I would say it's the other way around.I think the simple point being made is that the first, now retracted study has more of an impression on the mind.
Remember political animal said "the retractions never see the light of day". That was a major part of his point.
But that's not true. It's manifestly false. And as far as I can see it was run by every single publication that ran the story of the original study that I have checked.
So what's more likely to stay in mind and/or make more of an impression? Which is more sensational? - The story of the study or the story that it was retracted?