My thinking is that, if he’s published papers are a large part of the means by which we share scientific knowledge, then, regardless of the underlying mechanism

My thinking is that, if he’s published papers are a large part of the means by which we share scientific knowledge, then, regardless of the underlying mechanism to be blamed (e.g., selection bias), the entire institution has become corrupted. To illustrate, the literature that you’re describing is presumably in the form of meta-analyses published in Nature. How can we even trust that to be “reproducible” (aka correct)? I think the correct reaction to this situation is to completely stop trusting scientists and their papers, in general. Not trusting scientists add their papers doesn’t mean disbelieving science in general; it just means the established institutions do not know how to do science correctly, and I believe this has been the case since the beginning of modern science. That means we can learn things by reading between the lines and using some common sense, but we can’t simply rely on institutions to tell us the correct answer to anything whatsoever.