There is one study barefoot purists like to trot out that they think means barefoot/forefoot striking decreases injuries: https://runblogger.com/2012/02/vivobarefoots-barefoot-is-bes... -- the study was also sub-elite or elite collegiate athletes.
Other studies that I think are more relevant to a typical runner show very different results and the study is more credible: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26126256
Find evidence that isn't anecdotes and is widely accepted and I will gladly change my mind. It is still an ongoing debate and the evidence in either direction is only moderate (in the direction of heel striking being fine, especially for folks running recreationally with a rather low load). Given the general lack of evidence it comes down to anecdotes and you can find those everywhere, people are crazy.
it's true that absorbing soles are probably a bad solution to a non problem.
"70% of runners with lower limb injuries improve when they use orthotic devices (James et al. 1978; Bates et al. 1979, McKenzie et al. 1985; Gross et al. 1991)..." Noakes, lore of running. So clearly orthotics and what you put under your feet can have an impact and make things better (or worse, but probably better if someone knowledgeable about biomechanics can see your pronation and gait).
Obviously if you've heel striked your entire life while running, you'll have to ease yourself into it. That's also not what I was responding to. Saying heel striking is OK, it is not. It's a bad habit formed by over padding sneakers.