So, the last 100 years of scientific research, then?

As long as science was done properly, the results are valid (even if the opinions on what those results mean may not be).

And if "not enough science was done" to rigorously investigate the entire landscape, that's not a failing of those doing the science. It's not their job to perform years-long work for nothing, so someone's going to have to pay for it, and academia has no money, independent research institutes only work on commission, and companies obviously only pay for studies they think will let them grow as a business. Especially in that last case, if the research does some funny stuff with the statistics (as is so often the case), that's on "us" (as in, the reviewers, publishers, and experts in the field) to call bullshit on, but "those who stand to gain pay for the research" has been driving research since before either of us was born.

Point is, you don't actually know what science is out there, because there are many layers between you and "the science". So people who mess with the visible of science or for that matter with the funding so that the science might not even happen, can influence your perception of what is true.

So, again: how is that an even remotely recent phenomenon? That's literally been the case since we invented domain-specific scientific publications.

Who cares if someone is funding their own agenda if it provides real results? The problem isn't the funding, it's the results.