Worked in a. virology lab for a couple months, taught a course on the subject.  Your credentials?

I often award points when my students stump me.  I usually try and find them an answer too. You won't find that on rate my professor, its mostly a bitch fest.

@steingar   The following is from Lucifer's link here: https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/06/experts-assert-rare-genome-sequencing-shows-coronavirus-bioengineered-optimized-for-human-infectivity/

Is this accurate?

    In the case of the gain-of-function supercharge, other sequences could have been spliced into this same site. Instead of a CGG-CGG (known as “double CGG”) that tells the protein factory to make two arginine amino acids in a row, you’ll obtain equal lethality by splicing any one of 35 of the other two-word combinations for double arginine. If the insertion takes place naturally, say through recombination, then one of those 35 other sequences is far more likely to appear; CGG is rarely used in the class of coronaviruses that can recombine with CoV-2.

    In fact, in the entire class of coronaviruses that includes CoV-2, the CGG-CGG combination has never been found naturally. That means the common method of viruses picking up new skills, called recombination, cannot operate here. A virus simply cannot pick up a sequence from another virus if that sequence isn’t present in any other virus.

Quay and Muller point to the “double CGG” sequence as the “damning fact” suggesting a laboratory origin. Natural-origin believers would have to explain it away:

    Proponents of zoonotic origin must explain why the novel coronavirus, when it mutated or recombined, happened to pick its least favorite combination, the double CGG,” they wrote. “Why did it replicate the choice the lab’s gain-of-function researchers would have made?

    “At the minimum, this fact — that the coronavirus, with all its random possibilities, took the rare and unnatural combination used by human researchers — implies that the leading theory for the origin of the coronavirus must be laboratory escape.”

Patent nonsense.  The Scientists who were there published their findings in peer reviewed journals for all to see.  Their funding mechanisms are similarly publicly available.

Perhaps you should explain what it is that you think "gain of function" research actually is.  Should be entertaining.
Context on this might be nice.

If our intelligence agencies really knew that the Chinese could create a pandemicable virus from whole cloth I suspect you'd not know a thing about it.  I imagine intelligence like that gets classified to the deepest levels.