

Given all this, the market hypothesis starts to feel a bit like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. If the pandemic had started in one of the hundreds (or thousands—seriously, no one seems to know the exact number) of other Chinese cities with similar markets, then maybe the theory would hold more water.

Remember the original SARS outbreak in 2002? That kicked off in a market selling civet cats and other exotic creatures in Guangdong. So why didn't COVID follow the same script? Instead, it all began right next to China’s leading coronavirus research lab, the Wuhan Institute of Virology. That’s an eyebrow-raising coincidence if ever there was one.

The Lab Leak Theory: A Coincidence Too Big to Ignore?

The lab leak theory has been branded a “conspiracy theory” by some, but dismissing it outright feels a bit premature, especially given the proximity of the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) to the outbreak. It’s less than 20 kilometres from the market. The coincidence is extraordinary, and unless there’s rock-solid evidence to prove otherwise, it’s tough to ignore.

Now, there’s no hard evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was ever present in the WIV itself—at least none that the Chinese authorities have been kind enough to share. But the institute was certainly working on closely related viruses, and its scientists were out there hunting coronaviruses in places like Guangdong. Just a five-minute walk from the market sits the Wuhan Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, where researchers were also out exploring potential sources of new pathogens. The dots are close enough to connect without needing too much imagination.

Lab Leak? Dismissed Too Early

From as early as March 2020, the idea that a lab could have been involved was being written off as a mere conspiracy theory, and that was with hardly any evidence to back up such a dismissal. Fast forward two years, and one of the most vocal supporters of the market theory proclaimed that their research "laid to rest" the lab-leak theory. Another scientist behind the latest Cell study called alternative explanations “fanciful” and “absurd.”

But who exactly is this bombastic rhetoric aimed at? It’s certainly not the scientists, who can read the research papers for themselves and make up their own minds. Politicians? Probably not, especially those who’ve already taken ideological stances on the issue—looking at you, U.S. Congress. And definitely not the intelligence agencies, which many hope will be the ones to finally piece together the truth.

So, Where Does That Leave Us?

After 25 years of studying the origins of human viruses, even I can't say for sure how the COVID-19 pandemic began. The only thing I do know is that it’s vital we keep debating this question. Silencing one side or dismissing alternate explanations as "fanciful" doesn’t get us any closer to the truth. Instead, it feels like we're stuck in the middle of a very loud, very messy argument that no one seems ready to settle.

Until we get concrete evidence—whether it’s from a lab or a market—the question of COVID’s origins will remain unanswered. But one thing's for sure: brushing aside valid hypotheses only clouds the debate. If we want to prevent future pandemics, we need to be open to all possibilities, no matter how uncomfortable or inconvenient they may seem.