New study on COVID origins

The study "has suggested that the available evidence points toward an unnatural origin for the virus. But many others are unconvinced. [...] However, no direct evidence of SARS-CoV-2 resulting from gain-of-function research has been found."

"MacIntyre and colleagues Xin Chen and Fatema Kalyar analyzed the existing evidence around the origins of the virus [... and] concluded that the pandemic was slightly more likely to have originated in a laboratory.

"Alice Hughes, associate professor in Biological Sciences at the University of Hong Kong [said] 'this type of publication is dangerous and misleading. Many of the criteria used are subjective, or may be based on guesswork.' [...] 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 [said]: 'This appears to me to be highly misleading, poor-quality research with no proper basis for the conclusions reached.'"

"David Robertson, virology professor at the University of Glasgow and head of the Glasgow Center for Virus Research Division of Bioinformatics [said]: 'It's barely research, more subjective handy-wavy opinions than actual science. [...] It mostly ignores the existing evidence. The approach is based on entirely arbitrary and subjective assignment of score.'" 

"MacIntyre said that his team's analysis acknowledges the subjective nature of the scoring, thus collating scores from two independent researchers and using the algorithm to calculate average probabilities rather than definitive results. [...] MacIntyre said that, while their study could draw no definitive conclusions, it was important to continue investigations into the origins of SARS-CoV-2."