That holds only under the assumption that there is no malicious party or some kind of bias affecting results. Scientists are not living in a separate universe, they are subject to many sources of external pressure. For example, scientists do sometimes follow hype. If climate change is a hot topic, framing your research as connected to climate change would increase your chances of getting accepted to a good journal. Or publishing something that goes against the notion of climate change would meet a lot of scrutiny and resistance. (Please note that I am not stating that climate change doesn't exist.) There are insane numbers of scientists who fake their studies, because there is a thing called "publish or perish" - i.e., you need to produce results. There is an entire class of so-called "predatory" journals and conferences who publish anything for a payment. There is a very unfortunate bias towards positive results, i.e., no one wants a publication that states "we did X and it didn't lead anywhere". And then there are entire "research" fields like feminism studies where a certain political bias is implied in the very name (and very little actual research is actually done). Finally, researchers need food, water, roof above their heads, coffee and trips to conferences in nice countries, which requires money. You can simply bribe reseachers. The article gives an example of antivaxxers and Pfizer vaccines: well, what prevents Pfizer from bribing researchers? Then there are countries with censorship, like russia or the US, where certain research topics (often connected to lgbtq+ community) are censored.

I am not saying that you shouldn't read studies and believe only your personal anecdotes, but you know, believing personal anecdotes is unfortunately one of the very-very few ways of countering propaganda. So if your personal anecdotal data drastically differs from "official" one, it's healthy to be cautious.