When someone has a conflict of interest, say a scientist hired by sugar manufacturers to look into the safety of sugar, that doesn't mean that person is wrong on that issue. It's something to note, and look at very carefully, but I refuse to treat people as robots. Some scientists will reach and publish accurate conclusions, at least some of the time, if not all of it, regardless of who's paying them and what they're asked to show.
This is my objection to the "follow the money" labyrinths I see in some analyses. The concept of a shill describes a phenomenon, but too many people seem to equate being paid with being a shill to the one paying. They are clearly not the same, and I know that because people are not robots.
The best way to know is to look at the science itself, and find experts and try to understand their explanations. This is not to shop for your favored conclusion. It's to learn from the best sources. Following the money must be interesting, and I have no doubt it uncovers plots and scams and shills. But it doesn't tell you much about the validity of a statement.
