Sadly, medical journals are all advertising for Big Pharma in practice.

Not really. They make their money selling their journals to libraries and universities.

Traditional journals charge a fee to publish, but not a larger one for a paper from a big pharma lab than a university.

The problem that they have is that Big Pharma can obfuscate bias in methodology and p-hacking from changing the end points in the middle of a trial. And they can p-hack by not using all the data, or for a trial comparing to other drugs on the market, they can choose an inappropriate dose or a drug other than the most effective one for comparison.

These things are time consuming to find, and often slip through peer review.

That is how the journals and the researchers get their money and future funding.

Not really. Researchers in an academic institution get money from their salary. Publication history is an important factor in winning these positions, so having a paper retracted is a really shit career move.

Scientists working in big pharma labs must be under some pressure to have results that are financially beneficial to the company. I don't know how that works, but there's a shitload of trial designs that aren't done with uncovering the unbiased truth in the literature.

There is also a replication problem in academic publications. I suspect that this is publication bias rather than intentional fraud (In most cases). You get an unexpected result, and it's more likely to be considered interesting by a high profile journal. So statistical anomalies are over-represented in the published literature.

Got a link to any of those removed articles? Or the title, authors, journal and year?