And the most critical claim in the paper is not substantiated in any way:
> Gain-of-function research is also subject to intense scrutiny and governmental oversight, precisely because of the high risk involved in conducting it safely; thus, it is extremely unlikely that gain-of-function research on hard-to-obtain coronaviruses (such as bat SARS-like coronaviruses) could occur under the radar.
Or substantiation is hinted at but never delivered:
> This work produced some of the strongest corroborating evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is a naturally emergent pathogen, as serological surveys demonstrated that people living in close proximity to colonies of bats had antibodies to bat SARS-like coronaviruses. The NIH has since set impossible conditions for restoring the grant, ensuring that this research will never resume.
Maybe the next place to go is learning more about the initial results from the EcoHealth Alliance grant referenced in the above quote. Still, it's a pretty unsatisfying review.
[edit, fixed typo: containement -> containment]
One of the best articles I have seen on the lab-made hypothesis is here:
https://yurideigin.medium.com/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-throug...
If you want to go down a more skeptical route, closer into conspiracy theories and Chinese politics, you can read some of the writings on this site:
https://nerdhaspower.weebly.com/blog/scientific-evidence-and...
Please, when reading these, keep your scientist hat on and evaluate the claims with an open mind.
That being said, if anyone has links to rebuttals of some of the key ideas behind these articles, or further evidence of natural origin beyond the Andersen et al Nature paper, please link it, I'd very much like to change my mind.