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.
This is interesting and I followed it a bit farther into "Furin cleavage sites naturally occur in coronaviruses" (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1873506120304165?via%3Dihub). This begs the question, was the idea that furin cleavage sites DO NOT appear in naturally-occurring corona viruses a falsehood that was promulgated to "prove" a point about the lab leak hypothesis that isn't otherwise supported? Or is it possible that both statements can be true, leaving us without a "proof" either way, of zoonotic or lab origin?
I don’t think we can determine whether the paper is fraudulent or if it represents scientific research that has proven less than robust in its methodological approach, thereby raising questions about the validity of its results. The current scientific consensus in the literature indicates a probable zoonotic transmission
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.
This is interesting and I followed it a bit farther into "Furin cleavage sites naturally occur in coronaviruses" (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1873506120304165?via%3Dihub). This begs the question, was the idea that furin cleavage sites DO NOT appear in naturally-occurring corona viruses a falsehood that was promulgated to "prove" a point about the lab leak hypothesis that isn't otherwise supported? Or is it possible that both statements can be true, leaving us without a "proof" either way, of zoonotic or lab origin?
I don’t think we can determine whether the paper is fraudulent or if it represents scientific research that has proven less than robust in its methodological approach, thereby raising questions about the validity of its results. The current scientific consensus in the literature indicates a probable zoonotic transmission