I think the point of the article is a little more nuanced. The claim doesn't seem to be about the accuracy of any particular study, rather that both sides were

I think the point of the article is a little more nuanced. The claim doesn't seem to be about the accuracy of any particular study, rather that both sides were 1) funded by industry and 2) lacking evidence to really support any intervention at the time. It's making the case that scientists were working on incomplete information, and that while industry pressure informed what research was done and publicized, there also simply wasn't at the time enough evidence for anybody to have known the effects of sugar were so problematic. So the article is really considering intent, and the idea is that the outcome was a result of understandable ignorance rather than malice and coverup. I find that plausible, at least initially. The nature of science is that consensus evolves over time, and while industry funding may have skewed what research was done and publicized, thus allowing incorrect assumptions to live longer than ideal, it is possible that people were all still acting in good faith along the way.