Covid-19 had no DNA. It was an RNA only virus.
Most of the scientific evidence points towards it coming from an animal, not a lab.
“Although they are too distantly related to SARS-CoV-2 to have been its direct progenitors, closely related ancestral strains have been found in horseshoe bats (Rhinolophus spp.) in southeast Asia. A Betacoronavirus called RaTG13, which shares 96.1% of its genetic code with SARS-CoV-2, was identified in 2013 in China7. (Betacoronavirus is the genus to which SARS-CoV-2 belongs.) Another strain called BANAL-52, which shares 96.8% of its genetic code with SARS-CoV-2, was identified in 2020 in Laos8. This suggests that similar strains circulating in bats in China or southeast Asia might have spilled over to intermediate animal hosts or directly to humans.
We also know that the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan had a significant role in the early transmission and initial spread of the virus.
More than 60% of the known earliest human cases in December 2019 involved people who worked at the market, made purchases there, lived near it or had some other epidemiological link with it9. (At least 175 people were diagnosed with the disease, either through lab testing or on the basis of clinical symptoms before 1 January 2020.)
Two distinct genetic lineages of SARS-CoV-2 were identified in samples from early cases associated with the Huanan market, as well as from the environmental sampling of stalls and run-off water in drains at the market in January 2020. This supports the idea that the virus had already been evolving in animals before it reached the market”
“Metagenomic sequencing of environmental samples collected at the market has indicated that several wildlife species had been there before it was cleaned and sterilized on 1 January 2020 by the Chinese authorities in response to the outbreak. These include raccoon dogs (Nyctereutes procyonoides), hoary bamboo rats (Rhizomys pruinosus) and palm civets (Paguma larvata), all of which are known to be susceptible to the early strains of SARS-CoV-211,12. These animals could have been the intermediate hosts that brought the virus to the market, leading to the early cases in humans11,12 — although it remains unclear whether the virus first infected humans at Huanan, or whether the spillover event occurred earlier, with the virus subsequently being carried to the market by infected humans or animals.
Adding to all this, there is no verified evidence of the existence of human or animal cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection anywhere else before December 2019. There were retrospective reports of one or two possible cases occurring in November 2019 in Italy and France, and of the virus being detected in a wastewater sample (also in November that year) in Brazil. But in all instances, the positive test results could not be confirmed by independent labs.”
“Most of the scientific reviews we assessed support the zoonotic-origins hypothesis and find no conclusive evidence for a lab leak. Most of the published government-agency and intelligence reports that we assessed (which are listed in our 2025 publication1) assign levels of confidence, such as ‘low’ or ‘moderate’, to the lab-leak or zoonotic-origins hypotheses. But such reports deliver different conclusions, seemingly on the basis of political rather than scientific arguments.
In short, published intelligence reports, which focus mainly on biosafety and biosecurity policies and practices at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, are speculative. None provides concrete evidence of a breach.”
However, they did say that China has not release the information to thoroughly confirm or deny if it was a lab leak, so although the evidence for natural animal origins is strong, it’s possible it came from a lab.
“We did not find evidence to suggest that SARS-CoV-2 resulting from experimental manipulation was a more likely scenario than it emerging from naturally occurring mutations or recombination events.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00530-y
Twins separated at birth studies are problematic for multiple reasons.
Studies comparing twins reared together to siblings doesn’t isolate genetics because the environment is different for each sibling cohort.
A whole bunch of claims about genetics rest on these bad studies or claims that these studies don’t strongly support.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoysrR7Adwk
“Mason notes that our ancestors migrated at levels that most people grossly underestimate, leading to far more genetic mixing than people typically assume. She points out that our current understanding of DNA undermines a lot of assumptions that arose from observing external traits, such as skin color, nose shape, and eye shape, since such traits can arise from the same genetic allele but be inherited from entirely different people. Furthermore, thanks to the random genetic recombination that happens with every new generation, 75 percent of your genetic makeup is attributable to only 5 percent of your ancestors. A 23andMe test will tell you about only 8 percent of your ancestors, because they’re the only ones left represented in your DNA today. In fact, it’s possible that two dark South Africans can be more genetically divergent from one another than one of them is from a white Swede.”
https://reason.com/2025/05/25/how-to-end-racism/
“”Luck,” E.B. White once said, “is not something you can mention in the presence of self-made men.” They worked hard, no doubt, to get where they are. But they also benefited enormously from good fortune, not just in life but in life’s building blocks. A fortunate combination of thousands of slight genetic differences boosted their intelligence, motivation, openness to experience, task perseverance, executive function, and interpersonal skills.
“Like being born to a rich or poor family, being born with a certain set of genetic variants is the outcome of a lottery of birth,” the behavioral geneticist Kathryn Paige Harden argues in The Genetic Lottery. “And, like social class, the outcome of the genetic lottery is a systemic force that matters for who gets more, and who gets less, of nearly everything we care about in society.””
“The Trump administration has started forcibly collecting DNA samples from immigrants in detention and sending that information to an FBI criminal database called the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) for permanent storage. Officials say this is a crime-fighting move. In reality, it is mass surveillance.
In 2005, Congress passed the DNA Fingerprint Act, requiring genetic testing of anyone arrested for a federal crime, regardless of whether they’re eventually charged and convicted. The Supreme Court approved this gross invasion of individual privacy in Maryland v. King (2013), ruling 5–4 that the law did not violate constitutional protections against illegal searches and seizures because the original arrest had required probable cause.
The DNA Fingerprint Act gave the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) latitude to exempt noncitizens from being sampled. There’s a very good reason for that: The vast majority of these folks are detained not because they have committed serious crimes with actual victims but because a harsh Clinton-era enforcement law vastly increased detentions for nonviolent immigration-related offenses. The Obama administration used this latitude to exempt immigrants from DNA sampling unless they were charged with another crime or were awaiting deportation proceedings. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano pointed out at the time that taking DNA from the 30,000 immigrants who were then detained would pose “severe organizational, resource and financial challenges”—not to mention distract from actual crime-fighting.
The detained population has grown larger still, yet the Trump administration is arguing that these logistical concerns are outdated because the collection of DNA samples has become easier and cheaper. Customs and Border Patrol has gone ahead and launched pilot programs at several immigration centers around the country. Government estimates suggest that once the program is fully implemented, such centers will be sending 748,000 DNA profiles to CODIS every year. That’s more than the entire state of New York has contributed in more than 20 years”