This isn't a recent issue. It may be less of an issue than it was a decade or so ago.
For example, I recall reading that well over half (maybe 70%-90%) of the medical literature on Neurontin (gabapentin) were ghostwritten advertorial spam funded by Novartis.
It is possible (even more likely) to have experts with legitimate opinions that are scientifically valid and have measurable outcomes that also correspond to commercial interests. Ie. "it helps people and makes money".
That model has worked for over a century. Yes, it's under attack by unethical people (more than in the past?), but I'm not sure what the alternative would be.