"most likely", and the evidence being the rest of the peer-reviewed paper, modelling, and sources it draws on.
I can't see anywhere in the article or the paper that states 'it came from bats in the market' - more that bats were likely the species it originated in, and that it was first spread at the market (likely via an intermediary species). Even in the case of sloppy editing elsewhere in the media connecting bats directly to the market - I don't think that negates the theory.
To be honest, the fact that you'll so easily dismiss this, and the general scientific consensus, based on semantic 'gotcha!'s, whilst at the same time accepting Montagnier's theory stinks of confirmation bias.
"most likely", and the evidence being the rest of the peer-reviewed paper, modelling, and sources it draws on.
I can't see anywhere in the article or the paper that states 'it came from bats in the market' - more that bats were likely the species it originated in, and that it was first spread at the market (likely via an intermediary species). Even in the case of sloppy editing elsewhere in the media connecting bats directly to the market - I don't think that negates the theory.
To be honest, the fact that you'll so easily dismiss this, and the general scientific consensus, based on semantic 'gotcha!'s, whilst at the same time accepting Montagnier's theory stinks of confirmation bias.