I think it's the difference between suspicion of the pharmaceutical vs the pharmaceutical company. You can criticize the company without criticizing the treatment.
In this case of doctors being paid to endorse drugs, the problem is that there is payment being exchanged at all. The issue persists whether or not the drug is effective.
sure but if we all agree that corruption is widespread , how can we discern what is effective? We're making our assignments based on corrupt testimony -- that of the corrupt vendors & doctors.
How much we trust the drugs rests entirely on how much we trust the industry