Exactly. People tend to overstate the importance of spurious, surprising findings that don't make scientific sense. Some of these may lead to breakthroughs, sure. But the overwhelming majority are just noise. And it takes experts to decide which are worth investigating. To wit, anti-vaxers love subgroup analysis without supporting scientific logic (ie more autism in this population of 5 boys from the study).
I'd hate to see old, frail people getting Etanercept (an immunomodulator) to prevent Alzhemier's based on very questionable evidence when all they really get are the costs (increased risk of serious infections leading to death-- an FDA black box warning).
The impression the original article gave was that the company ignored compelling evidence because they couldn't make any money off of it. But the "compelling evidence" actually comes across more like the sort of thing you'd find here: https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations . As Derek Lowe puts it, "One of the biggest objections to the idea inside the company was that this finding was unlikely to be real because Enbrel doesn’t really penetrate into the brain."
A final coda: the actual data may not have been public, but the potential correlative results were published in 2010: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20478733/. So much for being buried?