> How can something be "flat out not true" if it's only an interpretation?
I think that chakademus meant that it is flat-out not true that "the standard interpretation … is that there is some kind of instant communication happening between the two particles" (notice the scope of the quotation marks); that is, that this is not the standard interpretation, not that this interpretation is 'wrong' (whatever that means).
Unrelated Query: How can something be "flat out not true" if it's only an interpretation? Seems to be that what you're describing is a consensus or popular view opposed to a hard fact or universal truth.