2023-06-15 18:53:13
NNN as claim is correct. NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(63-5-83) Author
2023-06-15 20:01:09
NNN. The article was indeed retracted, and the journal's own description of the reason for retraction does not portray the whole story. [Link] NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(65-4-83) Author
2023-06-16 21:51:27
No note needed. This pseudoscientific nonsense was indeed retracted as it should be. NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(12-3-22) Author