Based on a Sankei Shimbun report from February 2020, this article examines the growing uncertainty over the origin of the novel coronavirus, including the weakening of the Huanan Seafood Market theory, analysis by a Chinese Academy of Sciences-related institution, a Lancet paper, and the possibility of a leak from the Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

February 26, 2020
It is said that one researcher was attacked by bats, causing their blood to adhere to his skin, and that urine splashed onto his body, and that each time he voluntarily isolated himself for 14 days.
The following is from an article I found a short while ago on the Sankei Shimbun website.
Where Was the First Source of the New Pneumonia?
The Mystery Deepens
“Not the Seafood Market,” Analyzes a Chinese Government-Affiliated Institution
[Beijing = Yoshiaki Nishimi] The first source of the novel coronavirus was wild animals traded at the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China.
That previous view held by the Chinese authorities is now wavering.
This is because a government-affiliated institution has presented an analysis showing that the virus flowed into the market from another region.
However, there are few clues to determine where and how the “first infected person” appeared, and the mystery is deepening.
According to a paper published by the Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Yunnan Province and others by the 26th, after analyzing the genetic information of the novel coronavirus collected in 12 countries, including China, it was found that the virus detected at the Huanan Seafood Market had flowed in from another region.
The paper points out the possibility that human-to-human transmission had begun somewhere else as early as late November.
It also analyzed that, after that, a route was formed by which infection spread with the market as a base.
This view agrees with a paper published in January in the British medical journal The Lancet by doctors in Wuhan.
That paper pointed out that, among the 41 initially confirmed infected people, including the first patient who developed symptoms on December 1, 14 had no connection with the market.
It also stated that bats, the natural host of the virus, were not traded at the market.
Where, then, was the source?
According to Hong Kong media and others, Professor Xiao Botao of South China University of Technology in Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, pointed out in a paper posted on a researchers’ website on the 6th of this month that the virus may have leaked from the Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention, located only 280 meters from the market.
According to the paper, the center captured more than 600 bats in Zhejiang Province and elsewhere for experiments.
It is said that one researcher was attacked by bats, causing their blood to adhere to his skin, and that urine splashed onto his body, and that each time he voluntarily isolated himself for 14 days.
The paper expressed the view that samples or contaminated waste may have caused the virus leak.
However, this paper was later deleted from the website.
On the 20th, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang stated regarding theories that the virus had “leaked from a laboratory” or had been “developed as a biological weapon” that “world-renowned experts recognize that there is absolutely no scientific basis for them.”