Millions died—but why? Five years later, COVID’s origins remain in dispute
Conflicting studies, intelligence reports, and political battles keep the pandemic’s biggest question unanswered
On January 20 of this year, the day he left the White House for the last time to make way for President-elect Donald Trump, outgoing President Joe Biden granted a surprising pardon to Dr. Anthony Fauci—the most prominent figure in the American fight against the coronavirus pandemic. Fauci, who led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984, was not only a scientist but also a symbol, and at times, a target in the politically charged debate over the origins of the pandemic and the measures taken to combat it. The pardon was intended to protect him from potential prosecution by the incoming Trump administration.
The new president wasted no time in making his own controversial move. Immediately after taking office, Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO), claiming it had "failed to manage the coronavirus crisis."
These two decisions—made during the transition of power—were not coincidental but reflected the ongoing and deeply contentious debate over the pandemic, even five years after its outbreak. The question of how to handle COVID-19 remains divisive, largely because the mystery of the virus’s origin remains unresolved. Was it transmitted naturally from animals to humans? Did it leak from a laboratory? Or was it even engineered? Conflicting studies, political interests, and geopolitical rivalries continue to fuel this debate, which has moved far beyond the realms of science and public health, deeply influencing global decision-making. It is no surprise that this controversy has shaped the policies of both Biden and Trump, often as a direct counter to each other.
The absence of a definitive scientific consensus on the virus’s origins—and the unwillingness of many to accept such a conclusion even if one were reached—demonstrates that COVID-19 is far from being a closed chapter in history. The debate surrounding its origins has evolved into a political battleground, a tool for shaping public opinion, and one of the most powerful forces eroding trust in governments, institutions, and science itself.
Millions died—but why?
According to official figures, COVID-19 has claimed at least 7 million lives. However, estimates suggest the true toll is more than twice that, making it one of the deadliest pandemics in modern history. Beyond the staggering human cost, the pandemic left an indelible economic and social impact. In Israel alone, its economic toll was estimated at 130 billion shekels, while in the United States, the damage reached $16 trillion—figures that highlight the unprecedented financial shock it caused. Given its massive consequences, one might expect a global consensus on the virus's origins, but the opposite has happened: the deeper the crisis, the more divided opinions have become.
The central question—where did the virus come from?—boils down to two main hypotheses. The first, widely accepted in the early days of the pandemic, suggests that the virus jumped from animals to humans through zoonotic spillover, possibly originating from a wet market in Wuhan, China, in late 2019. Similar spillovers have been linked to past pandemics such as Ebola and avian flu. The World Health Organization and most of the scientific community initially supported this theory.
However, over time, the lab-leak hypothesis gained increasing traction. This theory suggests that while the virus may have evolved naturally, it was accidentally released from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where researchers were studying SARS-like coronaviruses. The hypothesis has been echoed by U.S. intelligence agencies and has gained significant public support. A more extreme variation claims that the virus was intentionally created and released, though most scientists dismiss this scenario as biologically implausible and lacking any concrete evidence.
Despite the lack of definitive proof, public belief in the lab-leak theory has steadily grown. In June 2020, a poll found that 58% of Americans believed the virus likely originated in a Chinese lab. By June 2021, that number had risen to 59%, and by March 2023, a survey by The Economist/YouGov found that 66% of Americans—53% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans—believed the virus came from a lab. The trend is similar in other countries: A September 2024 YouGov survey found that 48% of Britons believed COVID-19 leaked from a lab, either accidentally or intentionally, compared to just 28% who supported the zoonotic spillover theory.
Conflicting studies, conflicting narratives
Five years after the pandemic began, studies continue to emerge that reinforce opposing narratives. Just six months ago, in September 2024, a comprehensive study by 23 international research institutes—including institutions from France, Belgium, the U.S., Canada, Australia, the U.K., the Netherlands, and Portugal—concluded that "the initial outbreak of the pandemic was epidemiologically traced to the wholesale seafood market in Wuhan." The study reinforced the natural spillover hypothesis, aligning with the WHO’s longstanding position that there is no credible evidence supporting the lab-leak theory.
Yet just three months later, in December 2024, a report commissioned by the Biden administration reached a starkly different conclusion. Presented to a congressional subcommittee on the pandemic, the report claimed that the virus that causes COVID-19 likely emerged as a result of a laboratory accident or research. The report cited key findings: The Wuhan Institute of Virology was conducting experiments on SARS viruses, including genetic modifications under low-security conditions; no infected animals linked to the Wuhan market had been identified; and some Wuhan lab researchers reportedly developed COVID-like symptoms in late 2019, before the outbreak was officially recognized. The report also highlighted the presence of a furin cleavage site—a rare mutation in the virus’s spike protein that has not been found in related coronaviruses but was documented as part of U.S.-funded research at the Wuhan lab.
However, the report was based in part on U.S. intelligence assessments, which expressed only "low confidence" in the lab-leak theory. In January, a statement from the CIA noted that a "research-related origin" of the pandemic "is more likely than a natural origin based on the available body of reporting". The findings have only deepened divisions between scientists, politicians, and intelligence agencies.
While the search for definitive answers continues, one thing is clear: The debate over COVID-19’s origins is no longer just a scientific question. It has become a defining issue in global politics, shaping policy decisions, public trust, and international relations in ways that will likely persist for years to come.
“The truth is, there is no data supporting the lab leak theory”
Professor Susan Weiss firmly rejects the conclusions suggesting that COVID-19 originated from a laboratory. “There is no evidence that the virus came from a lab—zero—other than speculation or circumstantial reasoning,” she states unequivocally. “There is a tendency to present the debate as if both sides carry equal weight, but the reality is that no data supports the lab leak scenario.”
Weiss, a world-renowned expert on coronaviruses and director of the Penn Center for Emerging Pathogens at the University of Pennsylvania, has repeatedly found herself at the center of conspiracy theories about the origins of the pandemic. She argues that the gap between scientific knowledge and public perception has turned into a deep rift. One of the most prominent examples of this is the controversy over the furin cleavage site, a feature of the virus that has become a focal point for proponents of the lab leak theory. A report presented to Congress even cited it as supposed evidence.
“We knew back in the 1980s that some coronaviruses have furin cleavage sites, while others do not, and yet even those that lack them still cause disease,” Weiss explains. “In 2020, people suddenly started saying, ‘Oh my God, this furin site was taken from HIV or the flu!’” She sighs. “But we knew about furin sites in coronaviruses long before AIDS was even discovered. This historical comparison doesn’t hold water. And it’s so frustrating.”
For Weiss, this is a perfect example of how disinformation on social media distorts reality and rewrites scientific history. But beyond her personal frustration, she identifies a broader issue: the disconnect between scientific findings and how the public and politicians interpret them. “No senior scientists in the field claim that the virus was genetically engineered or that a lab leak is the most likely scenario,” she emphasizes. According to her, those pushing this theory are not experts but individuals without scientific training, whose influence far outweighs the actual evidence behind their claims.
It’s a sentiment echoed by Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization, who stated at the onset of the pandemic: “We’re not just fighting a pandemic; we’re fighting an infodemic. Fake news spreads faster and more easily than this virus.”
The unintended impact of the congressional report
The congressional report on COVID-19’s origins, rather than quelling conspiracy theories, had the opposite effect. It was intended to foster transparency and counter misinformation, but instead, it fueled even wilder theories. False claims proliferated, including assertions that the virus was a biological weapon, a government plot to control populations, spread through antennas, or even a hoax entirely. Others falsely alleged that vaccines contained tracking chips or that drinking bleach could cure the disease.
Ironically, the fact that the intelligence agencies’ reports remained classified only strengthened the suspicions of conspiracy theorists, who saw it as evidence of a deliberate cover-up. An Associated Press analysis found that within 48 hours of the report’s release, online mentions of COVID-19 conspiracy theories surged by 100,000%.
Scientific facts versus public perception
Weiss has become a central target for those who believe governments worldwide are engaged in a cover-up. Her “crime” in the eyes of conspiracy theorists? Co-authoring a 2020 scientific paper that stated there was no evidence the virus was engineered in a lab. When private emails between her and another author were leaked, one quote was taken out of context: “It’s scary to think the virus was engineered in a lab.” That single sentence was turned into a viral headline, fueling new claims that scientists knew the truth but were hiding it from the public.
Despite facing attacks on social media and accusations of being complicit in a cover-up, Weiss stands by her conclusions. But she acknowledges that scientific facts alone are often not enough to change minds. She spends much of her time dismantling misinformation—from misinterpretations of gain-of-function research, to claims about the Wuhan lab, to allegations of data destruction and the supposed illnesses of lab researchers in 2019. Yet she admits: “For some people, any attempt to refute a conspiracy theory only strengthens their belief that something is being hidden.”
Can you explain in simple terms why the virus was unlikely to be engineered?
“That’s part of the problem—it’s very hard to explain this in simple terms. The real disconnect is that people who believe the virus was engineered simply don’t understand the science. And that leads them to assume we have capabilities that we actually don’t.”
Still, how is a virus genetically engineered?
“You can only manipulate a virus’s genome when it is in its DNA state, but you can’t simply ‘cut and paste’ RNA. Since SARS-CoV-2 is an RNA virus, it must first be copied into DNA before any modifications can be made. In theory, this process is straightforward, but in reality, it’s extremely challenging.
“Even if we had the technology to modify such a virus, we wouldn’t know which changes to make. You can’t just point to a sequence and say, ‘This makes it more infectious’ or ‘This makes it deadlier.’ We simply don’t have that level of understanding.”
Couldn’t the virus have been taken from bats, grown in cell cultures, and adapted to humans?
“It may sound logical to someone unfamiliar with the field, but that’s not how it works. That’s exactly why I don’t think the virus was manipulated—it simply wasn’t possible. For that to happen, someone would have had to find the virus, modify it intentionally, and then it would have to somehow escape from a lab. That doesn’t seem plausible.”
What about the possibility that it accidentally leaked from a lab?
“How do you think a virus escapes from a lab?
“Through a hole in a protective suit or a mask slipping off, as we’ve seen in movies?
“This is a respiratory virus. If you have a virus in a petri dish with liquid, it’s unlikely to ‘jump’ out, pass through a tiny hole in a mask, and infect someone. The real risk comes from working with large quantities of the virus, particularly in centrifuge processes that generate aerosols. But even this scenario is rare unless significant amounts of the virus were produced in a lab, which is not the case here.
“Historically, coronaviruses have jumped from animals to humans many times before—long before the emergence of SARS and MERS. This pattern is well-documented. The simplest and most logical explanation is that SARS-CoV-2 followed the same path.
“Frankly, it seems absurd to assume otherwise, except that people now have more time to sit and speculate.”
But what about reports from U.S. intelligence agencies that suggest a lab leak?
“You cannot prove a scientific claim with circumstantial evidence. Intelligence agencies say, ‘We don’t believe in coincidences.’ Okay—but that’s not how science works.
“As scientists, we rely on data—and there simply is none supporting the lab leak theory.”
Then the health minister claims that COVID was engineered to target Black people
Weiss speaks about data and science, but the debate over the origins of SARS-CoV-2 has long since moved beyond research. It has become a battle over narratives and public trust in scientific institutions. To many, the pandemic symbolizes not only the failure of elites in managing the crisis but also a collapse in their credibility.
As with other major historical events, where simple explanations seemed insufficient for the scale of the impact—such as the idea that a lone gunman could assassinate a U.S. president or that 19 hijackers armed with utility knives could bring down iconic American landmarks—many people rejected mainstream explanations of COVID-19’s origins. Instead, they turned to alternative sources that offered systematic theories to counteract the fear of uncertainty. For these individuals, the theory that the virus jumped from animals to humans seemed too mundane, failing to match the crisis’s global magnitude. This need for a more comprehensive explanation turned the coronavirus into fertile ground for conspiracy thinking—a psychological mechanism that provides an illusion of control, even if it’s misleading.
The history of pandemics and conspiracy theories
This dynamic is not unique to COVID-19. During the AIDS crisis in the 1980s, theories emerged claiming that the virus had been engineered to target specific populations, particularly Black people. When the Zika virus spread in 2016, rumors circulated that genetically modified mosquitoes had been deliberately released—either by the government or by the Monsanto Corporation—to cause harm. However, during the AIDS era, there were no social media platforms to amplify such claims, and the Zika outbreak did not escalate into a global crisis on the scale of COVID-19. This time, conspiracy thinking had an unprecedented platform.
The COVID-19 pandemic also played into the broader anti-elite sentiment that former President Donald Trump had cultivated long before the outbreak. When the scientific community condemned his statements—such as calling COVID-19 the "Chinese virus" or suggesting that injecting bleach could be a treatment—it only deepened public mistrust in official institutions. Trump positioned himself as the leader unafraid to ask the "forbidden" questions, portraying scientists and the media as part of an establishment trying to suppress inconvenient truths.
The result was a growing politicization of scientific discourse, further eroding trust in institutions. As the debate over COVID-19’s origins shifted from a scientific investigation to a political battleground, many came to believe that the truth was not with the "experts" but with those challenging their assertions. This shift mirrored Trump's own strategy: portraying himself as the anti-establishment figure who questions conventional wisdom.
A health minister who denies science
Disillusionment with the scientific establishment led not only to widespread conspiracy theories but also to significant policy shifts when Trump returned to the White House. His administration withdrew the U.S. from the World Health Organization (WHO) and appointed Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a leading anti-vaccine activist, as Secretary of Health.
Kennedy had already made headlines in 2023 with his inflammatory remarks: “Covid-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese,” Kennedy said, adding that “we don’t know whether it’s deliberately targeted that or not.” Although Kennedy later apologized, he later reiterated similar claims.
Kennedy is a particularly vocal figure, but his views reflect a broader movement—both in the U.S. and in Israel—that is deeply skeptical of vaccines and mainstream science. The consequences of this mindset have already become apparent: last week, an unvaccinated child in Texas died of measles amid the largest outbreak in the U.S. in 30 years. Yet, Kennedy not only dismissed the public health findings but also denied the outbreak itself. "This is not an extraordinary event," he stated, showing no hesitation.
Has COVID-19 exposed the failure of science?
Complementing Kennedy's policies, Trump has also announced major cuts to funding for academic research, a move that will significantly hinder medical and scientific advancements.
"You could say virologists shouldn't work with recombinant viruses or that we should shut down the entire field because it could lead to a pandemic," Weiss explains, referring to concerns over laboratory research. "They say that about the flu, and they say that about coronaviruses. But for me, this research is essential. It’s how we understand how viruses work."
The real question is whether these policies—withdrawing from the WHO, cutting scientific funding, and appointing anti-establishment figures to key positions—are a justified response to perceived scientific failures during the pandemic, or whether they are populist moves designed to strengthen political power, even at the risk of damaging future pandemic preparedness.
Science versus the post-truth era
In the digital age, where reliable and false information intermingle without clear distinctions, it has become harder than ever to separate fact from misinformation. The COVID-19 pandemic has not just been a medical crisis—it has been framed as a political and economic mystery, with hidden players allegedly pulling the strings.
Take Pfizer, for example—the company that developed the first COVID-19 vaccine. Some see it as a symbol of medical triumph, while others view it as an unchecked corporate force profiting from global crises.
As a result, the debate over COVID-19’s origins is no longer a scientific question—it has become a test of how the public perceives science, healthcare, and government. The real battleground is no longer in research labs but on Facebook, Telegram, and X (formerly Twitter), where people aren’t necessarily looking for facts, but for narratives that reinforce their existing beliefs.
In this post-truth era, where opinions matter more than evidence, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to see how science can still persuade anyone of its validity.
