They did, the closest sample is still Ra4991/RaTG13 which was found in a Wuhan mine and transported to the Wuhan virology lab before the outbreak.
Not aware of another confirmed sample found that is closer to SARS-CoV-2:
Contrast that with the fact that they found the intermediate host for the first SARS within just a few months of that outbreak.
Paraphrasing from this article: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02596-2
> BANAL-52 is 96.8% identical to SARS-CoV-2; one section in BANAL-103 and BANAL-52 could have shared an ancestor with sections of SARS-CoV-2 less than a decade ago.
> RaTG13 is 96.1% identical to SARS-CoV-2 and the two viruses probably shared a common ancestor 40–70 years ago.
It's a CCP propaganda piece. I find that "study" pretty fishy, the results would have been easy to verify if true.
Same as the CDC study they tried to use against Israel's study for natural immunity.
That's a very common ask especially among HN, is it not?
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
From my perspective it looks dubious and the only goal is to shift attention away from the RatG13 sample.
> The Laos study offers insight into the origins of the pandemic, but there are still missing links, say researchers. For example, the Laos viruses don’t contain the so-called furin cleavage site on the spike protein that further aids the entry of SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses into human cells.
From [1]. So yes, the claim made by the parent poster is patently false.
correction: Yunnan mine
It is exceedingly important that you get all facts right. Much depends on this.
Very important because it was transported across the country to the lab.
If it was natural the outbreak would be in and between Yunnan and Wuhan, not Wuhan as the epicenter.