Obviously not all of them. And obviously there is corruption and mistakes with anything involving humans. What's so funny is that when people make criticisms like this, they always leave out the alternative. What's the alternative? Trusting mostly uneducated influencers and quacks who do even less research and don't even attempt peer review?
I'm sure if, god forbid, you were diagnosed with a curable cancer you wouldn't go "trust the science" and go get treatment. I'm really sure you would do that.
You can say that of all cases of fraud, but that’s a survivorship bias fallacy, since we can only talk about cases we know to be fradulent, i.e. where fraud has been identified.