More than fourteen years ago my first paper disproving Bell's theorem appeared on the arXiv, on the 20th of March 2007: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703179.

The reception of the paper was icy cold from my colleagues at the Perimeter Institute in Canada. I was a visiting professor at the Institute at the time. My host at the Institute was Lucien Hardy, who has his own Bell-type theorem, and then there is the GHZ theorem. So some at the Institute shifted the goalpost and claimed: Locality is dead because we have Hardy's theorem and GHZ theorem. Not surprisingly, my visiting position at the Institute was not renewed and I returned to Oxford in September 2007. My paper was rejected by PRL on dubious grounds.

Two years later, in 2009, I posted the disproofs of Hardy's and GHZ's theorems on the arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/0904.4259. Hardly anyone noticed and my paper was rejected by PRD.

One of the reasons for the rejection of my paper by PRD was what I had written in its Introduction. For amusement, let me reproduce the introductory paragraph here:

Joy Christian wrote:

No-go theorems in physics are often founded on unjustified, if tacit assumptions, and Bell’s theorem is no exception.

It is no different, in this respect, from von Neumann’s theorem rejecting all hidden variables [1], or Coleman-Mandula

theorem neglecting supersymmetry [2]. Despite being in plain sight, the unjustified assumptions underlying the latter

two theorems seemed so innocuous to many that they escaped detection for decades. In the case of Coleman-Mandula

theorem—which concerned combining spacetime and internal symmetries—it took a truly imaginative development

of supersymmetry to finally bring about recognition of its limited veracity. In the curious case of von Neumann’s

theorem, however, even an explicit counterexample—namely, the pilot wave theory [3][4]—did not discourage a series

of similarly misguided “impossibility proofs” for decades [5]. Thus ensued over half a century of false belief that no

such completion of quantum mechanics is possible, even in principle. Unfortunately, as is evident from the widespread

belief in Bell’s theorem, such examples of institutionalized denial are not confined to the history of physics. Just as in

the premises of von Neumann and Coleman-Mandula theorems, the unjustified assumption underlying Bell’s theorem

is also in plain sight—in the very first equation of Bell’s paper [6]—and yet it has received little attention.

It took another nine years before my disproof on GHZ theorem was finally published in a Royal Society journal Open Science: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... sos.180526.

Meanwhile, my formal argument against Bell's original theorem has become quite sophisticated: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.02876.pdf.

.