CIA now says COVID-19 'more likely' to have come from lab
Source: USA Today
Published 2:57 p.m. ET Jan. 25, 2025
NEW YORK - The Central Intelligence Agency has assessed that the COVID-19 pandemic is "more likely" to have emerged from a lab rather than from nature, an agency spokesperson said on Saturday.
The agency had for years said it could not conclude whether COVID-19 was the result of a lab incident or it originated in nature.
The CIA says it has "low confidence" in its assessment that a "research-related origin of the COVID-19 pandemic is more likely" and notes in its statement that both scenarios - lab origin and natural origin - remain plausible. The Chinese embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
It was unclear the extent to which the agency has collected new intelligence on COVID-19's origins and whether that new evidence was used to formulate the latest assessment.
Read more: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/01/25/cia-now-says-covid-19-more-likely-to-have-come-from-lab/77947876007/
Of course they did.


dchill
(42,660 posts)wolfie001
(5,759 posts)This is an Alex Jones Administration at this point. Nixon's "Enemies List" is quite quaint at this point.
The Madcap
(1,342 posts)Why should I trust anything they say now?
stopdiggin
(14,095 posts)But, thanks for posting in any event ...
ForPeace
(143 posts)At least they said that! Many will read the headline and believe it, but low confidence means they unsure of the validity.
LudwigPastorius
(13,024 posts)...just days after Trump takes office and orders them to say that.
What a coincidence.
rickford66
(5,916 posts)
Shipwack
(2,787 posts)They still have low confidence that this is true, but its slightly more possible than it was before?
Theyre trying to maintain a bit of dignity while they suck up to the new regime.
Xipe Totec
(44,358 posts)Igel
(37,015 posts)One axis says how reliable your data are.
The other axis says what the data say.
Think of this as the spatial equivalent of "intersectional", with only two parameters.
You can have rock-solid data that really doesn't answer the question one way or the other. Or you can have weak data that points clearly in one direction. Sometimes weak data are all you have, and "weak" doesn't mean "wrong." Just you can't trust them to be right (or wrong).
The IPCC reports are the same way. If you don't report *both* bits of information I think it properly counts as misinformation, and very few news sources report both bits.
Always remembering that even the evaluation of the data as low or high confidence has confidence intervals associated with it.
rickford66
(5,916 posts)milestogo
(21,397 posts)Are they suddenly virologists?
PSPS
(14,747 posts)This is just an early example of trump's loyalists and yesmen in charge and doing his bidding. So far, he has muzzled all of the real health-related government agencies, leaving the only "alternate facts" being spoken.
milestogo
(21,397 posts)
camartinwv
(130 posts)yonder
(10,107 posts)from sharing information or making statements regarding public health concerns, while the CIA has apparently been given a megaphone to do quite the opposite.
It looks like those aspects of their charters have been exactly reversed. Everything is turning backwards, inside out or upside down.
P2025, up and running but not full steam. Yet.
Trueblue Texan
(3,525 posts)twodogsbarking
(14,614 posts)But it wasn't a Chinese lab leak.