In Other News
Beginning at 1:18:00 of an interview Bret Weinstein did with Dr. Jessica Rose (bioinformatics and genomics) on Darkhorse:
"Moderna has a patent (US 958 7003) from 2016...three years before there was any hint of circulating SARS CoV2, Moderna patented a sequence that fully contains the information in the furin cleavage site and the flanking regions." As I understand it (I am not a biologist), the furin cleavage site is not present in naturally-occurring varieties of the virus family and is necessary to make it something that humans can transmit to other humans. The paper goes on to say "the probability of the sequence randomly being present in a 30-thousand nucleotide viral genome is 3.21 times 10 to the minus 11 [power]" (Link to the article she quotes). This suggests Moderna had foreknowledge of something in 2016. But of what?
Here is a follow up study to the paper that is quoted in the podcast that you reference: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/virology/articles/10.3389/fviro.2022.914888/full
The authors investigated the methods and results of the referenced study and they point to some defiecencies in the original work. I have posted there conclusions here:
"Epidemiological studies support the conclusion that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic originated in Huanan market, and was not the product of a laboratory accident (4–6). Moreover, Sarbecovirus phylogeny is still sparsely known, and the sequencing of new SARS-CoV-2 relatives could help us to understand the emergence of the FCS (2, 4). According to the current phylogeny, FCS appeared independently six times in the Betacoronavirus lineages, demonstrating that FCS insertion is compatible with natural evolution (2, 7, 8). The probabilities provided by Ambati et al. seem inexact, and their BLAST search is not transparent enough. Based on our computations and BLAST research, the role of chance in this homology should not be dismissed."
Science presented in the popular, alternative, podcast-o-sphere is often specious and presented without a fully vetted explanation of the whole story. Smart people, with credentials, use that to promote views that are not necessarily correct. Having credentials and speaking authoritatively doesn't guarantee honesty or complete presentation of data and current scientific discourse on a subject. The question remains: Is this due to dishonesty, ignorance, or both? Whether they like it or not, scientific consensus, that is based on solid scientific evidence, is the best we have in this arena. We as scientists should always be prodding and investigating and challenging such consensus for the sake of truth, and truth only. Sadly, for me, what I witness on popular podcast as being presented as "scientific truth," is, more often than not, very far from it.