They won the Nobel Prize. That is the reward for going against the grain in Science and proving that you are correct and the prevailing view was incorrect. The problem of most papers that go against what we think we know in Science is either that they are not at all Scientific, and/or they don’t have the data to support their contentions. Nothing is stopping them from publishing, just not in a peer reviewed Scientific Journal whose peers think that it is not Science, not applicable to their field (Many Scientific journals are highly specific), or doesn’t have the data to support its contention.
Once again, Science is not a worldwide conspiracy of agreed upon dogma. Science findings are accepted around the world completely tangential to the religion, politics, or background of the Scientist. Why do you think that is? It isn’t because they all met in a back room and decided “You got to be right about protein X, so let me contradict you on protein Y.”; no they duke it out with data and the last hypothesis standing is the operating theory until contradictory data comes in.
That one was quite a while ago.
What percentage of such do you believe get published . . . against the RELIGION OF SCIENTISM DOGMAS?
imho
extremely few . . . and in many disciplines, none.