No it doesn't lead to different conclusions. The lower right one is where the bat experiments were conducted rather than the one in the middle. That is far from

No it doesn't lead to different conclusions. The lower right one is where the bat experiments were conducted rather than the one in the middle. That is far from the epicenter. If people would actually read and digest the article before spewing out their own biases, then you would see that the article addressed this very contention. The article pointed out several facts. One was that there were two strains already. Having that come from the virology institute doesn't make sense. It makes more sense if the virus was spreading and mutating amongst the animals in the market. Second, is charting the concentration of early spread. Again, the market was the epicenter. Third is looking more closely at that and seeing this same epicenter pattern in a specific part of the market. This again points to the market being the epicenter. Fourth, there is no such pattern of infection around the virology institute that was conducting the bat virus research.