That's quite a misleading characterization. There were twelve authors, and only one works for Cura.[1] The others are mostly researchers at Uppsala University, and the article notes that "none of the remaining authors declare any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest, nor were they paid by Cura of Sweden for conducting the present experiment."
The research was funded by the Swedish Brain Research Foundation and the Novo Nordisk Foundation.
[1] And they're the eighth author in a non-alphabetized list, so probably a minor contributor and not the principal investigator.
We should hope that despite influence, good scientists prioritize the scientific method over lying or intentionally misleading for personal gain. Of course, history has shown this is too much to ask of many people :)
Description:
The argument attacks a position by appealing to the vested interests of a person who holds the position.
It would be more useful to explain what about the study is poorly reasoned or suspect.
If you e.g. pump out 100 studies and then make a perfect reasoning on the 1 study which had significant results in your favor, then what you did wrong can't be seen in the one paper you published.
As long as the studies aren't preregistered, you have to discount those with vested interests.
Frankly - The parent is right. This is a lazy fucking argument.