zlacker

>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.

>>meowfa+(OP)
I am commenting on their statement about "anomalies in the genetic code", which, as presented, is not a result of their probalistic analysis, but a premise.

Is it a fact that this virus has "anomalies" in its DNA?

If the answer is 'no' then there is no point discussing their 'analysis' further.

>>meowfa+(OP)
One of the links goes (after a few steps) to https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2313-x that now has a warning:

> 11 November 2020 Editor's Note: Readers are alerted that concerns have been raised about the identity of the pangolin samples reported in this paper and their relationship to previously published pangolin samples. Appropriate editorial action will be taken once this matter is resolved.

>>gus_ma+h2
Good catch. I've left a comment on the Rootclaim page pointing out that editor's note.