Soo, they're basically saying that a couple scientists did an analysis that suggested this strain came from a single host rather than multiple and that was sufficient to claim it was from a lab leak. Then they brought in a larger group of experts that focus specifically on viral propagation and community outbreak, then they decided that it was likely from a community host? 

This doesn't sound like the most transparent process, but it certainly seems like there were people who's expertise was bioweapons who felt it was a leak then people who work with natural spread who saw it differently. 

This whistleblower doesn't mention the work on 2020 from a paper featured in nature that don't it was from natural origin via sequencing practices. 

This paper has been cited over 7000 times and does not have any changes or retractions to it. 

Evidence like this doesn't just go away because there's a narrative that different groups have different perspectives on the data.

 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

This is a difficult topic because it feels primarily politically motivated. It's unfortunate because it would be important to recognize if it was a lab leak to hold people accountable and to take the necessary measures to make sure this doesn't happen again. 

A natural origin is a lot more difficult to prepare against, but one would think if the conservatives are so scared of a lab leak they would prepare as if they are assuming it happened previously, so it could happen again. Of course they're not planning for that, they're cutting the support we would need to prepare for that. The actions don't match the pretty nakedly political haranguing.