Well. Seems the critiques deployed against the original paper are derived from inexperience or obfuscation. Why am I not surprised? My biggest issue with everything however, is: is there any way to prove or anywhere to look, that would be more definitive, and not require postulation to this degree? We have the GP 120 homology, the lack of clear ancestry, and now we have a logical pattern for removing and testing these peptides, that perfectly aligns with the the FCS/insert 4 region (that I still don't understand. Very dense and very good. Thank you for this). I just wish there was a more concrete method of inference to be deployed. As it stands we're fighting for public opinion more than anything, which is incredibly hard since the zoonotic opponents are well funded, in high enough positions to be an appeal to authority, and of course socially/algorithmically backed. I wouldn't be shocked if they still managed to keep the paper from getting published despite what you have laid out here. I don't think a single preprint I have about the SARS2 inserts and their potential functions has been published