Annals of Physics' excuse for retracting the paper is ludicrous: the paper contradicts what is currently believed in the physics community so it must be removed from the record.

Moreover they say that there is experimental support for violation of local realism. They apparently don't realise that the argument from experiment to rejection of local realism depends on Bell's theoretical analysis (or modern variants thereof), and it is Bell's analysis which Christian objects to.

A good reason for not accepting the paper in the first place would have been the huge number of mathematical errors and self-contradictions which it contains, many of them very obvious and very elementary. There is no "measurement framework" there. Just a mass of contradictions.

But the paper was accepted and was available on the journal website for some time. I think the paper should not be retracted but should be left "on record" for anyone to see.

By the way, Joy learnt about Pearle's model from an early version of my https://arxiv.org/abs/1505.04431 which I published on Rpubs in March 2014, http://rpubs.com/gill1109/Pearle. Christian's computer simulations were originally done by copy paste from my own R code. He writes "our model is not concerned about data rejection or detection loophole". Unfortunately, his own simulation code contradicts this assertion.

We can add plagiarism to his skills.

Moreover they say that there is experimental support for violation of local realism. They apparently don't realise that the argument from experiment to rejection of local realism depends on Bell's theoretical analysis (or modern variants thereof), and it is Bell's analysis which Christian objects to.

A good reason for not accepting the paper in the first place would have been the huge number of mathematical errors and self-contradictions which it contains, many of them very obvious and very elementary. There is no "measurement framework" there. Just a mass of contradictions.

But the paper was accepted and was available on the journal website for some time. I think the paper should not be retracted but should be left "on record" for anyone to see.

By the way, Joy learnt about Pearle's model from an early version of my https://arxiv.org/abs/1505.04431 which I published on Rpubs in March 2014, http://rpubs.com/gill1109/Pearle. Christian's computer simulations were originally done by copy paste from my own R code. He writes "our model is not concerned about data rejection or detection loophole". Unfortunately, his own simulation code contradicts this assertion.

We can add plagiarism to his skills.