False hypotheses about the cause of corona in the example

If you read articles such as https://aillarionov.livejournal.com/1180056.html and http://www.kasparov.ru/material.php?id=5EBAB8DCBAFBA from May 12th, 2020, then it only appears to be conclusively researched. But it is not!

It is essentially about the question of where the corona comes from and can be translated as follows:

  1. Where does this corona virus come from? Natural or synthetic?
  2. Where exactly did it occur? At the Wuhan Seafood Market or at the Wuhan Institute of Virology?

This is followed by long research, which is probably so far correct. This ensures the credibility of the truth.

In conclusion (translated):

However, one thing is certain at the moment.
The coronavirus epidemic did not start in the Wuhan fish market.
There is currently no other version of the onset of the epidemic than the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
If a different version of the site of the corona virus appears, the arguments for and against it can be checked.
However, now there is no version other than the version of the Wuhan Institute of Virology outbreak.

This falsely leads to the factual conclusion that Corona is a laboratory accident and synthetic in nature.

At the time of publication (May 12, 2020), it was already known that other animals such as the raccoon dog would also be considered as intermediate carriers.

See e.g. https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/gesundheit-oekologie/faktencheck-wurde-sars-cov-2-im-labor-fabrierter-li.83239, where the raccoon dog is plausibly explained as an intermediate host.

By stating that "there is currently no other version of the onset of the epidemic than the Wuhan Institute of Virology", one indirectly implies that this is a fact.
And this is exactly a fatal fallacy!
Basically for two reasons.

  1. Facts are missing
    The assumption that there are no other options than the 2 mentioned is simply wrong.
  2. Incorrect empirical evidence
    Just because variant A is eliminated from two options A & B does not mean that assumption B is correct.

The author can be assumed to be intentional with this wording, since it is clearly evident that the natural variant is vehemently argued in return for the synthetic possibility. Both theses are not advocated with the same energy.

Such a contribution is therefore in no way based on facts and science, but at best on personal opinion and belief. At best!