True enough about discounting the one and not the other.
It's actually also illogical to just dismiss both though, or dismiss anything with any connection to an interest or industry. You will find bias, especially financial bias, in most scientific research, as the money to conduct the research has to come from somewhere, and those with a financial interest have the most incentive to fund. (They also have great motive and ability to hide or indirectly influence 'independent' research from time to time).
Skepticism is good, and it's also a big reason why we sometimes need to go to the research papers themselves to look closer at the methods and data used to see if the reports are perhaps too broad, or if there was a flaw in the methodology, or if there is simply a large question left unanswered that is ignored (were there too many compounding factors? Does this apply to realistic real world exposure, etc?). The extent of the connection should also be taken into account for the level of skepticism, but even without any apparent connection a level of skepticism is usually appropriate.
In this case, the connection is extremely light it seems. Two of the researchers have been compensated for speaking (at a conference, symposium, maybe speaking to their companies, whatever), not for research or as regular employment. That may make them slightly more favorable to people that did them the kindness of paying for them to speak somewhere, but it could also be they were already saying something favorable and thus they got invited to speak. I could also pay a researcher I like to come and speak about something, but it's not necessarily going to influence that persons research otherwise. As pointed out elsewhere though, the others don't even have that level of conflict. Could be a clever trick, sure, but that gives reason for skepticism, not complete dismissal.