German Intelligence "BND" Report: 80-95% Confidence in COVID-19 Lab Leak from Wuhan Institute of Virology
Does the new BND report confirm that COVID was most likely a lab leak? No, but it increases odds.
German intelligence (Bundesnachrichtendienst or “BND”) has now joined the U.S. FBI and CIA in suggesting that the origin of “COVID-19” was most likely a lab leak rather than natural zoonotic spillover in the Wuhan Wet Market (Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market).
A German intelligence report (issued March 12, 2025) led more people to conclude “I knew I was right” (hunches validated) and that their “gut shot” about COVID originating from a Chinese lab (e.g. the Wuhan Institute of Virology) was 100% accurate.
In fact, many are now claiming that anyone who isn’t convinced COVID came from a Chinese/Wuhan lab at this point (Marh 2025) after the FBI, CIA, and BND consensus – is “retarded,” “low IQ,” or “brainwashed.” Many also claim the burden is now fully on China to disprove a lab leak.
But should we automatically assume that a lab leak was COVID’s origin based off of these intelligence reports? The FBI, CIA, DOE, and now Germany’s BND are aligned in suspecting that COVID was likely a lab leak (from the Wuhan Institute of Virology).
Yet it’s 2025 and we have zero “smoking gun” proof to fully confirm that COVID was more likely to have been a lab leak vs. natural wet market zoonosis from the Huanan Seafood Market… it’s possible that smoking gun evidence has been kept under wraps (on the DL) to preserve specific espionage/undercover sources (avert CCP detection).
However, I think they’d still state the specific mechanisms of the lab leak and it would all add up logically such that anyone who reads these intelligence reports would be like yeah it’s 100% a lab leak.
Many heterodox thinkers and conspiracy theorists claimed they knew it was a “lab leak” during the heat of the pandemic, but the quality/weight of the evidence was not on their side. Most of these people deliberately ignored all possible evidence of natural zoonosis and cherrypicked data to support their “lab leak” suspicions.
Now many want others to apologize to them for “not believing them” or downplaying the lab leak theory during the pandemic. They won’t be getting an apology from me because I never dismissed the lab leak… in fact, at one point I thought lab leak was more likely than natural zoonosis until I examined all the evidence.
I still think that anyone claiming to “know for sure” with a high level of certainty is being dishonest. At this point I still think natural wet market zoonosis (Huanan) is more likely based off of pure evidence and logic… I’d assign ~60-65% odds of a natural zoonotic origin in the wet market and ~35-40% odds of a lab leak in Wuhan – but with LOW CONFIDENCE.
The odds do not indicate confidence level though. Just because I think the evidence suggests zoonosis is more likely at this point does NOT mean that I’m highly confident… nobody should be highly confident unless there is a clear smoking gun.
For this reason, I’m somewhat annoyed by people who are like “SEE! LAB LEAK! I TOLD YOU!” Why? Most are not being intellectually honest or examining the fully body of evidence when making their claims. Anyone can claim something like “Celtics will win the NBA Championship in 2025.”
Another person can be like “no way, some other team will win the NBA Championship this year” – and then if the Celtics win the person who boldly proclaimed they would win can say “SEE! I KNEW IT! NOBODY BELIEVED ME! YOU OWE ME AN APOLOGY! REEEEE”
What if the lab leak was 100% debunked/disproven? It would either get swept under the rug or most people would just refuse to believe it due to preexisting biases and/or filtered information. With the COVID origin debate most people just assume they are correct and that its some conspiratorial coverup.
Most do not have the intellectual honesty to say well I’d say lab leak is more likely but I’m not at 100%. As a hypothetical let’s say there was a “smoking gun” to prove that COVID was NOT a lab leak (e.g. hacked, non-fabricated CCP internal documents and/or correspondence showing they knew COVID originated from the wet market) – most would still not believe it.
Another hypothetical to consider: Let’s say the CCP knows the origin of COVID was the Huanan wet market (based on best intel)… would it even be possible for them to prove to the world (in 2025) that COVID wasn’t a lab leak? I don’t think they’d convince most due to their history of lies/propaganda.
German Intelligence Report: Projekt Saaremaa (BND) (2020: COVID Origin)
The Süddeutsche Zeitung published a story on the coverup of a 2020 German intelligence (BND) investigation called “Projekt Saaremaa” that suggested COVID was most likely a lab leak (80-95% confidence).
For reference, this news source is one of the most influential daily newspapers in Germany and is described as: center-left, liberal, social-liberal, progressive-liberal, and social-democrat. The story explained the details of the BND intelligence report that was censored under Merkel.
You can review the evidence from this source and/or others to determine whether you think a “lab leak” is suddenly more likely. The report adjusts my odds a bit (downgrading my probability of natural wet market zoonosis and upgrading my probability of a lab leak) – but I still tend to favor natural wet market zoonosis.
The report from BND was complete in 2020… and finally released in March 2025.
BND Intelligence Agency COVID Investigation (2020)
In early 2020, Germany's Federal Intelligence Service (Bundesnachrichtendienst, BND) launched a classified intelligence-gathering operation under the code name "Projekt Saaremaa", aiming to uncover the origins of SARS-CoV-2.
The investigation focused specifically on Chinese governmental and scientific institutions, prominently the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
The Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) is Germany's primary foreign intelligence service, responsible for gathering strategic intelligence and espionage. Historically, the BND has had mixed reliability.
It has accurately assessed critical geopolitical developments but also notably failed, such as inaccurately predicting the rapid Taliban takeover of Kabul in 2021. Therefore, while reputable, its historical record is not free from significant misjudgments.
BND COVID Investigation Methods
Intelligence Collection (Espionage & Surveillance)
BND agents collected data through covert operations aimed at Chinese governmental agencies, research institutes, and specifically the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
They acquired previously unpublished data, internal scientific documents, records of animal experiments, and several unpublished dissertations (PhD theses from 2019–2020).
Data Analysis & Computer Simulation: After collecting these documents, the BND passed the raw data to its internal science and technology department. Virologists and scientific analysts repeatedly ran sophisticated computational models and simulations (including bioinformatics/genomic modeling) to assess:
Viral genomic data (both published and unpublished sequences)
Epidemiological data
Experimental research details
Timelines aligning lab work with the outbreak
These computational models aimed at evaluating whether SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequences and outbreak patterns matched the laboratory-origin hypothesis better than the natural zoonotic hypothesis.
Specific Evidence for Lab Leak (from BND’s internal analysis)
Unpublished Viral & Experimental Data: Internal research data indicating WIV scientists had more detailed and earlier knowledge about SARS-CoV-2 than publicly disclosed. Early dissertations and research papers suggested WIV researchers conducted coronavirus experiments (including animal experiments) closely matching or aligning with SARS-CoV-2 characteristics before the pandemic.
Early Chinese Internal Documents: BND reportedly obtained documents highlighting lax biosafety protocols within WIV. These reports detailed careless handling, poor storage, improper transportation of virus samples, and widespread safety deficiencies. Such conditions substantially raised the likelihood of an accidental leak.
Internal Chinese Biosafety Emergency (November 2019): Internal WIV communications revealed that a significant biosafety emergency occurred in late 2019, prompting urgent internal CCP intervention. However, specific details remain classified or unclear.
BND’s Probability Assessment
Initially, BND used an internal "Probability-Index" to quantify confidence. This was described as:
Initially (2020): "80–95%" (meaning: "highly likely")
Later reassessed during expert consultations (2024–2025), slightly moderated based on publicly available evidence alone: "50–80%" (meaning: "more likely than not")
However, upon considering their classified internal evidence again, BND maintained their original 80–95% probability rating.
What this means: This numeric range is a subjective but informed estimate. It reflects strong confidence by intelligence analysts (but notably, not 100%) based on collected evidence. It means BND strongly believes the virus came from the lab—yet acknowledges the absence of a direct, definitive "smoking gun" proof (e.g., conclusive genetic markers explicitly showing artificial manipulation, or eyewitness whistleblower confirmation).
Historical Reliability of BND:
General Reliability: The BND is Germany’s leading foreign intelligence service, known for professional operations but also occasional significant errors (e.g., misjudging the speed of Taliban takeover in Afghanistan in 2021). They have a credible international reputation but are known to sometimes err, especially in predicting complex political or security situations. Therefore, their assessments are generally taken seriously—but cautiously.
Confidence & Errors: The German government expressed internal skepticism, worrying the BND’s assessment could be inaccurate or speculative, referencing previous intelligence misjudgments. Thus, the BND’s track record has both solid successes and occasional critical failures.
Objective Strength & Quality of Evidence
The evidence obtained by BND is described as strong yet circumstantial. It clearly indicates unusual early familiarity with coronavirus behavior at WIV, raising suspicion of an accidental leak scenario.
However, the report does not present an unequivocal "smoking gun"—such as viral genomic sequences directly matching WIV-engineered strains—to conclusively prove a lab origin beyond doubt.
Interpretation of "80–95% Probability"
The BND initially assigned an "80–95% probability" internally to the lab-leak hypothesis, reflecting a strong internal conviction.
This figure, however, is intelligence-based, rather than a purely statistical or scientific certainty. It denotes the analysts' confidence based on available classified data but falls short of absolute proof.
Timing & Delay of Report Release
Although findings were obtained as early as 2020, both Angela Merkel’s and Olaf Scholz’s administrations chose to suppress the report. Reasons included:
Political sensitivity: Fear of international backlash, geopolitical tensions, and domestic political polarization.
Evidentiary caution: The German government, particularly Merkel’s team, doubted the definitive strength of the findings, wary of repeating past intelligence errors (such as predictions related to Kabul’s fall).
Reliability of German Media Sources
The report surfaced through Die Zeit and Süddeutsche Zeitung, renowned, credible, and reputable investigative media outlets in Germany.
These sources historically demonstrate careful journalistic standards and reliability.
Their 18-month investigation involved multiple interviews with senior intelligence and government officials, lending further credibility to their reporting.
Reasons for Classification & Delayed Release
Classification stems from the sensitive nature of intelligence-gathering methods, involving espionage and penetration of Chinese scientific institutions.
Additionally, the geopolitical implications of openly accusing China of causing the pandemic justified secrecy in the German government’s view.
Why release this information now in 2025?
Potential motivations for releasing the information now include internal political shifts (possible change in government), media scrutiny, and international transparency pressures.
Psyops or intentional manipulation seems unlikely, given the cautious, evidence-driven approach taken by these outlets and the transparency demanded in the German political context — but it still could be a strategically-timed release.
Ultimately, while the BND report is compelling and credible enough to strengthen the lab-leak hypothesis significantly, it stops short of absolute confirmation.
This places the BND’s conclusions among the strongest intelligence-based indicators supporting the lab-leak theory available globally, albeit tempered by careful political and scientific caution.
China reacts to the German Intelligence BND report…
Following the March 2025 revelation that Germany's Federal Intelligence Service (BND) concluded COVID-19 likely originated from an accidental lab leak in Wuhan, China swiftly issued a carefully crafted diplomatic response emphasizing restraint and scientific neutrality.
Official Chinese Statements:
Mao Ning, spokesperson for China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, addressed the claims by calling for caution and emphasizing that the origins of COVID-19 are a scientific matter and not a political issue. China reiterated that judgments should be left to scientific experts rather than intelligence agencies or political bodies.
Mao Ning explicitly highlighted previous World Health Organization (WHO) investigations, underscoring that the WHO had previously concluded it was "extremely unlikely" the virus originated from a lab leak. The Chinese government consistently cites this initial WHO assessment to legitimize its stance and argues that this position has gained broad international acceptance among scientific experts.
In response to renewed attention and pressure from international bodies—including WHO’s call in December 2024 urging China to release further data—Beijing maintained its stance of cooperation but rejected external pressure it characterized as politically motivated.
Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Mao Ning Conference (March 13, 2025)
DPA: According to German media report, the German foreign intelligence service concluded based on their evidence that the outbreak of the worldwide coronavirus pandemic in 2020 could well have been triggered by an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan, China. What’s your comment? What’s China’s position on the COVID pandemic?
Mao Ning: “We have stated China’s position on this issue for many times. We believe the COVID-19 origins-tracing is a matter of science, and the judgement should be made by scientists and the science-based spirit should be upheld. It is “extremely unlikely” that the pandemic was caused by a lab leak—this is the authoritative conclusion reached by the experts of the WHO-China joint mission based on science following their field trips to the lab in Wuhan and in-depth communication with researchers. The conclusion has been widely acknowledged by the international community, including the science community. On the COVID-19 origins-tracing, we firmly oppose all forms of political manipulation.” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, PRC)
Analysis of China's Reaction:
Diplomatic Positioning: China’s statements reflected strategic caution, aiming to portray itself as supportive of impartial scientific inquiry, while simultaneously casting doubt on the legitimacy of intelligence-based reports. This stance allows Beijing to maintain control of the narrative by framing the lab-leak theory as politically tainted rather than scientifically credible.
Deflecting Attention: Beijing's repeated emphasis on “political manipulation” suggests a clear intent to deflect attention from sensitive accusations regarding laboratory safety and potential government cover-ups, as raised by the BND.
Strategic Ambiguity & Opacity: Despite repeated international requests (from WHO and foreign governments), China continued its refusal to grant full transparency. This selective cooperation is strategically beneficial to China, preserving ambiguity and plausible deniability.
Should we trust the CCP & China?
HELL NO. They lie 24/7 about anything that could potentially taint China’s image. The CCP used propaganda to imply that COVID originated outside of China and went as far as to claim the U.S. military brought the virus to China during the Military World Games (fucking hilarious) or that it came from frozen food (also comical).
Initial denial & deflection: Early in the pandemic, China rejected suggestions that the virus originated from Wuhan, claiming it may have come from elsewhere. Chinese officials pushed theories suggesting the virus originated outside China, with some officials even alleging it was introduced by foreign visitors or imported frozen foods.
Complete BS claims about the U.S.: A prominent Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Zhao Lijian, suggested on Twitter that the U.S. military could have brought the virus to Wuhan during the Military World Games in October 2019, without providing evidence. This claim, widely regarded as misinformation, contributed significantly to tensions between the two countries.
Refusal to cooperate with investigations: China resisted repeated international efforts to conduct comprehensive investigations into the origins of COVID-19. China restricted WHO investigators’ access to certain data and locations, notably the Wuhan Institute of Virology, sparking criticism that it was obstructing the investigation into the origins of the virus.
Narrative control & censorship: Domestically, China suppressed reports and social media discussions that contradicted the government’s official narrative, including silencing whistleblower doctors who tried to alert the public early about the outbreak.
Is it possible the U.S. intelligence agencies and/or Germany released “lab leak” reports as an anti-China psyop?
Yes — I’d say this wasn’t the main reason but the timing is consistent with what an intelligence agency might do to modify domestic and international psychology.
And I don’t care if they are using this as a psyop. Smart move if they are. China is extremely dishonest and plays dirtier than any country (well I guess maybe except Russia) in terms of coverups, propaganda, espionage, etc.
Why do I think a psyop is possible? Trump got elected and he/his admin wants those who voted for him to perceive him as undoing corruption/coverups under Biden… he wants people confident that he is telling you the truth (unlike Biden).
Because most of Trump’s populist base strongly dislikes and distrusts China, it makes sense that the new CIA director would issue a report claiming COVID lab leak from Wuhan quickly after getting his new position. This confirms preexisting beliefs among Trump’s base and instills confidence in the administration.
Additionally, Trump is in the middle of a trade war with China that could get nastier. Issuing a lab leak report to make China look like the bad guys shifts people’s focus away from economic pain and towards hating China and competing with them. It injects some degree of homegrown competitive spirit and gives people someone to hate.
The German intelligence agency could’ve decided that March 2025 was an ideal time to release the BND COVID report for various reasons including:
Economic "De-risking": Justifying accelerated decoupling or reducing economic dependence on China.
Alignment with U.S. Interests: Strengthening geopolitical ties with the United States and reinforcing transatlantic unity against China.
Domestic Populism: Boosting pro-German nationalist sentiments by identifying a foreign adversary.
Distraction from Domestic Issues: Shifting public attention away from internal economic, political, or social problems.
EU Influence: Strengthening Germany’s leadership within the EU by taking a strong, unified stance against China.
Negotiating Leverage: Gaining strategic advantage in trade negotiations and economic discussions involving China.
Political Consolidation: Strengthening domestic political power by portraying the government as tough on foreign threats and responsive to populist sentiment.
Security Justification: Building public support for increased cybersecurity and defense spending under the guise of countering perceived foreign threats.
That said, even if it wasn’t a psyop, it will still yield net favorable psychological impact (American & German populism and alignment) — even if modest as a subtle, indirect way to turn people against China as a result of trade wars, strained relationships, and/or further economic decoupling.
Does China (CCP) likely know the origin of COVID?
Probably. It’s likely that China’s top leadership and/or key CCP officials know or have very strong suspicion regarding whether definitively a lab leak or wildlife trade (wet market).
At minimum the CCP is clearly withholding enough data to prevent outsiders from confirming or ruling out either theory. This secrecy might be a protective measure to avoid any blame be it from a lab mishap, incompetent wildlife regulation, or early mismanagement of the outbreak.
If I had to guess, I think the CCP strongly suspects one scenario but doesn’t want to take any blame (hence the coverup and censorship at both labs AND the Huanan market). Remember they tried to blame the U.S. for COVID (which was laughable) but it’s classic Chinese “save face” culture & likely genetic predisposition.
So really if the CCP wanted to put this COVID origin speculation to rest, they likely could. The fact that they aren’t should make anyone a bit suspicious. But you must consider that China doesn’t even want to take blame for it originating from their wet market (that’s the insanity of the CCP).
Final thoughts on BND & COVID lab leak report…
This report was kept under wraps in 2020 but German intelligence assigned high probability to the idea of a lab leak (80-95%). That said, they later downgraded the probability to 50-80% as new evidence emerged in support of a natural zoonotic origin… but then swung back to their OG stance of 80-95%.
Arguments can be made for a lab leak and for natural zoonotic origin – but neither should be assigned “high confidence” until smoking gun data/evidence is provided (via independent data/investigations OR the CCP directly).
The only entity that likely knows the truth is likely the CCP (China). Those claiming the onus is on China to disprove a lab leak are right… China almost certainly possesses detailed, potentially decisive evidence (lab records, staff health reports, surveillance footage, detailed epidemiological data, early patient samples, etc.) that could clarify the virus’s origins.
However, until evidence/data are unearthed, I still follow the full evidence/logic here and assign ~60-65% odds of natural Huanan Market origin via zoonosis and ~35-40% odds of a Wuhan Institute of Virology “lab leak” – but with LOW CONFIDENCE.
How’d I arrive at my odds? Epidemiological market cluster (earliest known cases tied to Huanan Seafood Market); 2 distinct strains of COVID at the market simultaneously (seems very unlikely if lab leak); raccoon-dog genetic evidence (mixed with SARS-CoV-2 DNA); low confidence from most intelligence agencies in lab leak with no smoking gun data; CCP blocking investigations can be for many reasons (beyond covering up a lab leak); genetic & historical context (genome of COVID lacks clear engineering signatures & prior zoonosis of coronaviruses have occurred e.g. SARS-1, MERS, etc.).
Are those who favor “lab leak” dumb or vice-versa? No. I’d say the only dumb people are those who claim to know with 100% certainty here without providing evidence to substantiate their high level of certainty.