Actually, that's specifically not true. While 29 of the 30 coded genes share a 99.7% consistency with a Yunan province (900+ km from Wuhan) Common Horseshoe Bat SARS sample from 2 years prior, the final coding gene, for the S (spike) protein has less than a 77% match to that sample, with a 99.9% match to the S protein from a Gabonese (10,000km from Wuhan) pangolin coronavirus.
Almost every epidemiologist working on the virus has agreed this is a chimeric combination of the two viruses, which can only happen "en vivo" -- in other words, in a single organism infected simultaneously by both viral strains.
There was, of course, one known location where both of these strains were found in close proximity, and we know this because both strains had already been gene sequenced at that location. Namely, the Wuhan Virology Institute, which specializes in corona virus infections. In fact their lead scientist is literally known world-wide as "Bat Woman" --
Shi Zhengli -- for all her work finding corona virus in bats and other species. In the linked article, she even admits that her very first thought on hearing of a new infectious corona virus in Wuhan was, "Did it come from our lab?"
The clinic itself was working with live bats and live strains of viruses in a study injecting immune compromised bats (basically given a "bat" form of AIDS) to determine whether the compromised immune system caused dangerous changes in the corona virus itself, namely an enhanced bonding site on the surface of the lipid viral sheath which is extremely common in HIV infections and causes enhanced infectiousness in other viral strains. The lab, and Shi Zhengli, literally published a paper on just this research in late 2018.
Several visitors to the lab have published reports saying that, during this time, the workers dealing with the live bats were often covered in the urine and feces of the bats they were working with, and that they regularly took inadequate care to prevent infections. One visitor even claimed that his visit in late October of 2019, "sounded like I was in a hospital ward, with nearly every single worker coughing violently." US officials repeatedly warned that the lab was
not following proper safety procedures.
So, am I saying this was released from the virology clinic? Not with any certainty, no.
But Occam and his Gillette Mach3 are warming up and asking the question of which is more likely:
- A
seafood wet market, which
did not have bats in it, is the source of the disease that came mostly from bats, with one contribution from a second virus that's only found 10,000 km away, and, which has now been determined to not be the source for nearly 1/3rd of the earliest cases, or...
- A clinic where live animals with compromised immune systems were repeatedly infected with live viruses in studies through at least early 2019, suddenly got a chimeric combination of two virus strains known to be stored and studied at the lab, which then somehow infected one of the workers known to take inadequate precautions, and then that worker walked the disease out into the city.
I remain amazed, given the above situation, that scientists with no access or history with the Wuhan lab are willing to write stories like the original article, claiming there is no chance it came from the Wuhan lab -- when even the lead scientist's first thought was, "Did it come from my lab?"