Neither the "second [or] third criticisms" were "saying that the pandemic was a bad thing and that there is value in understanding its origin".
Just because "show a dangerous level of sloppiness in the research" was used in both sentences does not mean they are saying the same thing at all.
The OP's second and third criticisms were:
"the evidence for the wet market origin is trivialized."
and
"Thirdly, this paper emphasizes the strong impact of the COVID pandemic and asserts that understanding the origins of the virus would necessarily aid in preventing future pandemics. This does not clearly follow."
While "saying that the pandemic was a bad thing and that there is value in understanding its origin" might approach a summary of the third criticism it doesn't address the second - more serious - criticism at all.
OP _literally_ said that.