text: It seems to be a desperate attempt to keep the narrative alive while backtracking from the original reasoning, ie.  the 2006 HRT judgement, that was flawed to begin with.  Now it's more of making it up as they go along by making the facts fit their goal/narrative using any means necessary, including, but not limited to, anecdotes and straw man arguments. 
  
  Scientific reasoning and ideology don't mix.