You're putting an irrational amount of weight on peer review and science.
Lots of science today is just career academia and not science whatsoever. It's also a highly indisputable fact that you have to tickle the right balls to get funding in academia, unless you're doing basic research that can't in any way be used to drive political or corporate narratives.
Furthermore, it's also a well established fact that Physics has only access to some 95% of what they currently believe to be making up the universe.
And even the remaining 5% is quite poorly understood.
Hence, any argument asserting that "X is a fairy tale/conspiracy/whatever because there's no peer reviewed paper" is inherently unscientific, irrational, and in fact deeply dangerous to actual progress. Indeed it is no more than religious dogma in a different form.
I put my weight into logic and evidence confirming that logic that is presented to me. The more evidence, the more weight. That is how science works and it has never failed us throughout human history.
Yes, there are some quacks/degenerates/money driven "scientists" who publish bullshit papers for money, but those are weeded out very quickly and nobody takes them seriously. And nobody who spends 10-13 years of his life obtaining a PhD and 20+ years building a reputation is going to risk losing his credibility in the science community to add a few dollars to the pitiful paycheck a physicist gets.
If a scientist wants money, he changes fields. You can make a shitload with a PhD in non-science related fields. But in science fields? You would be lucky to remain on the payroll of a postdoc.
I do not know where you get the 95% and 5% thing but if you are referring to dark matter and dark energy, its the other way around. The amount we know is so tiny its laughable. But then again, how do we know how much we don't know? So that argument is BS.
I am not saying it's a fairy tale. But if you are going to make claims that go against thousands of years of heavy evidence being built one tiny bit at a time and carefully scrutinized throughout history by generations of scientists, then maybe provide some substantial proof, and not just a few articles about "powerlines probably cause cancer because some random kid got cancer". If anything, the ones hoping to play on fears and make some money or are politically driven, are the ones getting paid to write those BS articles.
I would love to explain the math and physics but I kinda feel like a medical doctor explaining to a patient who does not want to listen that essential oils do not cure cancer. No point in wasting your time with lost cases.
Edit: here is a fun video explaining it all in a simple fashion for simple folks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfgT6zx4k3Q