Review of: "Bell's theorem is an exercise in the statistical theory of causality" Marian Kupczynski 1 1 Université du Québec en Outaouais Potential competing interests: No potential competing interests to declare. Marian Kupczynski University of Quebec in Outaouais (UQO). Canada This preprint, posted also on Arxiv [1] , is neither a research paper nor a review. It does not contain any new material and contrary to author’s claim, it has nothing to say about Kupczynski’s contextual hidden variable models [2][3][4][5][6][7] describing the final data in specific Bell Tests in a causal and local way. Figures 1 and 2, have been well known, since many years, and they describe so called Bell-game, which is an unrealistic and oversimplified model of real spin polarization correlation experiments. Outcomes of Bell games may be described by a local stochastic hidden variable model and Bell-CHSH inequalities may be derived using an appropriate probabilistic coupling. Final data in some Bell Tests violate not only Bell-CHSH inequalities but also no-signaling. In our model, in which the settings are denoted usually (x, y), pairwise expectationsin 4 incompatible experimental setting (a, b) are defined [6][7] : EX ab Y ab = E(XY ∣ A = a, B = b) = ∑ λ∈Λ ab X a λ 1 , λ a Y b λ 2 , λ b p λ 1 , λ 2 p ab λ a , λ b (1) where p ( λ 1 , λ 2 ), p ( λ a , λ b ) do not need to factorize . The hidden variables explicitly depend on settings, what violates statistical independence and Bell-CHSH inequalities cannot be derived using (1). The author did not even notice, that in my model we do not use ( Λ x , Λ y ) but ( Λ A , Λ B ) , Violation of statistical independence in (1) reflects contextuality and has nothing to do with the violation of experimenter’s free choice or spooky influencies [6][7] . In Bell Tests, discussed in the papers criticized in [1][8][9][10] , to which we responded in [11][12][13] , the violation of statistical independence is due to setting dependent pairing of distant outcomes . Different, plausible physical arguments have to be found for more recent Bell Tests based on the entanglement swapping. Only splitting hidden variables into two sets can succeed to rationally explain cos (θ ab ) dependence predicted by quantum mechanics and consistent with the experimental data. Angles θ a ,θ b and θ ab = θ b - θ a correspond to particular measuring set-ups, measuring procedures etc; they are absent in the description of states of entangled physical systems. Please note that in (1) we are using the notation and , which is consistent with Kochen-Specker contextuality [14] and Contextuality-by- Default approach [15][16][17] , because the random variables measuring the same content in a different ( ) ( ) ( )( ) ( ) Qeios, CC-BY 4.0 · Review, April 29, 2023 Qeios ID: DRHFO9 · https://doi.org/10.32388/DRHFO9 1/3