5 papers got rejected this week-sigh!

Journals are increasingly becoming skeptical of computational based studies (targetted at molecular mechanism inference or cure finding of deadly diseases), citing need of experimental proof and that computational based studies alone add to the clutter of literature. If skeptical now, why were not the algorithms and tools generated for such analyses subjected to more critical analysis in the first place?
After the publication of Editorial by NEJM, shunning work on secondary data, it has furthur added to the woes of computational biologists. It just seems that monopoly and power play of the few minds who have now shifted their focus from theory to experiment. We all know that experiments are the ultimate truth but computation assisted the preliminary findings.
It just seems like the gameplay of stock brokers, who based on corollories and derivatives of financial terms, tempt and loot innocent people. Ultimately, the big fish devours the small in the game of rise and fall of the share prices. Similar is the case of Academia, a slight bit of unethical or wrong thing gets noticed and highlighted  for junior researchers, resulting in btter consequences, while seniors do whatever they please and get away with it, wrapped in scarves woven from innocent laypeople's respect for supreme intellectuals and brainy devils.