Why do you keep saying this? At the bottom of the article there’s a clear link to a peer reviewed paper in the journal Nature. Heck there’s a link in the first paragraph too. What is so suspicious here, like what’s the potential malintent being observed here? You seem to misunderstand what’s being presented here in its entirety, and are making a misguided point as a result. Granted, I’m no physicist, but it seems obvious to me that the rando group that reported lk-99 was making insane revolutionary claims regarding a supposed room-temperature superconductor, in a non peer reviewed paper. This is A) MIT. (Ie, extremely relevant in the name of physics) B) Only claiming the super conductivity of a previously unknown-to-be-superconductive material (or more aptly, a previously unknown process which makes a material superconductive), which is not anywhere even remotely close to being as potentially earth-shattering as the lk-99 claims. Plenty of things are superconductive- this one is just interesting because it’s new / novel (+ a couple of other important points I don’t particularly understand as I’m not a physicist. Go figure) C) Peer reviewed in a major journal Why do you keep pressing this angle as if the “claims” are so murky and unfounded and malevolent? There’s nothing about this paper to support that ideal that I can discern. What does “deliver” even mean in this context? They already have, in their peer reviewed paper. Arguably the Korea University students “delivered” with their paper on lk-99, it’s just that everyone checked after because of how crazy their claims being true would be, and found that they just fucked up. The two things you’re conflating here have no reason to be- they’re not remotely the same situation.