Headline? Statements within the article were substantially addressed. If you had read the article I wouldn't have to spell this out for you. A few different people who attended the trip made correlated statements in relation to the headline. You're clearly talking bullshit. The question now is why you're doing so. Feel free to direct us to a headline on MPN that isn't addressed in the article also. But that would require doing some reading. Not just blind conjecture which seems to be your poison exposing your flaws.

@William_Mary “Shame on You, New York Times!” in quotes with an exclamation point when then they go on to make clear that no one said that and THEN go on to complain that the NYT misquoted the principlals. I agree that journalistic integrity of the NYT times has fallen. I could not find the identities of the scientists(plural) who said that exact phrase as quoted but would be happy to be corrected.

@Buttercup

“Hear! Hear!,” replied Daszak. “It’s disappointing to spend time with journalists explaining key findings of our exhausting month-long work in China, to see our colleagues selectively misquoted to fit a narrative that was prescribed before the work began. Shame on you, New York Times!”

@William_Mary So one scientist but indeed I missed that and will concede the point. I also read the NYT article it self and I see no factual mistakes. They may have been selectively quoted to color the narrative but were not misquoted. This is less a hit piece on the scientists than their article is a hit piece on the Times, the author is obviously hostile with a editorial bias and it's dishonest to proclaim that they represent journalistic integrity. It's interesting that in the middle of the article he condemns the lab created theories of the origin virus with the clear implication that the NYT times has not rejected the theory also.( a deliberate and loaded accusation).

@Buttercup

1 scientist? Quite a selective style of reading you have, again. Or you can't comprehend what you're reading. Clearly more than 1 scientist chimed in. I count 4. And a claim --- Yet the report was immediately lambasted by many of the world’s leading scientists, including some who the Times spoke to and quoted in the article --- So at least 4 of those the Times spoke to were disturbed while a number of others who probably have a history with China backed them up.

While the Times used merely 4 quotes also while changing the context of the statements to control the narrative they wanted to inject in at least 2 instances. By using misleading paragraphs before and after the statements.

{China’s continued resistance to revealing information about the early days of the coronavirus outbreak, the scientists say, makes it difficult for them to uncover important clues that could help stop future outbreaks of such dangerous diseases.

“If you are data focused, and if you are a professional,” said Thea Kølsen Fischer, a Danish epidemiologist on the team, then obtaining data is “like for a clinical doctor looking at the patient and seeing them by your own eyes.”

For 27 days in January and February, the team of 14 experts for the World Health Organization led the mission to trace the origins of the pandemic. Several say their Chinese counterparts were frustrated by the team’s persistent questioning and demands for data.}

Fischer merely made a statement. Pre paragraph is conjecture open to hearsay or manufactured without substance. Post paragraph is of conjecture of unsubstantiated information that was clearly contradicted by scientist. Where's the quotes of the other remaining 10 scientist that could only be a means to validate the Times injected narrative for validation to make such an exertion? Without, this is clearly purposely misleading.

{Chinese officials urged the W.H.O. team to embrace the government’s narrative about the source of the virus, including the unproven notion that it might have spread to China from abroad, according to several members of the team. The W.H.O. scientists responded that they would refrain from making judgments without data.

“It was my take on the entire mission that it was highly geopolitical,” Dr. Fischer said. “Everybody knows how much pressure there is on China to be open to an investigation and also how much blame there might be associated with this.”

In the end, the W.H.O. experts sought compromise, praising the Chinese government’s transparency, but pushing for more research about the early days of the outbreak in Wuhan in late 2019.}

Again you find the same tactic. Pre and post paragraphs take a simple statement out of context by leading it and ending it with unsubstantiated narrative control. Quite frankly, the Times exposes itself to the very narrative Fischer exposes in that statement! Forcing a false geopolitical narrative on its readers. Attempting to make it look like blame needs a place to be rather than a genuine sense of confronting the natural issue no one can control. Which the scientist are genuinely there for.

{On the crucial question of when the outbreak started, the team said it had not turned up evidence yet that it was earlier than China has reported. But the team was stymied at times by the lack of detailed patient records both from early confirmed cases, and possible ones before that.

“We asked for that on a number of occasions and they gave us some of that, but not necessarily enough to do the sorts of analyses you would do,” said Dominic Dwyer, an Australian microbiologist on the W.H.O. team, referring to the confirmed cases.

The news that Chinese officials did not share raw data with the W.H.O. experts was reported earlier by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and The Wall Street Journal.}

This is the closes it comes to negativity as it comes. BUT, Stymied? Which is the argument the scientist are making as misinformation. This leaves questions to whether the quote is actually related to the claims in the leading paragraph. At this point no one really has a reason to take the Times as legitimately covering the story without questions due to the obvious previous context and narrative control before this point. Then they add 2 other MSM sources to back up their coverage without substantial information. We should all know how that works in the US when critical thought is applied. The 2 don't make the other 1 right without verification. The Times then actually exposes themselves again in the following paragraph.

{The Chinese scientists also acknowledged they had discovered that 92 people were hospitalized in Wuhan as early as October 2019 with symptoms such as fever and coughing. The Chinese experts said they had found no trace of Covid-19 in those people, but the tests were incomplete. The W.H.O. team members said more research was needed.}

Both agreeing more research is needed. Quite frankly, we have reports in the US that the virus was found to have been discovered before the initial time line also. But no one is going off the rails on finding ground zero here. I'll leave that where it lays to dwell on with the following.

{The W.H.O. experts ultimately concluded that there was no evidence yet that the virus was transmitting on a wide scale in China before December 2019, but that more research definitely was needed.

Chinese commentators have seized on that finding to build on the government’s mantra that it was possible that China was not the source of the outbreak, and to urge the W.H.O. to look elsewhere.

The W.H.O. team said it would look, but that they were skeptical.

“I think it started in China,” Dr. Dwyer said after the trip. “There is some evidence of circulation outside China, but it’s actually pretty light.”}

The 3rd quote really has no substantial use to this debate being it's correlated back to more research being needed for ground zero.

{“The world doesn’t realize, you know, that they were the first to get this thing,” Dr. Daszak said, “and they didn’t know how bad it was.”}

The 4th is basically a statement of conjecture without evidence. It provides no relevance at this point other than to control the narrative, falsely in my opinion, to end the article on.