zlacker

>>delbar+(OP)
For what it is worth, they say there is an 81% probability, based on their analysis, that it was a lab leak. That is not the same thing as "claims COVID-19 originated in a lab" - so I think the title is a little misleading - which is probably why the title actually seems to be "What is the source of COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2)?"

>>stanri+s4
From their Twitter account: "Probably our most surprising finding to date: COVID-19 has likely originated in a lab. A probabilistic analysis shows the proximity to a major coronavirus lab and anomalies in the genetic code are too unlikely for SARS-CoV-2 to have developed naturally. "

https://twitter.com/Rootclaim/status/1343207878325383168

>>delbar+A5
The problem here is that "anomalies in the genetic code" is, I believe, their claim, not fact, but presented as a fact along with established facts, which may be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to spread essentially 'fake news'.

>>mytail+1d
I disagree, I don't think it's presented as a fact. They have a detailed analysis on the page. Click the "More" links under the "Chimera" and "Furin cleavage" topics.

No idea how credible that analysis is, but it seems to me like it's done in good faith.

>>meowfa+kg
That tweet is as misleading as possible and does present it as fact.

At best this is a startup company seeking publicity so 'good faith' is to be taken with more than a grain of salt.

>>mytail+Uh
>Probably our most surprising finding to date: COVID-19 has likely originated in a lab. A probabilistic analysis shows the proximity to a major coronavirus lab and anomalies in the genetic code are too unlikely for SARS-CoV-2 to have developed naturally.

They're stating the facts of the results of the probabilistic analysis, not the facts of the actual situation. Their only comment about the actual situation is that it's "likely".

I can see how it could be interpreted in the way you suggest, but if you read it from the perspective of discussing the probabilistic analysis, I don't think they're intending to mislead. But, again, I also don't know how strong the analysis is. It could be that the analysis is weak, in which case I still wouldn't think the tweet is likely deliberately misleading, but simply wrong.