january utc if we were following best practices the secondary sources from both points of view would be fairly represented in the article at present that is not the case what makes your judgement superior to that of the scores of editorial boards and peer reviewers who have included lenr articles in dozens of unquestionably reputable journals or superior to that of the the nasa navy and army scientists who put their careers on the line to work on a controversial subject they say will have a larger impact than any other energy technology do you have some special expertise pertaining to electroweak interactions which allows you to absolutely rule out the hundreds of reports of anomalous effects or any evidence that the proponents are lying or deluded why are so many people on this issue unable to deal with the uncertainly inherent in the controversy we have some people trying to deny the controversy even exists while at the same time referring to its two sides and now these heavy duty personal attacks what is it about this subject that makes so many editors absolutist exclusionist and advocates of bias instead of npov adherents