> I'd also like to point out that your comment is an example of what I consider to be the type of poorly thought out middle brow discourse that perfectly characterizes the worst form of discussion on the internet.
Ok, let us look at what you wrote:
> I have some questions about this "sting" that were unanswered in the article.
You don't ever ask any questions, and thus this is a rhetorical device to cast doubt on the article.
> It would be one thing if the academic were paid to have a certain opinion, its is another thing entirely to pay an academic to falsify research supporting a viewpoint they already hold. It reads as if the academics were paid to support a thesis with evidence. Once you are at a high enough academic level you should be able to write a paper arguing for and supporting a thesis whether or not you believe in that thesis on a personal level. It's important to sustain debate on all sides of an issue regardless of whether or not all of those sides are politically popular.
Straw man argument. Nobody is arguing against commercial funding for research or papers. The issue is deliberately concealing funding/independence and deliberately evading peer review.
> The great thing about publishing is that it gives other educated people a chance to rebut and question the argument.
Not when you deliberately avoid peer review.
> I also believe funding sources should be kept secret in some cases so that the paper or research can be judged on its own merit rather than judged based on the motivations of the entity funded it.
Ok, what are those cases? Oh right, you were just making a rhetorical point and don't have any actual examples.