[ralala]

Isn't that what conferences and journals are for? Reviewing and selecting the most important papers?

When something is really solved (a solution exists without negative side-effects; and this fact has been verified several times), they should indeed look for new problems.

[SemanticStrengh]

In theory, not in practice. Revolutionary papers ignored by all are the rule, not the exception. I have seen hundreds. See e.g. This 410% reduction of ALL cause mortality. No side effects and in addition significant amelioration of quality of life (sleep, etc) It was twenty years ago and will keep being ignored for the rest of eternity. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12577695/ The human condition is miserable because even the scientists themselves are actually scientifically illiterate.

[Kaibeezy]

I’d like a 410% reduction in all cause mortality as much as the next Joe, but the Pubmed similar articles list isn’t very encouraging. Nearly all the 90 articles listed spanning 40 years are from Russia, many from the same small group of researchers. I observe: 1) there HAS been a sustained effort and publication among a substantial group of investigators, and yet 2) these dramatic results have failed to attract further attention.

I (non-scientist, applying Occam’s razor and the principle of “if it seems too good to be true, it surely is”) conclude there is probably a fundamental flaw, like, perhaps, after a few years of “improvement” people suddenly shrivel up into a husk.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?linkname=pubmed_pubmed&from...