Where did it come from?
Those who dispute a zoonotic origin for COVID-19 typically do so for the following reasons:
The Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences is located in Wuhan, China, the same city as the first identified COVID-19 case. MORE INFO
The Wuhan Institute of Virology conducts gain-of-function research on coronaviruses. Gain-of-Function research originated after the H1N1 influenza outbreak (swine flu) in 2008. This type of research studies the genetic make-up of viruses to determine what genetic characteristics make them transmissible to humans and tries to predict how many mutations of a non-pathogenic virus might make it transmissible. Gain of function researchers create non-naturally occurring viruses and increase their transmissibility and pathogenicity (ability to cause illness) in order to study them. The concern which has sparked controversy many times over the past ten years has been over the potential release of these non-naturally occurring viruses outside of the lab (either accidentally or nefariously). Here’s a link to a terrific article that objectively details the history and controversy surrounding “gain of function research.”
NIH corrects untruthful assertions by NIH Director Collins and NIAID Director Fauci that NIH had not funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan. NIH states that EcoHealth Alliance violated Terms and Conditions of NIH grant AI110964.
Here is a link to a CSPAN video clip of US Senator Rand Paul questioning Dr. Fauci on whether the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded gain of function research at the Wuhan lab.
After initial denials, the NIH eventually admitted that it did, in fact, use US taxpayer dollars to fund this type of research. The research was funded via grants to the company EcoHealth Alliance (Peter Daszak) and the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill (Professor Ralph Barik). Here’s a link to a summary of documents detailing these facts obtained from Judicial Watch.
Around the same time (between Oct. 19th and Oct. 21st) the NIH removed the definition of ‘gain of function research’ from its website. Shortly after they admitted this, the NIH promptly changed the definition of ‘gain of function research.’ Here’s the NIH’s new definition.