[delbarital]

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

[cassianoleal]

Which is a lot more acurate than the title of this posting.

The posting says the startup "claims COVID-19 originated in a lab", whereas the Twitter post says it "has likely originated in a lab."

There's an important distinction between fact and likelihood of fact.

[mytailorisrich]

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'.

[meowface]

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.

[mytailorisrich]

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.

[meowface]

>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.

[gus_massa]

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.

[meowface]

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

[mytailorisrich]

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.