Its funny how little effect those couple of debunking posts had on the thread.
There are two logical reasons for this.
1. They didn't read the article
2. They skimmed the article and missed that salient fact
I for one, plead guilty on both reasons. Trusting what is put forth, without reading the entire article but reply nonetheless, have a 50/50 chance of making ourselves look like fools. But in reality, it's those who produce the article who are knowingly being dishonest. Because they know their headline belies the actual truth. They rely upon people who read headlines only, and rush to share with others before they actually read the article.
These articles are produced by both well established "news" outlets more often than the independent outlets trying to break into the the news providing sphere of influence.
It's always been a dog-eat-dog industry created my the need to scope the opposition. This has been exacerbated by the instantaneous release of information to increase viewership as a result of the advent of the internet, which has been both a blessing & a curse.
The MSM outlets now also do it for political reasons as they increasingly support one political party over the other, as they help keep their outlets in business.
The pluses & minuses of the fast-pace of modern life. 😋