COVID-19 Origins: Quantifying Scientific Consensus Amid Political Polarization Through Mixed-Methods Meta-Analysis

ABSTRACT From 2019 till now, the origin of COVID-19 remains a debate between scientists and politician specially between the US and China. Majorly, two independent hypotheses were postulated. The lab leak hypothesis, which involves an escape of the virus from WIV laboratory in Wuhan, China and the natural origin hypothesis possible through an intermediate host. These hypotheses had been discussed since the pandemic with no definite conclusion. However, there is a belief of what the origin might be within the science community that might not be influenced politically. We aimed to check the direction of scientific consensus on the origin matter and to discuss the effect and impact of politicization. To achieve this, a mixedmethod meta-analysis involving a content-based qualitative and quantitative synthesis was conducted. 48 studies were selected using a PRISMA model and were synthesized on MASQDA. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO with an ID: 1055566. The result showed that majority of the scientist support the natural origin of covid 19 and the sentiment around this hypothesis is positive (0.398), indicating a more optimistic and affirmative language compare to the lab leak hypothesis with a negative average sentiment score of −0.124, suggesting that discourse around this theory is comparatively more negative. The lab-leak hypothesis fail due to the following: (1) Lack of Genetic Evidence for Engineering, (2) No Pre-Existing Virus Matching SARS-CoV-2 in Labs, (3) Furin Cleavage Site (FCS) Is Naturally Occurring and experimental attempts to generate an FCS in bat coronaviruses failed, suggesting natural evolution, (4) Early Cases Linked to Animal Exposure, Not Labs, (5) Historical Precedent for Natural Zoonotic Spillover: SARS-CoV-1 (2003) and MERS-CoV (2012), (6) Lack of Credible Evidence for Lab Involvement: No scientific publication, leaked document, or whistleblower testimony Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. Funding Statement This study did not receive any funding. Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes DATA AVAILABILITY The synthesized data and all other data are available upon reasonable request.