"Peer review" arguments just promotes pseudoscience

"Sceptics" often claim to fight back against pseudoscience when they list lack of "peer review" publications as a reason to reject the pseudoscience they are talking about. But since "peer review" is an institution, that kind of argument is a type of logical fallacy known as argument from authority. If that kind of "argument" is frequently regurgitated as if it was the main or even sole reason to reject an idea, it is fully understandable that good critical people are misled to believe that there are no true reasons to reject said pseudoscience. All lumping of evidence-based falsification without peer review with actual pseudoscience that merely uses scientific-sounding words is an authoritarian association fallacy that only the latter, actual pseudoscience benefits from. Truth is the loser in that game. To avoid this, pseudoscience should be refuted by valid arguments like empirical evidence or exposing flaws such as logical self-contradictions or lack of falsifiability. Not by arguments from any kind of authority whatsoever.

Using redundant publication policies against themselves

One main cause of scientific stagnation is the redundant publication policy in pre-publication "peer review", which effectively means that discoveries and theories are snubbed by the journals just because of where they were originally published. But it also offers a possibility to use the system against itself. I do not know exactly how, but it may be possible to generate a lot of articles on the Internet that makes the digital redundant publication detectors recognize most if not all submitted articles as redundant. If successful, it would smash the myth of the "fantastic" pre-publication "peer review" and allow us to do something better for science.