I spent many hours writing this answer and many days preparing it.
Is it fair to desk-reject the above paper based solely on this one sentence?
The question primarily asks if it is fair to desk-reject heretical ideas if they run counter to the established knowledge (an antithesis in my opinion; knowledge should always be open to challenge, never established, in my humble opinion).
Others have explained well why it may not be a good idea to desk-reject on the basis of contrarianism alone. I added some historical examples where exactly this stand of not even considering contrarian ideas turned out to be strongly unfair.
It is an attempt at a proof by counterexamples, and intends to complement other answers which are well written and cover all of the important points.
Yet the SE community unkindly engaged in mass downvoting without explaining, and have made the answer invisible.
Why is an answer that is a complement to others considered so bad?
The highest upvoted answer says:
That procedure would remove the ability to overturn incorrect mainstream results.
I only provided supportive examples for this statement.
As a matter of fact, one of my examples (3rd) is mentioned in multiple highly upvoted comments. I wanted to add the complete story, while also adding 2 more examples. How is that so bad?