[r00fus]

A study that rigidly follows the scientific principles, but is intellectually dishonest (ie, sponsored by interested party of studied subject, etc) is often not useful to the reader of the study results. Because you can follow the letter of the principles, and still flout the spirit.

One should, when listening to a study, question the funding. Likewise, dissenting opinions must also be examined in what interested parties have a hand in their creation.

[slurgfest]

Sponsorship does not imply intellectual dishonesty. Intellectual dishonesty is a matter of how the argument is made. Sponsorship is a heuristic you could use to quickly filter papers but used as a counter-argument, it is simply ad hominem.

You are describing a method for judging arguments without thinking critically about the arguments themselves or examining their basis in evidence and that is not any kind of science. One does not find any measure of objectivity by averaging between opinions, only by holding arguments to the yardstick of rationality and evidence.

[Zakharov]

Yes, examining the biases and methodologies of a study is the correct way to present a contrarian opinion. Providing an anecdote is much less useful.