Let's say you're right about this.

Nonetheless, in 2020, there (also?) was a rush to study the effectiveness of masks, arranged in labs, corroborated with other scientists, and there are no obvious connections between those people (or many of those people?) and a national conspiracy to push a specific agenda. The need for that research in 2020 does not constitute obvious bias for all of that research. Even if we argue over the percentage of scientists influenced by deep state conspiracy planners, it's fairly obvious that much of the research - because of the burden of proof in scientific reseach - has been fully corroborated with the research elsewhere on the same subject, especially because most people act in the interests of themselves and others, and would not commit scientific research to falsified data. Contrast this with a massive, obvious campaign to discredit scientists, without providing any evidence, or any reliable evidence, and part of that campaign focuses on deep state conspiracies. Let's say that they're right about the deep state conspiracies. That still leaves other examples of research that's not necessarily tied to the conspiracy, but is instead an honest, scientific interest in knowing how to protect ourselves, because, why not try to understand the efficacy of masks? There are obvious holes in some of the conspiracy logic, even if we can say that there is some justificaiton for assuming that there is a conspiracy. The majority of legitimate scientists want the truth, or they wouldn't really be scientists.