This type of knee-jerk over-reaction doesn't add to the discussion. Sure, there is corruption, but there is plenty of good science going on. I'd go so far as to say that the vast majority is published in good faith. Sorting out what isn't is what makes those who game the system so toxic, but good medical practice can mitigate the damage. How? By insisting on replication of highly unexpected findings across sites by different researchers, outside the influence of the private sector.

To call it "science as usual" is inaccurate, and I suspect the main function is to allow you to put your own biased and untested assumptions ahead of conclusions you find unintuitive or inconvenient. This is not an attack on you, it's a statement about human nature.

Everyone has this tendency innately, and the job of science is to fight hard against it by providing proof. Most of us take that pretty seriously.