Did the CIA conclude that SARS-CoV-2 came from a Chinese lab? Beware of misleading headlines in the Daily Mail and elsewhere

Key takeaway

The origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains uncertain, with two primary competing hypotheses: a natural spillover from animals to humans and a potential leak from a laboratory. Published biological analyses leant toward the former. The absence of clinical and animal specimens from the earliest days of the pandemic makes it impossible to draw definitive conclusions. Both hypotheses are still being investigated.

Reviewed content

Verdict:

Misleading

Claim:

“CIA now says Covid DID come from Chinese lab”

Verdict detail

Misrepresents source: The Daily Mail headline misrepresented the CIA’s updated assessment on the origins of SARS-CoV-2. The CIA hasn’t concluded that the virus originated from a lab. Although the agency stated that it now considers the lab leak hypothesis more plausible than before, it also emphasized that both the lab leak and natural spillover scenarios remain possible. The CIA characterized its updated assessment as having “low confidence”.

See our method of evaluation

Full Claim

“CIA now says Covid DID come from Chinese lab in stunning reversal after years of denial under Biden”

In January 2025, the Daily Mail reported on an update to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)’s stance on the origins of SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19. By prominently featuring the word “DID” in uppercase, the headline indicated that the CIA conclusively traced the origin of SARS-CoV-2 to a Chinese laboratory.

The Daily Mail has a track record of publishing misleading or inaccurate scientific claims. Here again, this headline is highly misleading and doesn’t accurately reflect the CIA’s position.

The origin of SARS-CoV-2 has been a topic of intense scientific and political debate. Genomic analyses published early in the pandemic concluded that SARS-CoV-2 most likely emerged naturally through zoonotic spillover, where the virus jumped from animals to humans^[1].

A subsequent comparison of alternative hypotheses, including the lab leak theory, concluded that a natural spillover remained the most likely scenario^[2].

Nevertheless, not everyone agreed with this scenario. For example, In December 2024, a Republican-led House of Representatives committee claimed that SARS-CoV-2 most likely leaked from a Chinese laboratory, while the committee’s Democrat minority issued a dissenting report.

According to the New York Times, five U.S. agencies favored the natural spillover hypothesis, while two others favored the lab leak scenario—though none expressed strong confidence for their conclusions. This is because data are scant and specimens from the early times of the pandemic are lacking.

In June 2023, the CIA maintained a neutral position on the origins of the virus, stating that it lacked sufficient evidence to favor one hypothesis over the other. But in a shift from its earlier position, the CIA is now favoring the lab leak scenario.

However, the CIA didn’t say that the virus came from a lab, contrary to the Daily Mail’s headline. In fact, the agency now considers that the lab leak scenario is more likely, but that both hypotheses remain plausible.

The agency noted that both the natural spillover and lab leak hypotheses remain plausible. Furthermore, the CIA described its updated assessment as “low confidence”, indicating significant uncertainty.

It’s crucial to note that the CIA’s revised position wasn’t based on new evidence but rather a reanalysis of existing information. This underscores the inherent difficulty in making reliable assessments in situations where data remains incomplete and the level of plausibility of each scenario continues to evolve.

In conclusion, the Daily Mail misrepresented the CIA’s recent shift in assessment of the origins of the COVID-19 virus, falsely suggesting a definitive judgment about the virus’s origin. While the lab leak scenario may now be considered more likely by the CIA, the agency’s position remains far from conclusive, reflecting the ongoing uncertainty in understanding how SARS-CoV-2 emerged.

REFERENCES

1 – Andersen et al. (2020) The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2. Nature medicine.
2 – Alwine et al. (2023) A Critical Analysis of the Evidence for the SARS-CoV-2 Origin Hypotheses. mBio.