Please read my post again and if you can, address the points made there.
EDIT: those points, slightly expanded, are:
1) Could it be that Newtonian/Einsteinian models of motion in extremely distant, never visited places are extrapolations in error? If not, how do we know that, since we cannot experiment there, with massive objects on astronomical scales?
2) Is working in line of a popular paradigm much more preferable to most researchers than proposing a radical new theory that is inconsistent with it?
3) Searching for different model / theory is hard work but if it successfuly explains something and provides directions to continue, is preferable to fitting massive quanta of data to a model with infinity degrees of freedom (density of dark matter in space).
4) It is hard to find an example of scientific theory fitting all the evidence. Fitting all the evidence suggests we are doing a fitting exercise, not a scientific theory.
It's your job to not be wrong about knowable things. Read a summary of the literature if you are actually interested instead of just proposing that a well accepted theory is wrong because "theoreticians" are biased.
I was requesting the parent to point out which of my points and why they are wrong. I think reply of such kind would be far more useful to many people here sharing similar views to mine on the idea of dark matter or usefulness of academic work in this direction.
> 'Read a summary of the literature if you are actually interested'
I am actually interested in what people here, including you, think of my points; I was hoping for substantive replies to them. Your suggestion to 'read up and shut up' comes out as arrogant and uncalled for.