It is not a 'refutation' of the theorem in the true sense. It is just saying one if its assumptions is unfounded. From the paper: >It is definitely not the i

It is not a 'refutation' of the theorem in the true sense. It is just saying one if its assumptions is unfounded. From the paper: >It is definitely not the intention of this paper to question the derivation of Bell’s inequality. Bell’s proof is mathematically correct. The point is simply that the assumptions of Bell’s inequality —namely, the restriction to non-contextual models— do not comprehensively describe conceivable physical reality. I am familiar with Bell's theorem and the early work of Aspect in this subject. I have no memory of what a 'contextual model' is! So I can't comment on how interesting the paper is.