Let me recount quickly so we can compare:

• -5 for starters.
• +3 for statements widely agreed to be false (nonexistence of 1. black holes, 2. dark matter, 3. big bang).
• +10 for claiming a paradigm shift.
• +20 for talking about how great the theory is without explaining it.
• +40 for claiming something like a conspiracy suppressing the new idea (cf. "threatening to their funding and careers").

However, it seems like misspelling 'Kuhn' should count for something.

Step 8 suggests a +5 for misspelling Einstein, Hawking, or Feynman - you could do the same for Kuhn.

Are you ... taking pride in sounding like a crackpot? That doesn't seem like a very good plan for figuring out what is really going on in the world. That's why we denounce crackpottish proclamations like "this theory is largely rejected/ignored by both the particle and string mainstream [because it is] very very threatening to their funding and careers" - because these sorts of statements are easy arguments to wield against people with the temerity to dispute your favored idea.

I haven't read the paper you linked here, but the titular "ECE" - "Einstein Cartan Evans" - returns no hits in a quick Scitation search. If you ask me, it seems premature to treat the results with anything like the confidence you attribute to it.