I’m reading this as sarcasm, am I wrong? If so, it is such a bad faith response. It is well reported that China was highly uncooperative in providing records about the research that was occurring at WIV.

No its quite serious. China covered up the existence of susceptible animals at the market. If you want to take the actions of a cover up as being proof, then you have to look at that cover up as well. What people do instead, though, is pick and choose -- the actions surrounding the lab are evidence China is hiding a lab leak, while the actions surrounding the market are not evidence China is trying to hide a zoonotic spillover. There's nothing "bad faith" about that at all, unless you're so bought into the lab leak theory that any question of it is bad faith.

Do you have a link showing that China suppressed evidence of the presence of raccoon dogs? I just looked and couldn’t find, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

It’s a fair point that if suppression of evidence is to be considered an indication of guilt, it has to work both ways.

Edit: typo