ArticleEnvironmental research2022
Origin of COVID-19: Dismissing the Mojiang mine theory and the laboratory accident narrative.
Article in Environmental research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Meta-analysis to explain unknown causes of the origins of SARS-COV-2.Environmental research · 2022Pooled it
- A risk-gate mechanistic-ecological framework for assessing emergence potential of henipa-related viruses.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Mucormycosis and COVID-19: Unraveling the Interplay of Fungal Infection in a Global Health Crisis: An Overview.Infectious disorders drug targets · 2025Review
- Role of Spillover and Spillback in SARS-CoV-2 Transmission and the Importance of One Health in Understanding the Dynamics of the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2023Review
- Updated analysis to reject the laboratory-engineering hypothesis of SARS-CoV-2.Environmental research · 2023Article
- SARS-CoV-2 versus Influenza A Virus: Characteristics and Co-Treatments.Microorganisms · 2023Review
- Scientific evidence on the origin of SARS-CoV-2.Environmental research · 2023Article
- Public Opinion Manipulation on Social Media: Social Network Analysis of Twitter Bots during the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- An updated review of the scientific literature on the origin of SARS-CoV-2.Environmental research · 2022Review
- There is no "origin" to SARS-CoV-2.Environmental research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The origin of SARS-CoV-2 is still the subject of a controversial debate. The natural origin theory is confronted to the laboratory leak theory. The latter is composite and comprises contradictory theories, one being the leak of a naturally occurring virus and the other the leak of a genetically engineered virus. The laboratory leak theory is essentially based on a publication by Rahalkar and Bahulikar in 2020 linking SARS-CoV-2 to the Mojiang mine incident in 2012 during which six miners fell sick and three died. We analyzed the clinical reports. The diagnosis is not that of COVID-19 or SARS. SARS-CoV-2 was not present in the Mojiang mine. We also bring arguments against the laboratory leak narrative.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.