the CCHP group recently put out a paper with lower H0 values, but we find that their distances are totally consistent with HST Cepheids (and all other methods in the paper- TRGB, JAGB, Cepheids, Miras). the issue is just their very small sample size was already biased towards lower H0 values.

the CCHP H0 plot here is also simply *not* correct, because it makes the incorrect assumption that these three underlying PDFs are independent. but they share the same (very small) sample of supernovae. you have to take this into account!!