Indeed. It's also a problem that the studies are presented in ways where it is easily interpreted as about "the epicenter". The title (and content) should not

Indeed. It's also a problem that the studies are presented in ways where it is easily interpreted as about "the epicenter". The title (and content) should not have been "Wuhan market was epicentre of pandemic’s start, studies suggest", but rather, as you suggest, an amplification point. I guess that, because wording it in this way would equally support a lab hypothesis, it was unacceptable to (at least) the final person responsible. I am disappointed this gets past the reviewers or that it was introduced by editors. What is a reasonable conclusion to be drawn about Nature and their scientific competency? Should we just let it go?