There are other coronaviruses (broad category) with furin cleavage sites, but there are not other sarbecoviruses (more narrow category) with furin cleavage sites. What those two facts tell you about the origin of Covid-19 is beyond my pay grade.

> Unique furin cleavage sites are very common in coronaviruses

They aren't "very common" and check the sources on that paper. "10 minutes of googling" isn't enough to know if what you are reading is accurate, or if the authors had any conflicts of interest.

Here's the details on the furin cleavage site for Covid-19, which is most similar to MERS:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202000240

Many people who were directly involved in this research had very large conflicts of interest. Hence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_letter_(COVID-19)

They are not common, and "10 minutes of googling" isn't going to get you anywhere.

Read my link to the FOIA documents. There are many redacted, for "national security".

Why would they be redacted for US national security if this came from a natural animal origin? It should at least give you pause to think. Possibly because the US was funding it via NIH grants to EcoHealth Alliance, which puts everyone in quite the bind? 6+ million dead and finger pointing between global superpowers probably isn't the outcome they had in mind.

"In April 2020 correspondence with EcoHealth Alliance, NIH wrote that it "received reports that the Wuhan Institute of Virology ... has been conducting research at its facilities in China that pose serious bio-safety concerns."

Page 54.

Or this, where the NIH is requesting the location of a scientist who disappeared?

Page 235.

"The Wuhan institute sequenced the genome of the new virus in January after receiving patient samples. In addition to requiring EcoHealth Alliance provide a sample of the sequenced coronavirus, the NIH said in its letter that EcoHealth Alliance must “explain the apparent disappearance” of a scientist who worked in the Wuhan lab."

There are too many other pages (between all the pages of redactions) worth reading to mention them all.

> Why would they be redacted for US national security if this came from a natural animal origin?

Because US intelligence has an asset in the lab perhaps?

I've heard it said that intelligence briefings are often 90-95% what you can find in any newspaper (or website nowadays), but the last few percentage points use various 'assets and techniques' that the other side doesn't want to get out.

Often it's not about knowing the what of actions and events, but the why.