The title sounds a bit too definitive for what it is.
www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/covid-lab-leak-theory-resurfaces-after-controversial-new-study/ar-BB1jXaCg>James Wood, co-chair of the Cambridge Infectious Diseases Interdisciplinary Research Centre and Alborada professor of equine and farm animal medicine at the University of Cambridge, also highlighted this discrepancy with existing data.
>
> "This work uses essentially unvalidated methods and the paper contains a number of really basic errors"
> (...)
> "This appears to me to be highly misleading, poor-quality research with no proper basis for the conclusions reached."
>"It's barely research, more subjective handy-wavy opinions than actual science," David Robertson, virology professor at the University of Glasgow and head of the Glasgow Center for Virus Research Division of Bioinformatics, told Newsweek.
>
> "It mostly ignores the existing evidence. The approach is based on entirely arbitrary and subjective assignment of scores to 11 criteria so adds nothing to our understanding of the origins of SARS-CoV-2. A different set of people would come up with totally different results."