This paper will need feedback and consideration from the community. To me there seem to be two major issues. First, the paper starts with a detailed analysis

This paper will need feedback and consideration from the community. To me there seem to be two major issues. First, the paper starts with a detailed analysis of known information about SARS-CoV2 but then veers off into "unnaturalness" of genetic changes and "suboptimal" furin cleavage sites. Second, there are already hypothetical explanation for these variations. Furin cleavage sites are common in viruses and exhibit quite a bit of variation. Specific to the observed "unnaturalness" this could be caused by someone being infected with a second strain after getting an advanced infection. While the long prelude following the appearance of different strains appears thorough what it actually demonstrates is that there were various strains appearing in different locations and then disappearing. Testing resources were not available to all especially during the critical time when variants were splitting off and spreading globally. Finally, it is worth mentioning that coronavirus do not have a simple construction where genes code for proteins found in the completely reproduced virus, but rather a series of proteins and enzymes are produced that divide and reassemble. This process increases the variability of the result, for example in the structure of the furin cleavage site. So all this is potentially interesting, but the idea that this proves labs were involved is a stretch. Known natural mechanisms could potentially account for what is seen, so more evidence will probably be needed.