I submitted a paper last month in a reputable high ranking journal, the paper was rejected with a chance of resubmission, the reviewer pointed out some anomalies in my data analysis and stated that my work can't be considered for publication. I run the experiments all over, and plotted new graphs. Do you think I should resubmit to the same journal? Are the reviewers going to question my new data? Is there anyone here who went through running the experiment again, finding new data and resubmitting to the same journal and got accepted for publication?
If you are sure you've improved the paper and its underlying data, you should probably resubmit, since they permit it. That would probably be the quickest way to get feedback on whether you have something worth publishing. Even if it is again rejected, the reasons may change which will give you further advice on how to proceed. Submitting to a different journal would start you at the beginning again and take longer in most cases.
Provide a note along with the resubmission explaining what you have done and why it correctly responds to the earlier review.
But don't waste people's efforts. Make careful evaluation yourself or within your working group.