Conspiracy theories occupy a peculiar space in society. They are either ridiculed as wild fantasies or clung to with cult-like devotion. Some are dangerous to ignore; others, dangerous to believe. This series explores both edges of that knife. In this first part, we examine a theory once dismissed as fringe paranoia—and how its rejection revealed a blind spot in how we confront uncomfortable truths.

In 2020, a deadly virus swept across the planet, shutting down cities, grounding airplanes, and sending billions into lockdown. In those first months of 2020, the world felt like it was holding its breath. Sirens echoed through empty streets, Families watched loved ones vanish behind hospital doors, never to return. Grandparents died alone. Jobs disappeared overnight. Weddings were canceled, funerals live streamed, groceries were disinfected, neighbors were feared, and phrases like “social distancing” and “sanitizing” became an anthem. COVID 19 was an event the globe will never forget for generations to come.

From early 2020, mainstream institutions like the WHO, leading medical journals (The Lancet, Nature), and major media outlets (The New York Times, Washington Post, BBC) strongly supported the narrative that COVID-19 emerged from a natural spillover event at the Huanan Seafood Market. This idea was amplified across social media, especially through infographics, expert threads, and viral news articles. These reports and visuals were backed by prestigious institutions (like WHO, CDC, The Lancet, Nature), endorsed by well-known experts like Dr. Anthony Fauci and virologists from prominent universities and framed as “settled science,” which lent an air of credibility and certainty. Articles and explainers used technical yet reassuring language, emphasizing that zoonotic spillovers were common (e.g., SARS, MERS).

Some voices though didn’t agree with mainstream narrative, suggesting alternative theories as to how the pandemic originated and spread. Among the most controversial theories was the suggestion that the virus didn’t emerge naturally—but from a laboratory in Wuhan. This rhetoric quickly gained traction and popular voices began to either question the officially accepted narrative, or openly promote the Wuhan Origin claim. Hashtags like #WuhanVirus, #ChinaVirus, and later #LabLeak started trending intermittently, drawing criticism and moderation, and users began sharing amateur analyses, leaked documents, and questions about China’s transparency. A few independent journalists and online scientists like Yuri Deigin and Josh Rogin, a Washington Post journalist used Twitter to raise the alarm and argue for further investigation into the lab-leak theory. Their threads and discussions gained hundreds of thousands of impressions, retweets, and quote-tweets—contributing significant to the theory’s growing visibility. Senator Rand Paul accused Dr. Anthony Fauci and NIH officials of using the Proximal Origin paper as strategic messaging to quell scrutiny. According to The Washington Examiner, Paul described it as propaganda disguised as science. A medical doctor and former postdoctoral researcher at the University of Hong Kong’s School of Public Health, Dr. Li Meng-Yan claimed that: “The SARS-CoV-2 virus is not from nature… It is a man-made virus created in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

These claims were quickly dismissed by scientists, governments, and the media as reckless paranoia. In February 2020, The Lancet published an open letter signed by 27 leading scientists condemning “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID‑19 does not have a natural origin,” warning that such speculation could “jeopardize our global collaboration.” The World Health Organization reinforced the early consensus. Its March 2020 report declared a lab origin “extremely unlikely. ” Social media platforms echoed the institutional consensus. Facebook-affiliated fact-checkers labeled posts hinting at a lab origin as misinformation. Twitter flagged or removed entire threads. Early news coverage in The Washington Post and The New York Times referred to the theory as “debunked,” reinforcing what some later called “groupthink” and ideological suppression. Those who mentioned it online were often mocked as xenophobes or conspiracy theorists. Platforms suppressed content. Virologists and geneticists claimed that Dr. Meng-Yan’s evidence was deeply flawed, citing poor methodology, misinterpretation of genetic features and lack of new data Fact-checkers and outlets like Science, Nature, and The New York Times dismissed her claims as conspiracy with no credible basis. These weren’t passive denials. Scientists, journal editors, public health officials, and tech platforms aligned to define the lab-leak hypothesis not just as wrong, but as dangerous. And in doing so, they turned a scientific debate into a political third rail—until reality forced a reconsideration.

In May 2021, science journalist Nicholas Wade published a comprehensive article titled “The Origin of COVID: Did People or Nature Open Pandora’s Box at Wuhan?” The piece examined both the natural and laboratory origin theories, arguing that the latter had not received sufficient scientific scrutiny. Drawing on existing virological research, institutional records, and funding trails, Wade’s article laid out a structured case that raised new questions about the early dismissal of the lab-origin hypothesis. Its impact was immediate: mainstream outlets began revisiting the issue, policymakers called for renewed investigations, and public discourse started to reflect a broader range of possibilities. The theory was no longer confined to the margins.

In the weeks following Wade’s article, a series of developments signaled a broad institutional pivot. Facebook announced in late May 2021 that it would no longer remove posts suggesting COVID-19 was man-made or leaked from a lab, reversing a long-standing policy.

Media outlets that had previously dismissed the lab-leak theory as misinformation or conspiracy—such as The New York Times, CNN, and The Washington Post—began publishing more balanced pieces acknowledging the theory’s plausibility and the lack of definitive evidence for a natural origin. The Biden administration, responding to growing bipartisan pressure, ordered U.S. intelligence agencies to conduct a 90-day review into the virus’s origins. Simultaneously, scientists who had once publicly dismissed the theory, including some who had signed the 2020 Lancet letter, began calling for greater transparency and further investigation into the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The tone of the discourse had shifted: what was once considered fringe had become a matter of legitimate inquiry.

While there hasn’t been a definite conclusion as to the validity of the Wuhan Theory, largely due to the Chinese government suppressing and withholding information, The Department of Energy and the FBI leaned toward a lab-leak with low-to-moderate confidence. Other agencies assessed natural origin as more likely or remained undecided. No agency said it’s completely invalid. It’s important to note that the three most popular stances on the subject currently are “It’s possible but only slightly likely “, “ It’s very highly likely” and “ I’d rather not talk about it”. The single greatest obstacle to reaching a definitive conclusion about the origins of COVID-19 is the lack of access to early clinical data, laboratory records, and epidemiological evidence—most of which remains withheld or restricted by the Chinese government. This is a clear case of conspiracy theories not being as incredible as people make them out to be.

The COVID-19 lab leak theory wasn’t just about a virus—it became a symbol of how society deals with uncomfortable truths. Dismissing a theory because it feels inconvenient can blind us to dangers hiding in plain sight. But that’s only one side of the equation. The other is far more unsettling: what happens when belief isn’t dismissed at all, but embraced so deeply that it becomes lethal? In the next part of this series, we’ll step into a story where conviction spiraled beyond reason, and belief itself became a deadly trap. You might think you know the tale, but not like this.

Conspiracy theories occupy a peculiar space in society. They are either ridiculed as wild fantasies or clung to with cult-like devotion. Some are dangerous to ignore; others, dangerous to believe. This series explores both edges of that knife. In this first part, we examine a theory once dismissed as fringe paranoia—and how its rejection revealed a blind spot in how we confront uncomfortable truths.

In 2020, a deadly virus swept across the planet, shutting down cities, grounding airplanes, and sending billions into lockdown. In those first months of 2020, the world felt like it was holding its breath. Sirens echoed through empty streets, Families watched loved ones vanish behind hospital doors, never to return. Grandparents died alone. Jobs disappeared overnight. Weddings were canceled, funerals live streamed, groceries were disinfected, neighbors were feared, and phrases like “social distancing” and “sanitizing” became an anthem. COVID 19 was an event the globe will never forget for generations to come.

From early 2020, mainstream institutions like the WHO, leading medical journals (The Lancet, Nature), and major media outlets (The New York Times, Washington Post, BBC) strongly supported the narrative that COVID-19 emerged from a natural spillover event at the Huanan Seafood Market. This idea was amplified across social media, especially through infographics, expert threads, and viral news articles. These reports and visuals were backed by prestigious institutions (like WHO, CDC, The Lancet, Nature), endorsed by well-known experts like Dr. Anthony Fauci and virologists from prominent universities and framed as “settled science,” which lent an air of credibility and certainty. Articles and explainers used technical yet reassuring language, emphasizing that zoonotic spillovers were common (e.g., SARS, MERS).

Some voices though didn’t agree with mainstream narrative, suggesting alternative theories as to how the pandemic originated and spread. Among the most controversial theories was the suggestion that the virus didn’t emerge naturally—but from a laboratory in Wuhan. This rhetoric quickly gained traction and popular voices began to either question the officially accepted narrative, or openly promote the Wuhan Origin claim. Hashtags like #WuhanVirus, #ChinaVirus, and later #LabLeak started trending intermittently, drawing criticism and moderation, and users began sharing amateur analyses, leaked documents, and questions about China’s transparency. A few independent journalists and online scientists like Yuri Deigin and Josh Rogin, a Washington Post journalist used Twitter to raise the alarm and argue for further investigation into the lab-leak theory. Their threads and discussions gained hundreds of thousands of impressions, retweets, and quote-tweets—contributing significant to the theory’s growing visibility. Senator Rand Paul accused Dr. Anthony Fauci and NIH officials of using the Proximal Origin paper as strategic messaging to quell scrutiny. According to The Washington Examiner, Paul described it as propaganda disguised as science. A medical doctor and former postdoctoral researcher at the University of Hong Kong’s School of Public Health, Dr. Li Meng-Yan claimed that: “The SARS-CoV-2 virus is not from nature… It is a man-made virus created in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

These claims were quickly dismissed by scientists, governments, and the media as reckless paranoia. In February 2020, The Lancet published an open letter signed by 27 leading scientists condemning “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID‑19 does not have a natural origin,” warning that such speculation could “jeopardize our global collaboration.” The World Health Organization reinforced the early consensus. Its March 2020 report declared a lab origin “extremely unlikely. ” Social media platforms echoed the institutional consensus. Facebook-affiliated fact-checkers labeled posts hinting at a lab origin as misinformation. Twitter flagged or removed entire threads. Early news coverage in The Washington Post and The New York Times referred to the theory as “debunked,” reinforcing what some later called “groupthink” and ideological suppression. Those who mentioned it online were often mocked as xenophobes or conspiracy theorists. Platforms suppressed content. Virologists and geneticists claimed that Dr. Meng-Yan’s evidence was deeply flawed, citing poor methodology, misinterpretation of genetic features and lack of new data Fact-checkers and outlets like Science, Nature, and The New York Times dismissed her claims as conspiracy with no credible basis. These weren’t passive denials. Scientists, journal editors, public health officials, and tech platforms aligned to define the lab-leak hypothesis not just as wrong, but as dangerous. And in doing so, they turned a scientific debate into a political third rail—until reality forced a reconsideration.

In May 2021, science journalist Nicholas Wade published a comprehensive article titled “The Origin of COVID: Did People or Nature Open Pandora’s Box at Wuhan?” The piece examined both the natural and laboratory origin theories, arguing that the latter had not received sufficient scientific scrutiny. Drawing on existing virological research, institutional records, and funding trails, Wade’s article laid out a structured case that raised new questions about the early dismissal of the lab-origin hypothesis. Its impact was immediate: mainstream outlets began revisiting the issue, policymakers called for renewed investigations, and public discourse started to reflect a broader range of possibilities. The theory was no longer confined to the margins.

In the weeks following Wade’s article, a series of developments signaled a broad institutional pivot. Facebook announced in late May 2021 that it would no longer remove posts suggesting COVID-19 was man-made or leaked from a lab, reversing a long-standing policy.

Media outlets that had previously dismissed the lab-leak theory as misinformation or conspiracy—such as The New York Times, CNN, and The Washington Post—began publishing more balanced pieces acknowledging the theory’s plausibility and the lack of definitive evidence for a natural origin. The Biden administration, responding to growing bipartisan pressure, ordered U.S. intelligence agencies to conduct a 90-day review into the virus’s origins. Simultaneously, scientists who had once publicly dismissed the theory, including some who had signed the 2020 Lancet letter, began calling for greater transparency and further investigation into the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The tone of the discourse had shifted: what was once considered fringe had become a matter of legitimate inquiry.

While there hasn’t been a definite conclusion as to the validity of the Wuhan Theory, largely due to the Chinese government suppressing and withholding information, The Department of Energy and the FBI leaned toward a lab-leak with low-to-moderate confidence. Other agencies assessed natural origin as more likely or remained undecided. No agency said it’s completely invalid. It’s important to note that the three most popular stances on the subject currently are “It’s possible but only slightly likely “, “ It’s very highly likely” and “ I’d rather not talk about it”. The single greatest obstacle to reaching a definitive conclusion about the origins of COVID-19 is the lack of access to early clinical data, laboratory records, and epidemiological evidence—most of which remains withheld or restricted by the Chinese government. This is a clear case of conspiracy theories not being as incredible as people make them out to be.

The COVID-19 lab leak theory wasn’t just about a virus—it became a symbol of how society deals with uncomfortable truths. Dismissing a theory because it feels inconvenient can blind us to dangers hiding in plain sight. But that’s only one side of the equation. The other is far more unsettling: what happens when belief isn’t dismissed at all, but embraced so deeply that it becomes lethal? In the next part of this series, we’ll step into a story where conviction spiraled beyond reason, and belief itself became a deadly trap. You might think you know the tale, but not like this.