Flavinkins (@Flavinkins)

Identifying sensational reporting 101: Despite clearly being able to close up and film illegal wildlife dealers on the brink of being enfoced and shut down in Guangdong at interview and on wildlife stalls in general from afar (showing doors and cages outside doors) in markets from Foshan and Guangzhou, Guangdong, somehow none of the claimed interviews or scenes “seen by the reporter” in Wuhan (including a claimed scene with “seals on the doors of several stalls “门上均已贴上暂停经营的封条。” in the “起义门生鲜市场” “Qiyimen fresh food market”, which being a scene showing the outside of wildlife stalls from afar is in direct parallel to the picture showing the outside of several wildlife stalls in Foshan, Guangdong) were accompanied with a picture? Not even a screenshot of the alleged “QQ groups” when it is just a press of two buttons on a phone? (where none of the claimed excerptions indicated that they deal in Wuhan) There were no possibility of cover-up for the illegal wildlife trade by the traders or by the Wuhan authorities before the pandemic (especially an incomplete cover-up, such as leaving hedgehogs out in the open when it was clearly illegal and enforced upon in 2012) , nor was there any reason to do the same cover-up in 22/01/2020 when the only permitted stance on SARS-CoV-2 origin is “wildlife trade”. Enforcement reports from Neither point of time (05/2019 and 01/2020) showed evidence of “widespread illegal wildlife trade”, or evidence that it is being conducted immediately prior at that location. https://web.archive.org/web/20211117153008/http://ylj.wuhan.gov.cn/zwgk/zwxxgkzl_12298/cfqz/xzcf/202011/t20201110_1499879.shtml Finally, the claimed animal sales (species) within QiYiMen was in contradiction to the Xiao Xiao et al Animals article, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-91470-2/tables/1 despite the latter clearly 1: did NOT cover up the species of animal sales they recorded in the study period. https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41598-021-91470-2/MediaObjects/41598_2021_91470_MOESM1_ESM.pdf 2: Attempted to exaggerate the number of trade immediately to the end of 2019 by providing no monthly data on animal sales on either the article itself or the “electronic supplementary materials”. You don’t refuse to give monthly data if the data is in support of your conclusion that “massive wildlife trade immediately before the pandemic in Wuhan”. You only do so if the last year of data is disappointingly low and failed to support that conclusion. https://archive.md/RrAgM “中国绿发会” is another one of the radical environmentalist groups in China with semiofficial status, which this article was written on the behalf of, that exaggerate issues and bend facts to further their own agenda. There remain no forensically datable photographic or video evidence that can unimpeachably support the notion of “widespread illegal animal sales in Wuhan markets immediately prior to the pandemic”. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108792115318835200 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108718900639316346