After fully reading the article, I think @sciencecohen does write a fairly well balanced analysis, especially the last half, and lists most criticisms of EHA and WIV.
"Prior to his involvement with Drastic, Bostickson told us that he had spent nearly a decade empowering ‘activists living under repressive regimes through collaborative sharing of electronic and audio-visual materials’" (Rage University)
1. Transfer of Biological Samples from a BSL 3 Facility
A stern warning from Xavier Abad Morejón de Girón, Biosafety level 3 Laboratory Manager at CReSA – Centre de Recerca en Sanitat Animal, UAB-IRTA, 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain
"improperly treated and therefore still infectious materials transferred out of a BSL3/4 facility could lead to potential proliferation of bio-weapons and increase the biohazard to the community"
3. Two Ways to Transfer
A biological sample can reach the outside of a BSL3
area in two ways: either without inactivation (infectious) if it must be transferred to another BSL3 facility
or
after undergoing an inactivation process to render the biological sample non-infectious
1. An FCS insert scenario proposed by @daoyu15 explained by @pathogenetics thus:
"Some say the FCS is not the right sequence "Man" would design, but here @daoyu15 presents the exact workflow "Man" would use to generate the FCS sequence see in COVID-19, with a design rationale"
"HCoV-OC43 cleavage site RRSRR was introduced (in an experiment by Belouzard et al, 2009). A similar experiment in China could use either RRARR or RRSRR from MHV-JHM or HCoV-OC43 via a "Lazy Loop Insertion"