User:RandomCanadian/The origins of COVID-19: literature review

A lot of speculation and unfounded hypotheses are circulating regarding the origins of SARS-Cov-2, the virus which causes COVID-19. This has unfortunately led to many different actors attempting to disrupt the coverage of this subject here on Wikipedia, by citing poor sources or basing their coverage on newspapers. I will here endeavour to make a thorough inquest through existing research papers on the matter, to have a readily accessible annotated list which will allow to see what scientists say on the matter and to guide further discussions on the topic.

Methodology
Papers were keyword searched through the databases of PUBMED and some leading publishers. Papers in journals which are not MEDLINE-indexed were not further investigated. Relevant papers were selected after reading the abstract and looking at the depth of coverage on the issue. Preference was given to reviews and papers from virologists in relevant journals.


 * ASM journals: origin AND (covid OR sars-cov-2 OR coronavirus) (27 results, 6 retained)
 * PubMed: covid 19 AND origin (366 results total, 135 initially retained, ...)
 * covid 19 AND (origin OR emergence) AND bats (89 results total, 16 non-duplicates from previous search retained)
 * covid 19 AND (origin OR emergence) AND lab leak; *covid 19 AND lab leak; covid lab leak (with the same filters as previously): 0 results
 * covid AND origin AND lab (34 results, 4 retained)

Total: 877 matching queries, 187 total selected, 16 from other sources (before removing all duplicates)

Work in progress
Criteria:
 * Checking whether a journal is MEDLINE or not is simple enough. Clicking on the journal name (in PubMed) should allow directly viewing the journal in the NLM catalog (ex. ), where the relevant information should be easily retrievable.
 * An article cited by 10 or less other articles is "relatively few" ; although some caution when interpreting this should be given in regards to more recent articles. High-impact articles (cited by a 100 or more others) should be given an approximate count (rounded down) to highlight these. For consistency, numbers should be retrieved from the same source (PubMed), but this shouldn't be much of a factor for articles with a high amount of citations.
 * Author credibility is usually verifiable from the affiliations listed in the author list of the article, but if in doubt, it is always better to verify at the page of the named institution(s).

Basic check completed

 * MEDLINE: yes (NLM listing)
 * Cited by others: no, recent, cited in the news (ex. Guardian)
 * Credible authors: Infectious diseases and public health experts from (mostly) China
 * MEDLINE: only articles related to space life sciences [this might more be indicative of a topic restriction of MEDLINE than of the reliability of the other articles] - Journal is amongst the top journals in its field (Ecology, Evolutionary biology, ...) for impact factor, so appears credible nonetheless
 * Cited by others: no, recent ❌
 * Credible authors: Bioinformatics Research Center (UNC Charlotte), first author is specialised in bioinformatics and phylogenetics.
 * Comment: Appears to be a primary study about an analysis of the title subject.
 * Quotes: "A recent literature review of the zoonotic origins of HCoVs (Ye et al., 2020) describes that the fundamental hosts of HCoVs can be Rodentia (for HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-HKU1) or Chiroptera (for HCoV-NL63, HCoV-229E, SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2). According to Ye et al. (2020), data on intermediate hosts of HCoV-NL63 and HCoV-HKU1 are absent. Furthermore, Ye et al. (2020) also point out that there is an open debate about the existence of intermediate hosts of HCoV-229E and SARS-CoV-2."; "Current public data indicate that the key epidemiological event in the history of SARS-CoV-2 was that a Chiroptera-hosted lineage of viruses infected an urban human population in Wuhan, China (Zhao et al., 2020) and this is perhaps linked to earlier infections in rural populations (Wang et al., 2018)."; "Other strategies, more speculative than those listed above, have been used to suggest that SARS-CoV-2 came from a laboratory accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (Rogin, 2020). The evidence indicates that SARS-CoV-2 was not purposefully manipulated (Andersen et al., 2020). Moreover, the notion that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic resulted from a laboratory accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (Rogin, 2020) is not necessary to explain the pandemic."
 * Summary: Available literature shows multiple precedents for zoonotic transmission of HCoVs (human coronaviruses). Available evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 spread from Wuhan, although that might not be the actual origin. Speculation, such as claims of a lab leak, are not supported by evidence and are not needed to explain the emergence of the pandemic.
 * Quotes: "A recent literature review of the zoonotic origins of HCoVs (Ye et al., 2020) describes that the fundamental hosts of HCoVs can be Rodentia (for HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-HKU1) or Chiroptera (for HCoV-NL63, HCoV-229E, SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2). According to Ye et al. (2020), data on intermediate hosts of HCoV-NL63 and HCoV-HKU1 are absent. Furthermore, Ye et al. (2020) also point out that there is an open debate about the existence of intermediate hosts of HCoV-229E and SARS-CoV-2."; "Current public data indicate that the key epidemiological event in the history of SARS-CoV-2 was that a Chiroptera-hosted lineage of viruses infected an urban human population in Wuhan, China (Zhao et al., 2020) and this is perhaps linked to earlier infections in rural populations (Wang et al., 2018)."; "Other strategies, more speculative than those listed above, have been used to suggest that SARS-CoV-2 came from a laboratory accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (Rogin, 2020). The evidence indicates that SARS-CoV-2 was not purposefully manipulated (Andersen et al., 2020). Moreover, the notion that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic resulted from a laboratory accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (Rogin, 2020) is not necessary to explain the pandemic."
 * Summary: Available literature shows multiple precedents for zoonotic transmission of HCoVs (human coronaviruses). Available evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 spread from Wuhan, although that might not be the actual origin. Speculation, such as claims of a lab leak, are not supported by evidence and are not needed to explain the emergence of the pandemic.


 * MEDLINE: yes ✅
 * Cited by others: no, recent ❌
 * Credible authors: broad experience including relevant fields, mostly agriculture and environment
 * Comment: "a few scientists believe that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulations of SARS-CoV-like coronaviruses. The RBD of SARS-CoV-2 is optimized for binding ACE-2, which is distinct from other coronaviruses. However, the genetic data on SARS-CoV-2 does not show any evidence of a laboratory origin.... Most researchers agree that bats or pangolins are the primary reservoirs of coronaviruses, but the transmission route of SARS-CoV-2 to humans from this primary reservoir is still under study"
 * Comment: "a few scientists believe that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulations of SARS-CoV-like coronaviruses. The RBD of SARS-CoV-2 is optimized for binding ACE-2, which is distinct from other coronaviruses. However, the genetic data on SARS-CoV-2 does not show any evidence of a laboratory origin.... Most researchers agree that bats or pangolins are the primary reservoirs of coronaviruses, but the transmission route of SARS-CoV-2 to humans from this primary reservoir is still under study"


 * MEDLINE: yes ✅
 * Cited by others: yes, relatively few
 * Credible authors: cellular and molecular research/generic medicine (related topic)
 * Credible authors: cellular and molecular research/generic medicine (related topic)


 * MEDLINE: yes ✅
 * Cited by others: no ❌
 * Credible authors: one microbiologist, remaining botany department (some genetics work)
 * Comment: probably more reliable for descriptions of genetic structure than origins. Makes no mention of lab origin, gives only possibilities for natural recombination
 * Comment: probably more reliable for descriptions of genetic structure than origins. Makes no mention of lab origin, gives only possibilities for natural recombination


 * MEDLINE: yes ✅
 * Cited by others: yes ✅
 * Credible authors: botany, biochemistry
 * Comment: Come across as highly confident in market zoonosis. "SARS-CoV-2 is thought to have originated in bats via genetic recombination of existing bat CoV strains and to have been transmitted from bats to humans either directly or through unknown intermediate hosts, similarly to the roles of civets and camels in SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, respectively"
 * Comment: Come across as highly confident in market zoonosis. "SARS-CoV-2 is thought to have originated in bats via genetic recombination of existing bat CoV strains and to have been transmitted from bats to humans either directly or through unknown intermediate hosts, similarly to the roles of civets and camels in SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, respectively"


 * MEDLINE: yes ✅
 * Cited by others: yes ✅
 * Credible authors: non-virologists, but expertise in biology, microbiology - related topics
 * Credible authors: non-virologists, but expertise in biology, microbiology - related topics


 * MEDLINE: yes (Nature) ✅ ✅
 * Cited by others: yes (140+) ✅
 * Credible authors: virologists from the WIV
 * Credible authors: virologists from the WIV


 * MEDLINE: yes ✅
 * Cited by others: yes, relatively few
 * Credible authors: expertise mostly in pharmacology
 * Credible authors: expertise mostly in pharmacology


 * MEDLINE: yes ✅
 * Cited by others: only one citation by another author
 * Credible authors: sole author with immunology background
 * Credible authors: sole author with immunology background


 * MEDLINE: yes ✅
 * Cited by others: yes ✅
 * Credible authors: infectious diseases + general medical expertise
 * Credible authors: infectious diseases + general medical expertise


 * MEDLINE: yes (published by MDPI) ✅
 * Cited by others: yes ✅
 * Credible authors: non-virologists, but expertise in genetics, biochemistry, microbiology - related topics
 * Credible authors: non-virologists, but expertise in genetics, biochemistry, microbiology - related topics


 * MEDLINE: yes ✅
 * Cited by others: yes (120+) ✅
 * Credible authors: biotechnology, animal health; some virologists
 * Credible authors: biotechnology, animal health; some virologists


 * MEDLINE: yes ✅
 * Cited by others: yes (1100+) ✅
 * Credible authors: non-virologists, but expertise in biology, genetics - related topics
 * Credible authors: non-virologists, but expertise in biology, genetics - related topics


 * MEDLINE: yes ✅
 * Cited by others: yes (400+) ✅✅
 * Credible authors: public health (related topic)
 * Comment: a bit dated ("They detected 33 samples containing SARS-CoV-2 and indicated that it originated from wild animals sold in the market"). This might be useful for an "early in the pandemic, researchers thought X" style statement, but we already have sources for that in Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2. Again, this is a broad review of existing sources so likely not all of them will be useable in articles.
 * Comment: a bit dated ("They detected 33 samples containing SARS-CoV-2 and indicated that it originated from wild animals sold in the market"). This might be useful for an "early in the pandemic, researchers thought X" style statement, but we already have sources for that in Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2. Again, this is a broad review of existing sources so likely not all of them will be useable in articles.


 * MEDLINE: yes ✅
 * Cited by others: yes (1100+) ✅
 * Credible authors: non-virologists, general medical expertise
 * Comment: dated source from Guangdong authors. Pretty typical origin explanation for early 2020. Based on virus genome sequencing results and evolutionary analysis, bat has been suspected as natural host of virus origin, and SARS-CoV-2 might be transmitted from bats via unknown intermediate hosts to infect humans. It is clear now that SARS-CoV-2 could use angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), the same receptor as SARS-CoV, to infect humans... Direct contact with intermediate host animals or consumption of wild animals was suspected to be the main route of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. However, the source(s) and transmission routine(s) of SARS-CoV-2 remain elusive.
 * Comment: dated source from Guangdong authors. Pretty typical origin explanation for early 2020. Based on virus genome sequencing results and evolutionary analysis, bat has been suspected as natural host of virus origin, and SARS-CoV-2 might be transmitted from bats via unknown intermediate hosts to infect humans. It is clear now that SARS-CoV-2 could use angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), the same receptor as SARS-CoV, to infect humans... Direct contact with intermediate host animals or consumption of wild animals was suspected to be the main route of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. However, the source(s) and transmission routine(s) of SARS-CoV-2 remain elusive.


 * MEDLINE: yes (Nature Reviews) ✅ ✅
 * Cited by others: yes (1200+), also Commentary in Front Immunol. 2020; 11: 811. ✅
 * Credible authors: virologists from the WIV + biomedicine (i.e. broadly relevant topic)
 * Comment: this isn't about SARS-Cov-2 (the commentary is). It could however be used (along with the commentary for the link to ) for information about the origin of other coronavirus outbreaks. It might be particularly interesting because it predates the current pandemic.
 * Comment: this isn't about SARS-Cov-2 (the commentary is). It could however be used (along with the commentary for the link to ) for information about the origin of other coronavirus outbreaks. It might be particularly interesting because it predates the current pandemic.


 * MEDLINE: yes ✅
 * Cited by others: yes ✅
 * Credible authors: Veterinary medicine, CDC, National Veterinary Services (credible expertise for what they're reporting about
 * Comment: This is a primary study regarding reverse zoonosis, although the background section (summarised below) is obviously not a primary study.
 * Summary: Despite multiple barriers to transmission, zoonoses are a major cause of the emergence of new human pathogens. The paper describes an example of reverse zoonosis, zoo animals being infected by SARS-CoV-2 from contact with humans. The paper describes the origin of the virus as a likely zoonotic event, since genome analysis has shown SARS-CoV-2 to be closely related to existing bat viruses, describing horseshoe bats as the likely reservoir where the virus might have circulated for decades without detection. While zoonotic origin is presented as a likely or "suspected" event, no alternative hypotheses are mentioned.
 * Summary: Despite multiple barriers to transmission, zoonoses are a major cause of the emergence of new human pathogens. The paper describes an example of reverse zoonosis, zoo animals being infected by SARS-CoV-2 from contact with humans. The paper describes the origin of the virus as a likely zoonotic event, since genome analysis has shown SARS-CoV-2 to be closely related to existing bat viruses, describing horseshoe bats as the likely reservoir where the virus might have circulated for decades without detection. While zoonotic origin is presented as a likely or "suspected" event, no alternative hypotheses are mentioned.


 * MEDLINE: yes
 * Cited by others: yes
 * Credible authors: infectious diseases & microbiology, public health; one non-medical expert (engineering and technology - might be relevant for the misinformation bit)
 * Comment: this seems like a study about misinformation, so would be a primary source - but it's also not making claims about biomedicine, rather about misinformation.
 * Comment: this seems like a study about misinformation, so would be a primary source - but it's also not making claims about biomedicine, rather about misinformation.


 * MEDLINE: yes
 * Cited by others: yes, relatively few
 * Credible authors: infectious diseases & microbiology
 * Credible authors: infectious diseases & microbiology


 * MEDLINE: yes
 * Cited by others: yes, relatively few
 * Credible authors: one virologist, biomedicine, general medical expertise
 * Credible authors: one virologist, biomedicine, general medical expertise


 * MEDLINE: yes
 * Cited by others: yes, relatively few
 * Credible authors: bioethics (related topic)
 * Credible authors: bioethics (related topic)


 * MEDLINE: yes
 * Cited by others: yes
 * Credible authors: various, including virologists from the WIV
 * Comment: "This article has been corrected, see J Clin Microbiol. 2020 July 23; 58(8): e01297-20", but this appears to be minor (about one source being removed/changed).
 * Summary: (most relevant bits, quoted) "Although the zoonotic source of SARS-CoV-2 is not confirmed, its genome sequence exhibits close relatedness (88% identity) with two bat-derived SARS-like coronaviruses (bat-SL-CoVZC45 and bat-SL-CoVZXC21). [...] These observations suggest that bats are the source of origin, while an animal sold at the Wuhan seafood market might represent an intermediate host facilitating the emergence of the virus in humans"
 * Summary: (most relevant bits, quoted) "Although the zoonotic source of SARS-CoV-2 is not confirmed, its genome sequence exhibits close relatedness (88% identity) with two bat-derived SARS-like coronaviruses (bat-SL-CoVZC45 and bat-SL-CoVZXC21). [...] These observations suggest that bats are the source of origin, while an animal sold at the Wuhan seafood market might represent an intermediate host facilitating the emergence of the virus in humans"


 * MEDLINE: yes
 * Cited by others: yes (180+)
 * Credible authors: Microbiologists from Hong Kong
 * Comment: Although early in the pandemic, it puts forwards reasonable doubts about some specifics, including the lack of evidence for the pangolin as an intermediary host. Concludes discussion about SARS-CoV-2 by stating that "the jury is still out on the immediate zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2.", but overall comes off as highly confident in a zoonotic origin being a matter of fact (not even under debate), with other hypotheses not even mentioned.
 * Comment: Although early in the pandemic, it puts forwards reasonable doubts about some specifics, including the lack of evidence for the pangolin as an intermediary host. Concludes discussion about SARS-CoV-2 by stating that "the jury is still out on the immediate zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2.", but overall comes off as highly confident in a zoonotic origin being a matter of fact (not even under debate), with other hypotheses not even mentioned.

No check done yet (beyond screening through the title and the abstract)

 * (marked as a "just accepted" pre-print - might be worth checking out in a few weeks time, leave be for time being)
 * (marked as a "just accepted" pre-print - might be worth checking out in a few weeks time, leave be for time being)
 * (marked as a "just accepted" pre-print - might be worth checking out in a few weeks time, leave be for time being)
 * (marked as a "just accepted" pre-print - might be worth checking out in a few weeks time, leave be for time being)


 * (Frontiers Bioscience - dubious publisher although MEDLINE for this particular journal)
 * (Molecules (MDPI) - same as above)
 * and
 * - now, I do understand Spanish to some level, but I'm dubious on understanding scientific papers in Spanish
 * - not sure; full access not freely available for me to check
 * - seems tangential but worth a more thorough read
 * - no full text
 * and - not sure how relevant this might be (hence worth a read); the author is now retired but previously worked at the University of Edinburgh and has apparently dealt with AIDS [https://www.struckonmedicine.co.uk/about}}, so might be a useful source.
 * and
 * - now, I do understand Spanish to some level, but I'm dubious on understanding scientific papers in Spanish
 * - not sure; full access not freely available for me to check
 * - seems tangential but worth a more thorough read
 * - no full text
 * and - not sure how relevant this might be (hence worth a read); the author is now retired but previously worked at the University of Edinburgh and has apparently dealt with AIDS [https://www.struckonmedicine.co.uk/about}}, so might be a useful source.
 * and
 * - now, I do understand Spanish to some level, but I'm dubious on understanding scientific papers in Spanish
 * - not sure; full access not freely available for me to check
 * - seems tangential but worth a more thorough read
 * - no full text
 * and - not sure how relevant this might be (hence worth a read); the author is now retired but previously worked at the University of Edinburgh and has apparently dealt with AIDS [https://www.struckonmedicine.co.uk/about}}, so might be a useful source.
 * and
 * - now, I do understand Spanish to some level, but I'm dubious on understanding scientific papers in Spanish
 * - not sure; full access not freely available for me to check
 * - seems tangential but worth a more thorough read
 * - no full text
 * and - not sure how relevant this might be (hence worth a read); the author is now retired but previously worked at the University of Edinburgh and has apparently dealt with AIDS [https://www.struckonmedicine.co.uk/about}}, so might be a useful source.
 * - now, I do understand Spanish to some level, but I'm dubious on understanding scientific papers in Spanish
 * - not sure; full access not freely available for me to check
 * - seems tangential but worth a more thorough read
 * - no full text
 * and - not sure how relevant this might be (hence worth a read); the author is now retired but previously worked at the University of Edinburgh and has apparently dealt with AIDS [https://www.struckonmedicine.co.uk/about}}, so might be a useful source.
 * - now, I do understand Spanish to some level, but I'm dubious on understanding scientific papers in Spanish
 * - not sure; full access not freely available for me to check
 * - seems tangential but worth a more thorough read
 * - no full text
 * and - not sure how relevant this might be (hence worth a read); the author is now retired but previously worked at the University of Edinburgh and has apparently dealt with AIDS [https://www.struckonmedicine.co.uk/about}}, so might be a useful source.
 * - now, I do understand Spanish to some level, but I'm dubious on understanding scientific papers in Spanish
 * - not sure; full access not freely available for me to check
 * - seems tangential but worth a more thorough read
 * - no full text
 * and - not sure how relevant this might be (hence worth a read); the author is now retired but previously worked at the University of Edinburgh and has apparently dealt with AIDS [https://www.struckonmedicine.co.uk/about}}, so might be a useful source.
 * - now, I do understand Spanish to some level, but I'm dubious on understanding scientific papers in Spanish
 * - not sure; full access not freely available for me to check
 * - seems tangential but worth a more thorough read
 * - no full text
 * and - not sure how relevant this might be (hence worth a read); the author is now retired but previously worked at the University of Edinburgh and has apparently dealt with AIDS [https://www.struckonmedicine.co.uk/about}}, so might be a useful source.
 * - now, I do understand Spanish to some level, but I'm dubious on understanding scientific papers in Spanish
 * - not sure; full access not freely available for me to check
 * - seems tangential but worth a more thorough read
 * - no full text
 * and - not sure how relevant this might be (hence worth a read); the author is now retired but previously worked at the University of Edinburgh and has apparently dealt with AIDS [https://www.struckonmedicine.co.uk/about}}, so might be a useful source.
 * - not sure; full access not freely available for me to check
 * - seems tangential but worth a more thorough read
 * - no full text
 * and - not sure how relevant this might be (hence worth a read); the author is now retired but previously worked at the University of Edinburgh and has apparently dealt with AIDS [https://www.struckonmedicine.co.uk/about}}, so might be a useful source.
 * - not sure; full access not freely available for me to check
 * - seems tangential but worth a more thorough read
 * - no full text
 * and - not sure how relevant this might be (hence worth a read); the author is now retired but previously worked at the University of Edinburgh and has apparently dealt with AIDS [https://www.struckonmedicine.co.uk/about}}, so might be a useful source.
 * - seems tangential but worth a more thorough read
 * - no full text
 * and - not sure how relevant this might be (hence worth a read); the author is now retired but previously worked at the University of Edinburgh and has apparently dealt with AIDS [https://www.struckonmedicine.co.uk/about}}, so might be a useful source.
 * - seems tangential but worth a more thorough read
 * - no full text
 * and - not sure how relevant this might be (hence worth a read); the author is now retired but previously worked at the University of Edinburgh and has apparently dealt with AIDS [https://www.struckonmedicine.co.uk/about}}, so might be a useful source.
 * - seems tangential but worth a more thorough read
 * - no full text
 * and - not sure how relevant this might be (hence worth a read); the author is now retired but previously worked at the University of Edinburgh and has apparently dealt with AIDS [https://www.struckonmedicine.co.uk/about}}, so might be a useful source.
 * - seems tangential but worth a more thorough read
 * - no full text
 * and - not sure how relevant this might be (hence worth a read); the author is now retired but previously worked at the University of Edinburgh and has apparently dealt with AIDS [https://www.struckonmedicine.co.uk/about}}, so might be a useful source.
 * - seems tangential but worth a more thorough read
 * - no full text
 * and - not sure how relevant this might be (hence worth a read); the author is now retired but previously worked at the University of Edinburgh and has apparently dealt with AIDS [https://www.struckonmedicine.co.uk/about}}, so might be a useful source.
 * - seems tangential but worth a more thorough read
 * - no full text
 * and - not sure how relevant this might be (hence worth a read); the author is now retired but previously worked at the University of Edinburgh and has apparently dealt with AIDS [https://www.struckonmedicine.co.uk/about}}, so might be a useful source.
 * - seems tangential but worth a more thorough read
 * - no full text
 * and - not sure how relevant this might be (hence worth a read); the author is now retired but previously worked at the University of Edinburgh and has apparently dealt with AIDS [https://www.struckonmedicine.co.uk/about}}, so might be a useful source.
 * - seems tangential but worth a more thorough read
 * - no full text
 * and - not sure how relevant this might be (hence worth a read); the author is now retired but previously worked at the University of Edinburgh and has apparently dealt with AIDS [https://www.struckonmedicine.co.uk/about}}, so might be a useful source.
 * - seems tangential but worth a more thorough read
 * - no full text
 * and - not sure how relevant this might be (hence worth a read); the author is now retired but previously worked at the University of Edinburgh and has apparently dealt with AIDS [https://www.struckonmedicine.co.uk/about}}, so might be a useful source.
 * - seems tangential but worth a more thorough read
 * - no full text
 * and - not sure how relevant this might be (hence worth a read); the author is now retired but previously worked at the University of Edinburgh and has apparently dealt with AIDS [https://www.struckonmedicine.co.uk/about}}, so might be a useful source.
 * - no full text
 * and - not sure how relevant this might be (hence worth a read); the author is now retired but previously worked at the University of Edinburgh and has apparently dealt with AIDS [https://www.struckonmedicine.co.uk/about}}, so might be a useful source.
 * and - not sure how relevant this might be (hence worth a read); the author is now retired but previously worked at the University of Edinburgh and has apparently dealt with AIDS [https://www.struckonmedicine.co.uk/about}}, so might be a useful source.
 * and - not sure how relevant this might be (hence worth a read); the author is now retired but previously worked at the University of Edinburgh and has apparently dealt with AIDS [https://www.struckonmedicine.co.uk/about}}, so might be a useful source.
 * and - not sure how relevant this might be (hence worth a read); the author is now retired but previously worked at the University of Edinburgh and has apparently dealt with AIDS [https://www.struckonmedicine.co.uk/about}}, so might be a useful source.
 * and - not sure how relevant this might be (hence worth a read); the author is now retired but previously worked at the University of Edinburgh and has apparently dealt with AIDS [https://www.struckonmedicine.co.uk/about}}, so might be a useful source.
 * and - not sure how relevant this might be (hence worth a read); the author is now retired but previously worked at the University of Edinburgh and has apparently dealt with AIDS [https://www.struckonmedicine.co.uk/about}}, so might be a useful source.
 * and - not sure how relevant this might be (hence worth a read); the author is now retired but previously worked at the University of Edinburgh and has apparently dealt with AIDS [https://www.struckonmedicine.co.uk/about}}, so might be a useful source.
 * and - not sure how relevant this might be (hence worth a read); the author is now retired but previously worked at the University of Edinburgh and has apparently dealt with AIDS [https://www.struckonmedicine.co.uk/about}}, so might be a useful source.


 * - very early report, might not be really helpful
 * - very early report, might not be really helpful
 * - very early report, might not be really helpful
 * - very early report, might not be really helpful


 * - covid lab leak (only result), but without the previous filters: this isn't even a paper, but a podcast on Nature...

Nature: covid AND origin (limited to reviews: 109 results total, 7 retained before filtering for duplicates)

Reviews in Medical Virology:

Lancet (196 results, 2 retained)
 * - viewpoint, will have to judge this more thoroughly
 * - viewpoint, will have to judge this more thoroughly

Covid and conspiracy theories
covid AND conspiracy AND origin (not filtered for article type) (17 results, 4 retained)


 * - this is a reply to the paper by Deigin and Segretto, which was published in the same journal. Of course, that paper is not useable as a serious source because it literally argues for a now debunked conspiracy theory...
 * [this is the original paper on this coronavirus] - these two cited in the above
 * [this is the original paper on this coronavirus] - these two cited in the above

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=covid%20AND%20"genetic%20engineering"&filter=pubt.review&filter=pubt.systematicreview&filter=journalcategory.medline&page=4 (39 results, 5 retained) [most of these do not seem to make much mention of genetic engineering, or it might be in an entirely different context than to the conspiracy theory]
 * (mentioned in the precedent - of course this is a journal promoting a paper in the same journal, so caution, but it seems to be a promising overview)
 * - no full text as far as I can see
 * (mentioned in the precedent - of course this is a journal promoting a paper in the same journal, so caution, but it seems to be a promising overview)
 * - no full text as far as I can see
 * - no full text as far as I can see
 * - no full text as far as I can see

Other (linked papers, similar content, ...)
 * (given the number of times this is cited...)
 * The WHO report
 * The WHO report
 * The WHO report
 * The WHO report
 * The WHO report
 * The WHO report
 * The WHO report
 * The WHO report
 * The WHO report
 * The WHO report
 * The WHO report
 * The WHO report
 * The WHO report