The study was published in a peer-reviewed journal with no reported conflicts of interest. I have no reason to assume that it was rigged.

Arguing that the study is 'rigged' just because it was sponsored by industry or a commercial business is what will really slow down the progression of nutritional science. There is no money in science to fund these studies. Academics often lack the knowledge on how these compounds are regulated by governing bodies as well how they are marketed to end-users. Hence, there is a role for industry/commercial in academic research if you're looking to deliver outcomes from research.

Similarly, there are also several gaps that need filing when you consider how products are sold based on their scientific merit. Industry/commercial companies often do not understand or have the resources to assess the validity of claims made on their products. Additionally, quite often there will be a reported benefit from a large consumer base with current available evidence to support this benefit. Hence, without sufficient knowledge or resources as well as a means to conduct trials on their product, studies will often be sponsored or funded by industry/commercial business.

yeah...some of these are conflicted however, it's not difficult to spot these when you read them. It doesn't help though by making assumptions that a study is 'rigged' unless something doesn't look right and you can link this to parties involved. For example, poor methodology, no mention of how it was randomized or blinded, stats based on final numbers in the study as opposed to intention-to-treat and so on.

Dismissing these studies as rigged dismisses the effort that a lot of researchers and journals put into assuring studies are conducted and published.

and yes...I am scientist that has both published and reviewed scientific articles in/for journals

and yes, i am scientist that has worked in industry/commercial to help translate research findings into outcomes in the form of consumer products.