Yep. As long as academia relies on funding from the private sector this will always be the case.

Companies have no interest in funding research unless they get precisely the results they want out of it. A refusal to twist and cherry-pick the results when this isn't the case often leads to the company interrupting any collaboration (and funding) with the research group in favour of more "compliant" ones.

Some fields (and companies) are worse than others in this regard, but generally speaking this is the very sad state of things.

Funnily enough in the American diet it is one of the largest sources of micronutrients for many because our diet is so poor in veg and fruit, and so processed. Yay coffee!

Except if you read the studies you can easily poke holes in them.

That's because it's almost impossible. Even if I did include the complete methodology, someone would have to write the code to implement the method. If it takes me an entire PhD to correctly research a problem and write code to solve a problem, there is no way someone else is replicating that. They can just look over it and see if the underlying theory and assumptions are valid.

There are many incorrect papers out there, but that doesn't make it bad research, sometimes you need to start with simple assumptions and others will build on that.

Most data (in physics at least) is not replicated, you just have to lay out the steps so someone could theoretically replicate it.