Why do you freaks not object?

Generally, I would say that if something disagrees with the established scientific consensus, it bears a greater burden of proof than something that does not. This is reasonable. It keeps us from having to reinvent the wheel if we don't have to, for example, establish at the beginning of every biology paper that evolution through natural selection is a real phenomenon. Someone making an alternate claim has to provide more support.

So, since we only have your interpretation of the response you got, is it possible that the response you actually got was on the order of "You are making a claim that disagrees with current thought, and provide insufficient support for that claim"? Because that's a reasonable thing to say, I think.

And, yes, the peer review process is not perfect. Anything involving humans is not perfect, because *humans* aren't perfect.

It would help if you posted a verbatim response and ideally a link to your paper. Without that it’s a case of “I said, he said…”.

The impression you’re giving is that you had a paper rejected (or at least not accepted as submitted) which you feel was unjust. Your conclusion therefore is that the peer-review process is flawed and anyone who disagrees with you is a “freak”. If you adopted that approach with your submission then no wonder it wasn’t accepted.

The peer-review system isn’t perfect and never will be, what alternative do you suggest?

PS – Did you modify your paper at all, have you resubmitted it, has it subsequently been accepted/published?

What credentials exactly do you have that would make your paper qualify for publication in a peer reviewed journal. That may have something to do with the rejection??

You're wrong and always will be, deal with it