This is literally how modern internet propaganda works: selective reporting that provides enough truth to be plausible but omits enough and/or distorts to avoid

This is literally how modern internet propaganda works: selective reporting that provides enough truth to be plausible but omits enough and/or distorts to avoid being comprehensive and accurate. There's lots of studies that discuss both the pros and cons of this subject - this epochtimes article has pointed out the ones that on their face support their narrative, and (very very very likely, given their well-earned reputation) omitted those that don't, and may/probably have come to a conclusion that the study authors would not have. This is why everyone's so stupid right now: we're all overconfident that we understand the small shreds of evidence we have and that they're the complete picture, and that overconfidence means we talk past each other in our separate realities. The only way to get around this is a) be an expert who has a comprehensive view of the range of evidence and what precisely it means (hard), b) be humble about what we can understand, select our sources extremely carefully, and get multiple perspectives (medium), or c) ignore the noise and wait for broad consensus (easy but slow and not perfect).