These aren't rules for scientists; they're rules for judges and ordinary citizens. Judges and voters aren't responsible for deciding what the accepted scientific orthodoxy should be. They're responsible for making reasonable decisions from the bench and in the ballot box, but too often they aren't even minimally equipped to do that.
Many scientific breakthroughs have been put forward by those who did not have formal credentials within a given scientific discipline.
I wouldn't say many. These are the exception rather than the rule, and it's not unreasonable for them to face higher hurdles than ideas from those who are conversant with the mistakes that have been made before. But in the final analysis, any idea is going to stand or fall in the laboratory. No amount of resistance can hold back the truth for long.
Genetics comes to mind as an idea that came from left field. The theory was, however, published in a legitimate journal.
One could make some rules of thumb about how quickly a revolutionary idea will be adopted, and it has nothing to do with the status of the scientist or his politics. New ideas will be quickly accepted if they are correctly phrased in the language of physical science and mathematics; if they address a problem that others are struggling with; and if they are supported by evidence.
Consider the ideas of John Nash, a certified loon. To the extent that his writings were lucid, he had no problem getting them accepted.