From the website:
Medical Hypotheses takes a deliberately different approach to review: the editor sees his role as a ‘chooser’, not a ‘changer’, choosing to publish what are judged to be the best papers from those submitted. The Editor sometimes uses external referees to inform his opinion on a paper, but their role is as an information source and the Editor’s choice is final. The papers chosen may contain radical ideas, but may be judged acceptable so long as they are coherent and clearly expressed. The authors’ responsibility for the integrity, precision and accuracy of their work is paramount.
I once (yes, once, when I was naive and assumed that a journal from a major publisher would be legit) reviewed a paper for them, and was just about to write an angry email to the editor asking something like “Is it your objective to publish utter speculation?” before I checked the website and saw that, indeed, that is their objective (see also this and this).
Anyway, I am pleased to note that this “journal” may soon be tanked.