Axios runs propaganda piece trying to discredit the "modified in Chinese lab" theory of covid origin

Wanna see an absolute *classic* piece of disinformation/propaganda?  Check this piece in Axios four days ago, titled

Wuhan market pinpointed as pandemic's Ground Zero
  by Adriel Bettelheim, Jul 26, 2022

A market in Wuhan, China, was the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the virus emerged from activities connected with the live animal trade, according to research published in Science today.

Why it matters: The case-mapping and genetic studies offer some of the strongest evidence yet that the coronavirus jumped from an animal host to humans — a type of zoonotic spillover seen in other outbreaks like SARS, from 2002 to 2004.

"Zoonotic spillover," eh?  Sounds SO plausible, since that's happened in other outbreaks . But it turns out that even though 99% of the genetic code of C19 matches the closest natural bat virus, there is NO evidence of any animal being infected with the actual Covid-19 virus--which differs in having four crucial insertions in its genetic code (although I suspect the Chinese will have injected a few bats with C19 to "prove" the "spillover" claim).  Note the attempt to persuade you with phrases like "a type of zoonotic spillover seen in other outbreaks like...."  That's the conclusion they want you to draw, but it is NOT evidentiary.

What they found: There were two lineages of the virus introduced in humans as early as November 2019.  The variants over time spread into the neighborhoods surrounding the market and beyond, challenging the idea the market was the source of a single superspreader event.
    Early cases linked to the part of the market where wildlife sales took place resemble cross-species transmissions later observed on mink farms and from infected hamsters to humans in the pet trade.

What they’re saying: University of Glasgow virologist David Robertson told BBC News he hoped the studies would "correct the false record that the virus came from a lab."

The intrigue: While early patient data showed few of those hospitalized had a direct link to the market, Robertson said, “it's exactly what we would expect, because many people only get very mildly ill, so they would be out in the community transmitting the virus to others and the severe cases would be hard to link to each other.”

Notice how blythely the Axios author dismisses the huge negative--that "few of those hospitalized had a direct link to the market."  And "The severe cases would be hard to link to each other."  And yet they're seeking to use case locations to supposedly "prove" the virus originated from an animal at the market.  It's garbage reasoning--either incompetence or propaganda.

A map of samples collected from market stalls showed most that tested positive for the virus were on the southwestern side, where animals like Raccoon dogs and hedgehogs were sold.

"...animals like" ?  This is like saying the virus is "like" swiss cheese since both are made from atoms. The author almost certainly isn't giving these examples because she thinks you may not know what an "animal" is, but because the mention of unusual food animals gets the reader to think "Sure, they have lots of odd animals there, and any of 'em could be infected."  But the statement has zero evidentiary use--it doesn't help prove the author's case. 

And who collected the samples and supposedly tested them to confirm they had the actual C19 instead of the common, harmless-to-humans bat virus?  The author doesn't say, because she doesn't know (and likely wouldn't think it was relevant in any case).  If it turns out to be the Chinese (spoiler: yes), do ya think they'd tell us the truth, that any/all virus found in samples from the market was NOT the actual C19 virus, but merely the relatively harmless-to-humans natural bat virus. 

A World Health Organization-backed team of scientists said in June that available data suggests SARS-CoV-2 had a zoonotic origin and that the theory that the virus escaped from a laboratory needs “further investigations,” per the Washington Post.

Ah, would that be the same W.H.O. whose director was installed by the government of China?  The same corrupt moron who claimed for the first two months that "There is absolutely no evidence of human-to-human transmission?"  Uh...can you trust a thing he or his corrupt organization says?

Oooh, and the Washington Post, ya say!  You mean the same paper that for years took millions from China to run big glossy pro-China inserts?  Conflict of interest?  Nah, never heard of it.  But let's see what the Post actually published:

The report also said that available data suggests SARS-CoV-2 had a zoonotic origin, which means it spread between animals in a natural setting, but that neither the animal that infected humans nor the place where this infection occurred could be identified.

"Available data" "suggests" that the virus "spread between animals in a natural setting...."  But of course spreading between animals isn't the issue, eh?  In claiming a "zoonotic origin" for C19 they mean the virus jumped from animal to humans.  So the fact that it may have spread between animal species is totally irrelevant to the question of how the harmless natural bat virus became lethal to humans.
   But your eye and brain picked up the key sciency words "zoonotic origin," and in context that means they're implying C19 came from animals.  But in the very next sentence they discard that theory, though without explicitly saying so:
     "...but that neither the animal that infected humans nor the place where this infection occurred could be identified.

Obviously if they can't find either the "animal reservoir" of C19, nor where the jump occurred, that  makes the "zoonotic origin" theory pure speculation.  The reason C19 has never been found in any animal is because it never infected any animal.  We know the genetic sequence of C19, and when you compare that to the closest matching bat virus it's obvious that in four places the bat-virus RNA has been cut, and four new sequences inserted--all of which are contiguous blocks of six or eight "codons," all of which produce functional genes.  This is statistically impossible by natural mutation--a fact every person familiar with the art would immediately realize. 

In summary, the Axios piece is loaded with innuendo and faulty reasoning, with the goal of getting readers to believe the C19 virus was NOT modified at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.


https://www.axios.com/2022/07/26/covid-studdy-wuhan-market