I read the brilliant article; it requires a special kind of awareness. It seems the editors of Nature magazine changed their minds due to external pressures—we all know who those are.

This pattern reveals less about the validity of novel ideas and more about the social dynamics governing knowledge production. Historical hindsight makes these failures visible, yet the same structural tendencies persist. This is how societies respond to transformative thought.

The resistance scholars faced was not rooted in empirical failure, but in the threat their ideas posed to established power structures, dominant paradigms, and institutional authority.

Galileo Galilei, Giordano Bruno, Ignaz Semmelweis, Alfred Wegener, Nikola Tesla, Rosalind Franklin, and Lise Meitner were dismissed or suppressed not for error, but for challenging power, consensus, and authority a recurring structural response to disruptive ideas.

Do you think that your response is logical? You are referring to Nature's reviewers and editorial board as shoddy workers and low-level scientists. The last time I checked, the article satisfies all the conditions to be a Nature's article.