I was about to send this out when amanda's come in. She probably stated
things much clearer than I.

This is getting out of hand and jumping to too many conclusions.  None of
us know if Dr. Pottenger got any funding from the ADairyA for his research
about milk consumption in cats, and can't obtain the original paper or
person to ask. He could have gotten funding from a cat- food company, too.
We don't even know what he was a doctor of. Considering milk is pasteurized
now, and he supported raw milk, I highly doubt that the dairy industry
sponsored his research, or if they did, they didn't pay attention to it.
The ADA is not an almighty god and not every scientist receives research
money from them. If any research (or future articles) was in a good
peer-reviewed journal (there are varying qualities of review, too), then
scientists can accept that for the moment. Some studies are eventually
proven wrong. The reviewers of the scientific article have no interest in
where the funding came from, they're looking for the truth.  The Author
does not know who the reviewers are, and definately the funding source
doesn't know who reviewed the paper (to supposedly withdraw the reviewers'
funding).

Now, what you are more likely to see is info that supports a person's
theory, and anything that did not fit the theory thrown out and not
presented in the publication. That happens often, but it depends on the
scientist's ethics, and how strong the study and contrary results were.

What will will more often see is journalists of newspapers, magazines,
(books, and probably webpages, too) that are much more uninformed about the
subject than many of us. Unfortunately for us, journalists don't have years
to study the subject, editors have less time and know less about the
subject (and don't care about exact journal references), so inaccuracies
and 'glossing over' slip by.