You make many good points. Certainly, there are many areas where you describe well how the community of scientists work and the inherent corrective forces in the process of science. However, you also point out that there are instances, such as smoking, where money muddled science. That it did for about half a century. It is precisely in areas where there is a lot of money to be made or lost that the process, can, was and is subverted.

Science is a human activity that has been, can be and is increasingly being corrupted. In my field, about 35 years ago, a senior faculty and department head faked all his data concerning geo-textiles (essential in the design of landfills) and was getting enormous amounts of money from NYC. He has since retired but was never caught or taken to task in spite of whistleblowers who lost their jobs. I imagine such problems are much worse in pharmaceuticals, medical science and industries that need to be restricted due to climate change. Maybe, in the long run, the models with ‘honest’ data will prevail or maybe, we’ll be all dead by then.

People who doubt science in areas where big moneyed interests are involved are, in my opinion, justified in doing so. The declared results may sometimes be accurate but there is sufficient doubt, due to widespread corruption, that doubt is certainly justified and outright rejecting the ‘science’ in cases where there is a lot of vested money or power is rational.