Business
Column: A CIA 'assessment' revives the fact-free claim that COVID started in a Chinese lab
Benjamin Franklin was wrong, or at least premature, when he wrote in 1789 that nothing is certain in this world “except death and taxes.”
Were he writing today, he would have to add to this sacred duo another entry — that it’s also certain that the theory that COVID-19 originated in a Chinese lab will persist, despite the absence of any evidence to support it.
As I’ve written before, this fact-free claim periodically receives a shot of life-extending plasma from credulous news organizations, congressional Republicans, and former and current Trump acolytes.
Now, the most important thing is to make China pay for unleashing a plague on the world.
—
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)
On Saturday, the lab-leak claim got another dose of plasma. This was the Central Intelligence Agency’s issuance of its purported “assessment” that a lab leak was more likely than zoonosis as the pandemic’s origin.
The agency issued its statement at the behest of John Ratcliffe, who was confirmed Friday as Donald Trump’s choice for director of the CIA.
The CIA’s assessment rocketed around the news and political worlds, spurring more heavy breathing from partisans who have long deployed the claim as part of a geopolitical contest with China.
The headline takeaway in many news articles was that the “CIA Now Favors Lab Leak Theory on Origins of Covid-19” (Wall Street Journal and New York Times).
Some also gave various degrees of prominence to the CIA’s admission that it made its judgment with “low confidence.” My colleagues at The Times placed that caveat in the headline of our publication of an Associated Press dispatch on the CIA statement.
Partisan commentary on the CIA statement ignored that caveat.
“Now, the most important thing is to make China pay for unleashing a plague on the world,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), a veteran advocate of the lab-leak theory, told Politico.
In an interview with the conservative news site Breitbart on Friday, the day of his confirmation, Ratcliffe made no secret of his intention to pursue the issue as an issue for national security.
“One of the things that I’ve talked about a lot is addressing the threat from China on a number of fronts,” he said, “and that goes back to why a million Americans died and why the Central Intelligence Agency has been sitting on the sidelines for five years in not making an assessment about the origins of COVID.”
Among the political warriors who seized promptly on the CIA statement was Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University who has emerged as a leading critic of the left. In an article posted Monday on his personal web page, Turley originally wrote that the CIA statement “details how it views the lab theory as the most likely explanation for the virus.”
Therefore, it’s important to take a close look at what the CIA said, how it might have differed from its previous judgments, and just what it means to issue a conclusion with “low confidence.”
“CIA assesses with low confidence that a research-related origin of the COVID-19 pandemic is more likely than a natural origin based on the available body of reporting,” read the statement by a CIA spokesman. The statement added that the agency would keep evaluating “any available credible new intelligence reporting or open-source information that could change CIA’s assessment.”
To begin with, there were no “details” in the CIA statement explaining the basis for its conclusion. The CIA didn’t offer any evidence or explain what prompted its assessment, or reassessment.
It’s unclear even how new its assessment is. In June 2023, at then-President Biden’s directive, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a declassified report summarizing the conclusions of the U.S. intelligence community. The office oversees the work of 18 intelligence agencies, including the CIA.
The report stated that five intelligence agencies assessed that “natural exposure to an infected animal” caused the pandemic; two — the FBI and the Department of Energy — came down on the lab-leak side; and the CIA and another unnamed agency were “unable to determine the precise origin” of the pandemic. It didn’t give assessments by other agencies.
The ODNI report left lab-leak proponents crestfallen. They had been certain that it would validate their position; instead, it specifically refuted several core claims made by the lab-leak camp.
Then there’s the “low confidence” qualification. This is not a casual judgment about information, but a term of art with a specific meaning in the intelligence community.
According to a definition published in 2017 by ODNI, it “generally means that the information’s credibility and/or plausibility is uncertain, that the information is too fragmented or poorly corroborated to make solid analytical inferences, or that reliability of the sources is questionable.”
To put it in plain language, the CIA “assessment” is based, at best, on unreliable sources and that it’s too uncertain and unverified to “make solid analytical inferences.” That hasn’t stopped people like Ratcliffe and Cotton from aggressively coming to their own conclusions and making threats against another country.
Turley, for his part, added a paragraph to his original post acknowledging that the CIA considered the evidence for a lab leak “fragmented and fluid.” He didn’t tell me when he made the change, but the link to the definition of “low confidence” he embedded in his post was one that I had posted online and referred him to.
Turley told me by email that his goal had not been to argue that “one theory is clearly correct,” but that “there was a legitimate debate on the issue that was being suppressed by the attacks and the coverage…. The issue is not which theory is correct but the fact that either could be true and, as shown by other reports, the lab theory is actually favored by some agencies and offices today.”
Is that so, however?
Let’s be clear about something: No scientifically valid evidence has ever been produced to support the theory that the COVID virus escaped from a Chinese laboratory. All that exists is conjecture, innuendo and speculation, most of it based on the circumstance that the first COVID cases were identified at a wildlife market in Wuhan, miles from a government virology lab.
But no evidence has ever emerged of an outbreak in that lab or its vicinity, while copious epidemiological evidence exists for its outbreak at the Huanan market, where people bought and sold critters known to be susceptible to COVID.
If there were a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal setting forth evidence for a lab leak, it would be prominently cited in every news article about the origins debate. There doesn’t appear to be any.
John P. Moore, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Weill Cornell Medical College who assiduously tracks technical papers about COVID for a weekly digest, told me he “does not know of any such papers — only speculative articles.”
The Chinese government has been accused, mostly by the lab-leak camp, of suppressing evidence of the role of the Wuhan lab out of embarrassment or fear of international repercussions. But that’s highly misleading. The truth is that China is no happier about evidence that the pandemic originated in one of its wildlife markets. It has also been criticized by the World Health Organization for a lack of transparency.
The Chinese government has long promised to regulate the wildlife trade within its borders, but its efforts have been spotty, with many markets continuing to operate. After the initial outbreak of COVID in Wuhan, the government shut down the Wuhan market, where 30 species of wild animals were part of the inventory and some 10,000 visitors a day strolled its alleyways.
The shutdown complicated efforts to pinpoint the outbreak’s origin, but research conducted before the shutdown documented the presence of COVID-infected animals on the premises.
The uncritical retailing of the CIA assessment underscores the perils of scientific misinformation and disinformation for public health. The Trump administration’s evidence-free focus on the Chinese laboratories ranks as anti-science propaganda.
As 41 biologists, immunologists, virologists and physicians observed in August in the Journal of Virology, the unfounded lab-leak hypothesis “stokes the flames of an anti-science, conspiracy-driven agenda, which targets science and scientists even beyond those investigating the origins of SARS-CoV-2,” the virus that causes COVID.
“The inevitable outcome is an undermining of the broader missions of science and public health and the misdirecting of resources and effort,” they wrote. “The consequence is to leave the world more vulnerable to future pandemics, as well as current infectious disease threats.”
Their warning could not have been more stark.
The finale of Netflix’s blockbuster series “Stranger Things” gave movie theaters a much needed jolt, generating an estimated $20 to $25 million at the box office, according to multiple reports.
Matt and Ross Duffer’s supernatural thriller debuted simultaneously on the streaming platform and some 600 cinemas on New Year’s Eve and held encore showings all through New Year’s Day.
Owing to the cast’s contractual terms for residuals, theaters could not charge for tickets. Instead, fans reserved seats for performances directly from theaters, paying for mandatory food and beverage vouchers. AMC and Cinemark Theatres charged $20 for the concession vouchers while Regal Cinemas charged $11 — in homage to the show’s lead character, Eleven, played by Millie Bobby Brown.
AMC Theatres, the world’s largest theater chain, played the finale at 231 of its theaters across the U.S. — which accounted for one-third of all theaters that held screenings over the holiday.
The chain said that more than 753,000 viewers attended a performance at one of its cinemas over two days, bringing in more than $15 million.
Expectations for the theater showing was high.
“Our year ends on a high: Netflix’s Strangers Things series finale to show in many AMC theatres this week. Two days only New Year’s Eve and Jan 1.,” tweeted AMC’s CEO Adam Aron on Dec. 30. “Theatres are packed. Many sellouts but seats still available. How many Stranger Things tickets do you think AMC will sell?”
It was a rare win for the lagging domestic box office.
In 2025, revenue in the U.S. and Canada was expected to reach $8.87 billion, which was marginally better than 2024 and only 20% more than pre-pandemic levels, according to movie data firm Comscore.
With few exceptions, moviegoers have stayed home. As of Dec. 25., only an estimated 760 million tickets were sold, according to media and entertainment data firm EntTelligence, compared with 2024, during which total ticket sales exceeded 800 million.
Elon Musk’s Tesla is no longer the top electric vehicle seller in the world as demand at home has cooled while competition heated up abroad.
Tesla lost its pole position after reporting 1.64 million deliveries in 2025, roughly 620,000 fewer than Chinese competitor BYD.
Tesla struggled last year amid increasing competition, waning federal support for electric vehicle adoption and brand damage triggered by Musk’s stint in the White House.
Musk is turning his focus toward robotics and autonomous driving technology in an effort to keep Tesla relevant as its EVs lose popularity.
On Friday, the company reported lower than expected delivery numbers for the fourth quarter of 2025, a decline from the previous quarter and a year-over-year decrease of 16%. Tesla delivered 418,227 vehicles in the fourth quarter and produced 434,358.
According to a company-compiled consensus from analysts posted on Tesla’s website in December, the company was projected to deliver nearly 423,000 vehicles in the fourth quarter.
Tesla’s annual deliveries fell roughly 8% last year from 1.79 million in 2024. Its third-quarter deliveries saw a boost as consumers rushed to buy electric vehicles before a $7,500 tax credit expired at the end of September.
“There are so many contributing factors ranging from the lack of evolution and true innovation of Musk’s product to the loss of the EV credits,” said Karl Brauer, an analyst at iSeeCars.com. “Teslas are just starting to look old. You have a bunch of other options, and they all look newer and fresher.”
BYD is making premium electric vehicles at an affordable price point, Brauer said, but steep tariffs on Chinese EVs have effectively prevented the cars from gaining popularity in the U.S.
Other international automakers like South Korea’s Hyundai and Germany’s Volkswagen have been expanding their EV offerings.
In the third quarter last year, the American automaker Ford sold a record number of electric vehicles, bolstered by its popular Mustang Mach-E SUV and F-150 Lightning pickup truck.
In October, Tesla released long-anticipated lower-cost versions of its Model 3 and Model Y in an attempt to attract new customers.
However, analysts and investors were disappointed by the launch, saying the models, which start at $36,990, aren’t affordable enough to entice a new group of consumers to consider going green.
As evidenced by Tesla’s continuing sales decline, the new Model 3 and Model Y have not been huge wins for the company, Brauer said.
“There’s a core Tesla following who will never choose anything else, but that’s not how you grow,” Brauer said.
Tesla lost a swath of customers last year when Musk joined the Trump administration as the head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency.
Left-leaning Tesla owners, who were originally attracted to the brand for its environmental benefits, became alienated by Musk’s political activity.
Consumers held protests against the brand and some celebrities made a point of selling their Teslas.
Although Musk left the White House, the company sustained significant and lasting reputation damage, experts said.
Investors, however, remain largely optimistic about Tesla’s future.
Shares are up nearly 40% over the last six months and have risen 16% over the past year.
Brauer said investors are clinging to the hope that Musk’s robotaxi business will take off and the ambitious chief executive will succeed in developing humanoid robots and self-driving cars.
The roll-out of Tesla robotaxis in Austin, Texas, last summer was full of glitches, and experts say Tesla has a long way to go to catch up with the autonomous ride-hailing company Waymo.
Still, the burgeoning robotaxi industry could be extremely lucrative for Tesla if Musk can deliver on his promises.
“Musk has done a good job, increasingly in the past year, of switching the conversation from Tesla sales to AI and robotics,” Brauer said. “I think current stock price largely reflects that.”
Shares were down about 2% on Friday after the company reported earnings.
Grok, the chatbot of Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company xAI, published sexualized images of children as its guardrails seem to have failed when it was prompted with vile user requests.
Users used prompts such as “put her in a bikini” under pictures of real people on X to get Grok to generate nonconsensual images of them in inappropriate attire. The morphed images created on Grok’s account are posted publicly on X, Musk’s social media platform.
The AI complied with requests to morph images of minors even though that is a violation of its own acceptable use policy.
“There are isolated cases where users prompted for and received AI images depicting minors in minimal clothing, like the example you referenced,” Grok responded to a user on X. “xAI has safeguards, but improvements are ongoing to block such requests entirely.”
xAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Its chatbot posted an apology.
“I deeply regret an incident on Dec 28, 2025, where I generated and shared an AI image of two young girls (estimated ages 12-16) in sexualized attire based on a user’s prompt,” said a post on Grok’s profile. “This violated ethical standards and potentially US laws on CSAM. It was a failure in safeguards, and I’m sorry for any harm caused. xAI is reviewing to prevent future issues.”
The government of India notified X that it risked losing legal immunity if the company did not submit a report within 72 hours on the actions taken to stop the generation and distribution of obscene, nonconsensual images targeting women.
Critics have accused xAI of allowing AI-enabled harassment, and were shocked and angered by the existence of a feature for seamless AI manipulation and undressing requests.
“How is this not illegal?” journalist Samantha Smith posted on X, decrying the creation of her own nonconsensual sexualized photo.
Musk’s xAI has positioned Grok as an “anti-woke” chatbot that is programmed to be more open and edgy than competing chatbots such as ChatGPT.
In May, Grok posted about “white genocide,” repeating conspiracy theories of Black South Africans persecuting the white minority, in response to an unrelated question.
In June, the company apologized when Grok posted a series of antisemitic remarks praising Adolf Hitler.
Companies such as Google and OpenAI, which also operate AI image generators, have much more restrictive guidelines around content.
The proliferation of nonconsensual deepfake imagery has coincided with broad AI adoption, with a 400% increase in AI child sexual abuse imagery in the first half of 2025, according to Internet Watch Foundation.
xAI introduced “Spicy Mode” in its image and video generation tool in August for verified adult subscribers to create sensual content.
Some adult-content creators on X prompted Grok to generate sexualized images to market themselves, kickstarting an internet trend a few days ago, according to Copyleaks, an AI text and image detection company.
The testing of the limits of Grok devolved into a free-for-all as users asked it to create sexualized images of celebrities and others.
xAI is reportedly valued at more than $200 billion, and has been investing billions of dollars to build the largest data center in the world to power its AI applications.
However, Grok’s capabilities still lag competing AI models such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, that have amassed more users, while Grok has turned to sexual AI companions and risque chats to boost growth.
Brain Health Challenge: Test Your Knowledge of Healthy Habits
George Clooney gets French citizenship — and another dust-up with Trump
Birdbuddy’s new smart feeders aim to make spotting birds easier, even for beginners
Trump says Cuba is ‘ready to fall’ after capture of Venezuela’s Maduro
Trump vows US ‘in charge’ of Venezuela as he reveals if he’s spoken to Delcy Rodríguez
Florida High School Football Rankings: Top 25 teams – Oct. 21
Cleary's 21 help Le Moyne down Central Connecticut State 69-64 in OT
How old is Bo Nix? What to know about Oregon quarterback ahead of 2024 NFL Draft
99th annual Pony Swim held in Virginia
Video: ‘It Didn’t Have to Happen This Way:’ U.Va. Faculty Call for Review of Police Response to Protests
Trump vows US ‘in charge’ of Venezuela as he reveals if he’s spoken to Delcy Rodríguez
Trump’s abduction of Maduro escalates concerns over potential war with Iran
Cuba says 32 Cuban fighters killed in US raids on Venezuela
Dan Bongino officially leaves FBI deputy director role after less than a year, returns to ‘civilian life’
Hundreds march in silence to honour Crans-Montana fire victims
-
World1 week agoHamas builds new terror regime in Gaza, recruiting teens amid problematic election
-
Indianapolis, IN1 week agoIndianapolis Colts playoffs: Updated elimination scenario, AFC standings, playoff picture for Week 17
-
Business1 week agoGoogle is at last letting users swap out embarrassing Gmail addresses without losing their data
-
Southeast1 week agoTwo attorneys vanish during Florida fishing trip as ‘heartbroken’ wife pleads for help finding them
-
Politics1 week agoMost shocking examples of Chinese espionage uncovered by the US this year: ‘Just the tip of the iceberg’
-
News1 week agoRoads could remain slick, icy Saturday morning in Philadelphia area, tracking another storm on the way
-
World1 week agoPodcast: The 2025 EU-US relationship explained simply
-
News1 week agoMarijuana rescheduling would bring some immediate changes, but others will take time