Re: "The review goes a bit further and points out that, to account for all the possible issues, a fully relativistic MOND hypothesis must be derived—for MOND, or any new theory of gravity, to be taken seriously it must contain, as a subset, Einstein's theory of general relativity."And this is precisely where they consistently go wrong. If you're going to go out of your way to consider MOND, then why constrain your investigation to MOND theories which only support Relativity? Why do they not also revisit the Dayton Miller experiment that generated a non-null result for an aether drift? Given the precision of electronics today, it would make a lot of sense to try to replicate Miller's experiment with a non-hostile, open mind. The simple explanation for why this is not being done pertains to the continuing heresy associated with questioning strongly entrenched, long-held, established views pertaining to Einstein. Some physics textbooks go so far as to claim that people who believe in Dayton Miller's aether experiments are quacks, even as quantum physicists publish press releases explaining that they can light a light bulb with "energy from the vacuum". The arguments supposedly disqualifying the aether were in fact incredibly weak. Even Einstein himself held out for a replication of Miller's aether drag experiment. But ultimately, Einstein's followers would decide not to follow up on that successful experiment, instead declaring that the aether was dead in a research review paper. Nowadays, Einstein's followers eagerly ridicule the notion of a unified field theory (like an Electrically Modified Newtonian Dynamics, aka EMOND). They fail to acknowledge that Einstein himself came up with the idea. The history of science is not always a straight, narrow, forged path lacking erroneous diversions.It's really too bad that the physics establishment does not take a hard, introspective look at itself. Many great ideas are being disqualified from funding purely because of their potential for disproving the prior work of established physicists. It won't be until physicists learn to be more honest with themselves that the answers to the hardest questions mankind has ever asked will reveal themselves. Peer review is really nothing more than a group of men. It is not impervious to mistake -- even, in some instances, dramatic mistakes that have persisted for a hundred years. The history of science records many similar mistakes. Just because we have cellphones and computers now does not mean that we are now impervious to similar errors.