The WIV held undisclosed bat coronaviruses more similar to SARS-CoV-2 than those it published
4 events · 3 assessments
Reassessed: still Unsupported
verdict confidence 0.60
Reassessed: still Unsupported
verdict confidence 0.60
Assessed Unsupported
verdict confidence 0.60
The claim has two parts: (1) WIV held undisclosed bat coronavirus sequences, and (2) at least one of those was MORE similar to SARS-CoV-2 than what WIV published (RaTG13, ~96.2%). Part (1) is well-supported: WIV's ~22,000-entry sample/sequence database (~1,000 coronaviruses) was taken offline on 12 Sept 2019 and remained inaccessible, and WIV is documented to keep unpublished viral sequences. So WIV plausibly withheld sequence data. Part (2) — the crux and locus of dispute — has no credible direct public evidence. After years of intense scrutiny, no released sequence shows a WIV-held virus more similar to SARS-CoV-2 than RaTG13. WIV/collaborators explicitly stated they "did not find any viruses whose gene sequence is more similar to SARS-CoV-2 than RaTG13." The closest publicly known relative overall (BANAL-52, ~96.8%) was found in Laos by the Institut Pasteur, not WIV. The affirmative case rests on opportunity/motive (WIV demonstrably withheld a large database and could be hiding a closer match), not on positive evidence of such a virus. That is a basis for suspicion, not verification. Because the withheld data leaves the question genuinely open, the claim is not actively CONTRADICTED (no direct refutation is possible while data is withheld, and WIV's denial is self-interested), but it is UNSUPPORTED: no credible evidence has been produced for the specific proposition. This distinguishes lack of evidence from evidence of absence. Confidence moderate; could shift to CONTESTED or CONTRADICTED if WIV's database or new sequences were released.
Claim entered the graph