COVID.gov ‘Lab Leak’ Claim vs. OpenAI's o3: Wet‑Market Case (2025)
Let's ask OpenAI's model (o3) about the most likely origin of COVID... it disagrees with Trump's updated COVID.gov website.
It’s amazing how confident the MAGA crowd is that COVID was 100% a lab leak — and many have gone as to far as suggest 100% an intentional lab leak! Many batshit conspiracies have circulated, including but not limited to:
Trump issues tariffs on China → China intentionally leaks COVID from a lab to damage Trump and the U.S.
China intentionally developed COVID as a bioweapon → to cull its weak and older population
The U.S. government intentionally developed COVID → leaked COVID from within China (possibly a Wuhan lab)
A majority of MAGA assumes: (1) N99/N95 masks don’t work (even if properly worn); (2) lockdowns had zero logic behind them and should never be used; and/or (3) mRNA vaccines caused more deaths and iatrogenic damage than the actual virus (SARS-CoV-2). (Populist mind virus back at it again.)
Many fail to grasp the concept that the virus evolved/mutated over time, altering its viral structure, infectiousness, and pathogenicity (i.e. COVID’s severity).
At this stage of the game, most dolts are like SeE! ThE vIrUs wAs MiLd aLL aLoNg!! These people don’t understand nuance. If it’s not severe right now, it was never severe — it’s the same virus! The reality: The initial COVID wave packed a serious punch for many → later waves became milder (resulting in fewer hospitalizations & deaths).
What about the small % of doctors and/or high IQ skeptics of this stuff? Most have: (1) a predisposition to conspiratorial thinking (that overrides basic logic); (2) want to belong in the populist tribe (so seek info that serves this purpose); or (3) grift for $$$ and/or social power.
Could COVID have been a lab leak? Yes. I’m someone who thought the woke Democrats were batshit for outright dismissing/censoring the possibility of a lab leak from China during the initial wave of COVID; lab leak was one of my first instincts… I believed more probable than zoonosis for a while.
Now in 2025? I have reviewed way too much damn COVID-related info. and think that it is more likely that COVID emerged via natural zoonosis (with low confidence).
Why? There’s more credible evidence and logic supporting zoonotic origin in a wet market than a lab leak… that’s it. I don’t care about Democrats or Republicans regarding COVID.
Would it surprise me if a lab leak was definitively proven (i.e. clear proof from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and/or CCP)? No.
Human brains don’t like uncertainty… and the partisan spin factor/tribe factor leads people to “fill in the gaps”: COVID was 100% a lab leak!!!
Most of these people know very little and haven’t done jack shit for research. Or their research consisted of: (1) bookmarking X posts from some other idiot who researched via X posts and/or (2) scrolling through posts from “organic, non-GMO, gluten-free, free range” soccer moms on Facebook.
Everyone wants to be 100% sure. Most don’t know how to evaluate evidence and others don’t even know all the evidence/logic they never considered (unknown unknowns for them).
Would be good if more people could say: I don’t know but after evaluating the entire body of evidence — I lean in favor of X idea instead of Y idea.
Would China cover up a lab leak? Yes. Would China also cover up zoonosis? Yes. Hence the reason they shut down the wet market and killed off all the animals. Zoonosis via the wet market is a very bad look for China given past instances of SARS from animal markets.
They went nuclear on all traces of evidence to “save face” on an international stage.
I’ve published 3 pieces on the COVID origin… the latest is listed first (March 2025 Updated Analysis)… you can read through them but they might make your brain hurt.
COVID-19 Origin: March 2025 Updated Analysis (Zoonosis vs. Lab Leak)
German Intelligence: BND 80-95% Confidence in COVID Lab Leak
I concluded that wet market zoonosis is still more likely than lab leak based on the available data and logic.
Zoonosis: ~65% odds. Evidence: Previous zoonotic pathogens (e.g. SARS, MERS, etc.); CCP crackdown on market & practices (culling all animals); lack of bioengineering features in SARS-CoV-2 genome; 2 distinct lineages pinpointed to Huanan market outbreak; highest density of cases in Huanan market area; many possible intermediary animals (to facilitate spread); expert consensus (scientists & high IQ super-forecasters).
Lab leak: ~35% odds. Evidence: Proximity of Wuhan Institute of Virology to Huanan market; scientists “sick” with something in the month prior to COVID; gain-of-function research; bat coronavirus research (“batwoman” Shi Zhengli); many intelligence agencies favor lab leak (CIA, FBI, Germany’s BND); no animal trace at market found; etc.
Other things to consider: past lab leaks of viruses are extremely rare. And intermediary animals are not always found (e.g. 1918 Spanish flu intermediary remains unknown). Worth mentioning again: the CCP blocked investigation into the wet market in addition to the lab.
The White House (COVID.gov): Populist “Lab Leak”
In April 2025, the Trump admin updated the official White House website with a link to COVID.gov — marketing the “lab leak” hypothesis as fact.
Whatever the populists want, the populists get with Trump? As soon as Trump was elected president and entered office, CIA director John Ratcliffe pushed a memo about COVID being a lab leak.
Unfortunately, most MAGAs failed to actually read the CIA memo. If they read the memo, they’d understand that while the CIA favors the “lab leak” idea — it does so with “low confidence.”
What do the hordes of populist morons think? 100% guaranteed! I still haven’t gotten an apology from the left! I’ll wait! Mainstream media lied again!
The test to see who is intellectually honest is not necessarily whether they think COVID was a lab leak or of zoonotic origin — but whether: (1) they’ve examined the full body of evidence & logic; (2) they are highly confident in their answer despite no smoking gun evidence and/or logic that would warrant this high confidence.
Many are sheer morons… others are high IQ grifters who hyper-fixate on evidence that aligns with their socio-political tribe.
If I wanted to, I could dig in and take a polarizing stance that COVID was 100% a lab leak! Wake up people! And highlight all the evidence to support this while ignoring and/or downplaying evidence/logic to support zoonosis.
Polarizing statement: The Boston Celtics will win the 2025 NBA Finals!!! 100% guaranteed!!! If they do? I can say: See! You were stupid if you believed anything else! I want an apology from everyone who thought OKC or Cleveland would win! I’ll wait!
If they don’t win? I can just make some excuse (well I meant if they were healthy), ignore this and move on to making some other claim — most people won’t remember my bad prediction. This is how many people operate.
The reality is that my prediction may come true… but “100% guaranteed” is a joke. The Celtics are far from a 100% lock. They could have an off-series, deal with some injuries, get some bad foul calls against them, etc. and lose to someone like the Cavs — and the odds reflect this.
Could COVID be from a lab leak? Yeah. Is it from a lab leak? Unclear. But in MAGA Mind Virus infected minds it’s been proven.
Another angle to consider: If I wanted to create a psyop to stir up anti-China sentiment during a trade war… marketing the lab leak heavily wouldn’t hurt.
This confirms what MAGA’s think is true already and may sway some moderates after presenting the info via an official government channel/website — getting them fired up to hate China more. (Trump had to start a tariff war! China created this virus to destroy us!)
The COVID.gov website features rationale to support the idea of a lab leak. Just look at my screenshot or check the website for yourself.
It presents lab leak as fact — and simultaneously implies Fauci is the devil and the NIH & WHO are satanic entities. Also throws in some shit bashing Democrats like Andrew Cuomo.
The information presented is mostly accurate… but zero information about possible zoonosis is presented in a good faith manner.
o3 Model: COVID Origins (April 2025)
I asked OpenAI’s o3 model about the origin of COVID. Lab leak (via Wuhan Institute of Virology), zoonosis (e.g. via wet market), or something else.
Could o3 be politically biased? Sure. Is it? I don’t think so on COVID. It doesn’t examine COVID through a political lens. It examines all information, weighs it, and uses its best logic to determine the origin; it’s not thinking politics.
o3 has a higher IQ and better information processing than 95% of humans. Its IQ is ~110-140 depending on the topic with near-perfect memory. Do I trust it to be more logical and unbiased than your average person? Yeah.
Only insofar as quality information related to COVID is: (1) tainted by political spins and (2) it fails to detect these spins — could o3 be significantly biased.
Side note: In many instances OpenAI’s models are less woke than Grok (even if Grok is less censored.)
Snapshot takeaway
Natural zoonotic spill‑over (wildlife → human, Huanan market or similar): ≈ 65 % (Confidence: ~40 %)
Research‑related accident (field collection or lab‑handling leak at WIV or another Wuhan lab): ≈ 30 % (Confidence: ~35 %)
Deliberate or other exotic scenarios: ≈ 5 % (Confidence: ~25 %)
Note: Confidence reflects how solid the underlying evidence is, not the probability itself. Overall evidentiary quality remains low‑to‑moderate, so even the leading 65 % estimate carries only modest certainty.
Why a natural spill‑over still looks likelier (≈ 65 %)
Genomic & ecological signal at the Huanan market. 2024 metagenomic re‑analysis of early environmental swabs found raccoon‑dog, civet and bamboo‑rat DNA in every SARS‑CoV‑2–positive stall sample, plus geospatial clustering of the first patient homes around the market. This pattern fits two independent zoonotic jumps (Lineages A & B) in November‑December 2019 rather than a single human “patient zero.” (Cell)
Multiple early cases with no link to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). Epidemiologic reconstruction places the tMRCA in late Nov 2019, with only dozens of infections before December; most traced back to wildlife trade venues, not labs. (Cell & NPR)
No close progenitor viruses in WIV freezers. Shi Zhengli’s 2024 disclosure of dozens of new bat coronavirus genomes still shows >4 % divergence from SARS‑CoV‑2—too distant to be an engineered backbone—and the closest relatives remain 1 000 km away in Yunnan bats. (Nature)
Most scientific agencies lean this way (albeit weakly). Four U.S. intelligence elements plus the National Intelligence Council judge a natural origin with low confidence; none have shifted since. (Director of National Intelligence)
Why a research‑related accident retains a hefty minority chance (≈ 30 %)
US intelligence splits. The FBI (2023) said “likely lab accident” (moderate confidence); the DOE (2023) and, most recently, the CIA (Jan 2025) both call a lab origin more likely but only with low confidence. (CNN, NPR, CBS News)
Documented biosafety gaps. Open‑source reviews of 2018–19 WIV grant proposals describe BSL‑2 work on novel bat SARS‑like CoVs and in vivo mouse passage; accidental infection during field sampling or low‑containment lab work is plausible, even without genetic engineering.
Location coincidence. A once‑in‑a‑century zoonotic jump happening in the same city that hosts China’s flagship high‑level coronavirus lab is improbable, though not impossible given Wuhan’s role in the wildlife trade.
China’s opacity fuels uncertainty. Lack of early patient serum samples, wildlife trace‐backs, or lab notebooks prevents either hypothesis from closing decisively; that information asymmetry slightly boosts the posterior for a mishap that authorities prefer concealed.
Why a deliberate release or other exotic routes look unlikely (≈ 5 %)
No weaponization signatures. The 2021 DNI report and every later IC review agree the virus was not engineered as a bioweapon. (Director of National Intelligence)
No credible motive or whistle‑blower evidence has surfaced across thousands of pages of leaks, FOIAs, and congressional hearings.
Bottom line
Both scenarios remain plausible; neither enjoys slam‑dunk evidence. The accumulated field, genomic, and cluster data tilt the scale toward a wildlife spill‑over, but the absence of definitive primary data—especially from WIV—and the continued split within U.S. intelligence keep a lab accident solidly in play. Until China grants unfettered access to: early patient sera, animal‑supply chains, and detailed WIV records, the confidence on any probability assignment will stay well below 50 %.
Well there you have it folks… o3 thinks COVID is more likely from natural zoonosis as of April 2025. But it is not 100% confident and remains open to the idea that COVID is from a lab leak.
You don’t need to agree with o3. Think for yourself even if an AI is smart (or smarter than you!) o3 can only go by the currently available data/evidence.
We may find out that COVID was 100% definitively from a lab leak (with proof directly from China). Until then, if you think COVID was from a lab leak, you should at least have examined the full body of evidence (including counter evidence) and weigh it honestly with good faith, not through your tribal lens.