You should be equally skeptical of any scientists stating things like that. A scientist has all kinds of motivations to publish novel research. The first scient

You should be equally skeptical of any scientists stating things like that. A scientist has all kinds of motivations to publish novel research. The first scientist publishing that smoking causes cancer had as many motivations to lie as the scientist that published research claiming it didn't. The latter was direct financial support, the former was prestige and fame that would go directly into a tenure package and be considered during grant approval. If ad hominems become acceptable then you quickly open the door to worthless discussions around things like climate change because everyone can point out that the scientists behind the research are motivated to advance anthropogenic climate change or risk being ostracized. Evaluate the content, not the messenger. Anything else is lazy. If you are concerned the content is a lie, ask for the backing data, don't dismiss it.