The article makes it sound like the market animal hypothesis is basically proven, which is just nonsense. The article links to a paper that is lavishly funded b

The article makes it sound like the market animal hypothesis is basically proven, which is just nonsense. The article links to a paper that is lavishly funded by the NIH i.e. Fauci who is obviously going to be desperate to muddy this issue given that there's documentary evidence of his agency illegally funding GOF research on bat coronaviruses at the WIV. Those papers couldn't be more conflicted if the Chinese government itself had written them. The basic problem for all attempts to finger the market as the original source is that the chances of that coincidentally happening right next to one of the only labs doing research on that exact type of virus, t purely by chance, is astronomically low. A HN reader did the calculations in a comment on a previous article about this issue and you needed scientific notation to represent the probability. None of the attempts to show it came from the market take into account these probabilities and especially not the fact that we can actually read the grant proposal in which the EcoHealth Alliance request money to fund the WIV to study novel bat coronaviruses ... in 2019. Bayesian reasoning alone shows that the weight of evidence needed to overpower this prior probability of a leak is extraordinary and has never been reached. Especially given the obvious confounder that if it did escape from a lab you'd expect most of the people who get it first to have visited a large local gathering place!