this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2025
75 points (79.1% liked)

World News

34712 readers
660 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Germany's foreign intelligence service believed there was a 80-90% chance that coronavirus accidentally leaked from a Chinese lab, German media say. Two German newspapers say they have uncovered details of an assessment carried out by spy agency BND in 2020 but never published.

The intelligence service had indications that the Wuhan Institute of Virology had been carrying out experiments where viruses are modified to become more transmissible to humans for research, they say.

China repeated its denial saying the cause "should be determined by scientists" - and pointed to a World Health Organization investigation which found the lab-leak theory was "extremely unlikely".

The lab leak hypothesis has been hotly contested by scientists, including many who say there is no definitive evidence to back it up. But the once controversial theory has been gaining ground among some intelligence agencies - and the BND is the latest to entertain the theory. In January, the US CIA said the coronavirus was "more likely" to have leaked from a lab than to have come from animals.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work -1 points 2 days ago (16 children)

I really don't think it's that hard to believe that some postdoc in Wuhan screwed up and let it loose accidentally.

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago (7 children)

The complication is the double jump.

In the early days of COVID, there were 2 strains spreading. One of those fizzled out and disappeared after a few weeks. Genetically, they seemed to be independent jumps. A single mistake wouldn't account for this.

It's also worth noting that the first known infected all spent time in Wuhan wildlife market. They got fairly good tracking from mobile phones, even if the direct evidence was destroyed by the containment/cleaning effort.

Basically, the surrounding evidence doesn't fit an accidental leak (2 jumps). It doesn't really fit an intentional release (very geographically focused). It is consistent with it jumping from a sustained infection pool in the market. (Multiple jumps from the same small area at different times).

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)