Do you have actual arguments? The reasons for me giving these points above is that this way of arguing has become standard PR practice from industries that want to prevent outcomes that would be detrimental to their bottom line (tobacco sugar, oil...). They actually are not interested in a debate that finds the actual truth. In fact they often know that the facts are correct from their own studies, but want to cast doubt on them nevertheless.

I'm perfectly ok with someone giving actual arguments (ideally backed up by some scientific evidence) why that study might get the correct result. I didn't even make any judgement about the validity of the original conclusions.

Your “actual argument” is to (in contravention of HN guidelines) impugn motives and accuse others of shilling. Once there’s a substantive discussion to be had, I’ll join it!

Honest question, what are you trying to achieve?

Productive exchange on the merit of the ideas here, as opposed to scoring good PR against the bad people.