Yes - I agree - corruption in the medical industry, especially in the US (where it would otherwise be possible to have free healthcare).

Very interesting Nature article. Nature, however, holds up to scrutiny regarding the accuraty of its reports. And indeed the fake editor was discovered because of other scientists and a check and balance system that is natural in the peer reviewed journal process for science and medical science journals. This does not prohibit occasional examples of corrupt processes, especially because of networks of academics who engage in favoritism. But that favoritism is rarely associated with corporate corruption. When innacuracies are discovered in journals like JAMA and other medical science journals, retractions are required. This happens often. I know of a PhD thesis on the subject of retractions, published in the early 1990s. Another problem is corporate sponsorship of scientific research, though in those cases there is a clause requiring 'academic freedom', which means that the researchers cannot be required by the company to falsify any portion of the data. This does not mean that this never happens, but that this is the ethical system that's part of the contracts. TL DR: what is more trustworthy - international network of 100s of scientists who like to correct each other with scientific facts - or political propaganda about that scientific research, making false claims about mRNA vaccines that are unfounded and baseless and certainly not supported by the massive network of international pedantic scientists?