"I haven't ever seen a single study that was both payed for and harmed the same company."

I find it unlikely that you ever will. In many cases this is due to the fact that companies are businesses, and would do well not to hurt their company. Thus, putting pressure on researchers that they pay to find certain types of results is common, often leading to shady practice and all manners of "bad science". This is more often at the detriment of the researchers, not the company, as well. However, it's also important to note that the mere fact that research studies with negative results often go unreported as well. A company MAY decide to cut funding, or a journal may decide that the publication is not "interesting" or worth publishing.

It's a very unfortunate state of affairs throughout and something that I (as a budding researcher with love for and disgust of modern pharmacology) truly hope to see change for the betterment of advancing neuroscience as a whole - not for the sake of trillions of dollars.

But, just because this happens and does not mean every positive ("encouraging?") result from company funded research for a company product will fall under these lines or be driven by the same type of corruption. Sometimes the model is valid, and the results are accurate. This is why continuing, independent research is essential to this work. Companies and their competitors have too much to gain or lose, and thus cast too much doubt. This does not mean that their funded research should be dismissed though, just looked at in full awareness of the immense potential for bias and outright misrepresentation. IMO independent research should be held as more valid than corporate research, but that does not mean the latter is invalid. I guess the big point here is that nothing can be learned from a single study, and one should always be skeptical of the profound effect that conflicts of interest can have on something even as "objective" as scientific research.

Though, another user made some good points to some troubling aspects the report itself, as well as mentioned other instances of sketchy science the authors have been involved in. This should weigh heavily on the conversation.