We need to acknowledge that well-funded science driven by robust mission-focused systems (like pharma companies) is often a different animal than the field of science generally. In the below comments, I'm speaking about the latter.

In my experience good science is much rarer than bad.

Also, politics and hidden hands (eg: third party funding sources) have been shaping science likely since science's inception. It's an open secret that quite often science is not scientific. And that if you are seeing a published paper like this, then critiques have willfully ignored that fact.

I'm sure that this subtly varies from field to field, but I think that one tends to accept and become numb to the dross. Because it is overwhelming. The approach becomes to quietly try to filter for and celebrate better science, and otherwise say nothing. Beyond being overwhelmed, this approach may be necessary for political survival in some fields.