You read the article or the abstract? I read the abstract. It doesn't (to me) actually rebut all and any conspiracy theories it rebuts some and says people went too far. It doesn't say there was no industry shilling or industry funded science distortion.

What do you think it says?

I'm not a believer in a single grand sugar conspiracy. I am a believer in industry lobbying distortions in science funding. It's common for any industry with downside risks to consider funding science which suits their message.

Why do you think we have an issue across science about non publication of negative results and hiding datasets?