First MOND was the first to predict the cosmic background radiation, as repeated in this recent article (2011) http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v106/i12/e121303 in its page 121303-3: Whereas the LCDM-1999 prediction was falsified (A1:2 = 1.8). Only after the WMAP data was known (A1:2 = 2.34 ± 0.09), the LCDM model was amended, to posteriori, to fit the available data. Second, contrary to unfounded claims that MOND is dead, Physical Review Letters considers MOND serious enough to publish this very recent paper http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v106/i12/e121303 and to Select it for a Viewpoint in Physics. And Science and Nature news consider this paper serious enough to launch news http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/02/more-evidence-against-dark-matte.html?ref=ra [Broken] http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/02/post_73.html Maybe it is all because MOND has done another prediction, which has been brilliantly confirmed once again, whereas the LCDM model fails once again. See figure 2 in the PRL article and also the caption of the figure: As reported in Science news (link above) Third, TeVeS is not the relativistic generalisation of MOND but only a particular attempt to obtain a relativistic MOND. A violation of TeVeS does not imply a violation of MOND as some pretend... In despite of repetitive misconceptions and mistakes MOND continues to work as well as it has been doinf in hundred of tests during decades. And in despite of so many premature claims that it «was abandoned» or «is dead». MOND continues to be highlighted in top-journals and in science news thanks to its empirical success, never rivaled by LCDM.