According to a recent report from the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. Department of Energy has concluded, albeit with “low confidence,” that SARS-CoV-2 most likely arose from a lab incident. The FBI has come to a similar determination.

While some other government branches and intelligence agencies disagree and lean toward the natural origin hypothesis, all now seem to regard the “lab leak theory” as plausible and deserving of further investigation.

‘If you follow the trail of how the lab leak theory was squashed by some very vocal individuals, you will see that it was done with many conflicts of interest.’

Even if it turns out that the virus did not originate in a Wuhan research lab, the fact that this is now regarded as an entirely possible scenario is bewildering to me. For a long time, I was under the impression that the lab leak theory had been debunked and discredited

I’m sure this reveals something about the types of news media I consume (and the types I don’t). But however I acquired it, my views were twofold:

• The virus almost certainly originated from some animal-to-human contact, probably in a Wuhan wet market; and
• The lab leak theory was not supported by solid evidence and was likely fueled by anti-China xenophobia.

I’ve gone back and tried to dig through some of the earliest reports on the virus’s origins to figure out how I got these ideas.

Very early on — all the way back in February of 2020 — a group of mostly American scientists published a letter in The Lancet that condemned “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.” A month later, another group wrote in Nature Medicine that, based on genomic data, the lab leak theory was highly implausible.

I’m certain those arguments carried a lot of weight for me. At this point, those appear to have been, at best, flawed and over-confident.

‘Many scientists feel that lab leak theory should be taken seriously and investigated rigorously. However, there is a toxic mob of people on social media who will attack anyone stating this.’

I’m guessing a lot of other people feel the way I do — angry, bewildered, maybe a bit betrayed. But unlike a lot of people, I have ready access to virologists and infectious disease experts with the know-how to assess the available evidence and come to informed conclusions about the virus’s origins. I wanted to know what they thought about all this.

However, knowing how politically charged this topic has become, I thought it would be helpful to offer my sources anonymity in exchange for their frank opinions. I was a little apprehensive about this; it’s not something I’ve done in the past. But I wanted people to feel at ease opening up, and, in the event, several expressed a willingness to participate only because I was offering them the opportunity to do so without their name attached.

In total, I contacted 19 scientists, all of them affiliated with major universities, major research institutions, and/or U.S. Government agencies involved in public health and the pandemic response. Eleven of them got back to me. Most of them were people I’d spoken with before, but several were not. Some were based in the U.S., but a few were overseas. I asked each of them the same five questions. I received email replies from some and spoke with others on the phone. Some merely answered my questions, while others offered a more thorough airing of their opinions.

Here’s what they had to say.

• Note: I use “off the record” in the headline of this piece, but that’s not actually the correct journalistic term. These interviews were all on the record but “not for attribution,” meaning my sources understood I would print what they told me but would not reveal their identities.
• Second note: I have no particular expertise in virology, and I’m not up to speed on all that has been speculated or discussed about the origins of SARS-CoV-2. My goal here was not to cross-examine and fact-check my sources’ statements. I sought only to collect their opinions and present them to you in the hope that they might be insightful and clarifying.

Responses to Question #1: At this point in time, with the evidence we have to date, do you think it’s more likely that the virus originated in a lab or outside of one?

Most of the people I connected with answered this question in a straightforward way.

• I think the evidence, and historical experience, favor the natural origin, but it’s still an open question. I’m open minded on the lab hypothesis.

• I think it’s more likely not lab-associated, but at about 75–25 balance of probabilities.

• I think it more likely that the virus began in bats and infected humans either directly or indirectly.

• I believe this is classical zoonosis, as we have seen similar types in the past, such as SARS-CoV-