Origin of SARS-CoV-2 (English Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Origin of SARS-CoV-2" in English language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank English rank
4th place
4th place
2nd place
2nd place
1st place
1st place
5th place
5th place
18th place
17th place
11th place
8th place
49th place
47th place
7th place
7th place
28th place
26th place
234th place
397th place
1,160th place
737th place
79th place
65th place
195th place
302nd place
129th place
89th place
12th place
11th place
34th place
27th place
20th place
30th place
14th place
14th place
137th place
101st place
362nd place
245th place
102nd place
76th place
1,778th place
1,339th place
92nd place
72nd place
210th place
157th place
264th place
249th place
low place
7,581st place
low place
low place
139th place
108th place
low place
low place
30th place
24th place
99th place
77th place
41st place
34th place
115th place
82nd place
254th place
236th place
670th place
480th place
68th place
117th place
344th place
296th place
730th place
468th place
634th place
432nd place
7,075th place
4,103rd place
5,063rd place
3,360th place
928th place
651st place
132nd place
96th place
228th place
158th place
7,189th place
6,078th place
48th place
39th place
38th place
40th place
low place
7,595th place
529th place
314th place
9,274th place
5,856th place
476th place
282nd place
8,625th place
4,771st place
272nd place
225th place
193rd place
152nd place
1,226th place
1,421st place
108th place
80th place
22nd place
19th place
3,410th place
2,939th place
198th place
154th place
768th place
482nd place
low place
low place
1,382nd place
876th place
346th place
229th place
36th place
33rd place
140th place
115th place
990th place
621st place
low place
low place
2,149th place
1,198th place

abc.net.au (Global: 139th place; English: 108th place)

afr.com (Global: 2,149th place; English: 1,198th place)

apnews.com (Global: 129th place; English: 89th place)

archive.today (Global: 14th place; English: 14th place)

bbc.com (Global: 20th place; English: 30th place)

biospace.com (Global: low place; English: 7,595th place)

bloomberg.com (Global: 99th place; English: 77th place)

bmj.com (Global: 1,226th place; English: 1,421st place)

businessinsider.com (Global: 140th place; English: 115th place)

cam.ac.uk (Global: 670th place; English: 480th place)

cbc.ca (Global: 115th place; English: 82nd place)

cbsnews.com (Global: 108th place; English: 80th place)

cnet.com (Global: 272nd place; English: 225th place)

cnn.com (Global: 28th place; English: 26th place)

cnn.com

edition.cnn.com

congress.gov (Global: 730th place; English: 468th place)

crsreports.congress.gov

covid19commission.org (Global: low place; English: low place)

cp24.com (Global: 8,625th place; English: 4,771st place)

ctvnews.ca (Global: 768th place; English: 482nd place)

dni.gov (Global: low place; English: 7,581st place)

doi.org (Global: 2nd place; English: 2nd place)

economist.com (Global: 254th place; English: 236th place)

europa.eu (Global: 68th place; English: 117th place)

cordis.europa.eu

factcheck.org (Global: 7,075th place; English: 4,103rd place)

ft.com (Global: 210th place; English: 157th place)

go.com (Global: 48th place; English: 39th place)

abcnews.go.com

handle.net (Global: 102nd place; English: 76th place)

hdl.handle.net

harvard.edu (Global: 18th place; English: 17th place)

ui.adsabs.harvard.edu

house.gov (Global: 529th place; English: 314th place)

foreignaffairs.house.gov

independent.co.uk (Global: 36th place; English: 33rd place)

ipcc.ch (Global: 1,778th place; English: 1,339th place)

latimes.com (Global: 22nd place; English: 19th place)

medpagetoday.com (Global: 9,274th place; English: 5,856th place)

microbe.tv (Global: low place; English: low place)

nationalacademies.org (Global: 7,189th place; English: 6,078th place)

nationalgeographic.com (Global: 344th place; English: 296th place)

nature.com (Global: 234th place; English: 397th place)

nature.com

media.nature.com

nbcnews.com (Global: 137th place; English: 101st place)

nih.gov (Global: 4th place; English: 4th place)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

npr.org (Global: 92nd place; English: 72nd place)

nymag.com (Global: 346th place; English: 229th place)

  • Walsh JD (3 March 2023). "Mad Scientists". Intelligencer. Archived from the original on 3 March 2023. Retrieved 22 March 2023.

nytimes.com (Global: 7th place; English: 7th place)

pbs.org (Global: 198th place; English: 154th place)

reuters.com (Global: 49th place; English: 47th place)

sbs.com.au (Global: 990th place; English: 621st place)

science.org (Global: 1,160th place; English: 737th place)

sciencebasedmedicine.org (Global: 5,063rd place; English: 3,360th place)

sciencenews.org (Global: 3,410th place; English: 2,939th place)

scmp.com (Global: 362nd place; English: 245th place)

semanticscholar.org (Global: 11th place; English: 8th place)

api.semanticscholar.org

smh.com.au (Global: 132nd place; English: 96th place)

state.gov (Global: 264th place; English: 249th place)

2017-2021.state.gov

telegraph.co.uk (Global: 30th place; English: 24th place)

theatlantic.com (Global: 228th place; English: 158th place)

theconversation.com (Global: 928th place; English: 651st place)

  • Holmes EC (14 August 2022). "The COVID lab leak theory is dead. Here's how we know the virus came from a Wuhan market". The Conversation. Archived from the original on 4 September 2022. Retrieved 4 September 2022. For the lab leak theory to be true, SARS-CoV-2 must have been present in the Wuhan Institute of Virology before the pandemic started. This would convince me. But the inconvenient truth is there's not a single piece of data suggesting this. There's no evidence for a genome sequence or isolate of a precursor virus at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Not from gene sequence databases, scientific publications, annual reports, student theses, social media, or emails. Even the intelligence community has found nothing. Nothing. And there was no reason to keep any work on a SARS-CoV-2 ancestor secret before the pandemic.

thediplomat.com (Global: 1,382nd place; English: 876th place)

theguardian.com (Global: 12th place; English: 11th place)

thehill.com (Global: 476th place; English: 282nd place)

theoutlook.ca (Global: low place; English: low place)

thetimes.com (Global: low place; English: low place)

usatoday.com (Global: 41st place; English: 34th place)

eu.usatoday.com

usatoday.com

usnews.com (Global: 634th place; English: 432nd place)

washingtonpost.com (Global: 34th place; English: 27th place)

web.archive.org (Global: 1st place; English: 1st place)

who.int (Global: 195th place; English: 302nd place)

wired.com (Global: 193rd place; English: 152nd place)

worldcat.org (Global: 5th place; English: 5th place)

search.worldcat.org

wsj.com (Global: 79th place; English: 65th place)

yahoo.com (Global: 38th place; English: 40th place)

news.yahoo.com