The question
Ideas can be ignored because they are poorly supported, badly communicated, difficult to test, unfashionable, disruptive to existing incentives, or actively restricted. These possibilities require evidence; they are not interchangeable.
What would count
| Claim | Evidence needed |
|---|---|
| Rejected scientifically | Reviews, replications, methodological critiques, and documented evidentiary gaps. |
| Institutionally neglected | Funding, publication, access, or review patterns compared with relevant baselines. |
| Actively suppressed | Specific actors, actions, documents, dates, motives, and demonstrable effects. |
Important: disagreement, criticism, or lack of publication is not by itself proof of suppression.
Competing explanations
Why unconventional claims fail
Weak methods, non-reproducible results, missing data, shifting predictions, overstatement, and failure to engage existing literature can explain marginal status without misconduct.
[CASE-SPECIFIC SOURCES REQUIRED] No suppression narrative should be published without documented evidence.