If you think that most scientists are honest or good, you haven't tried to explain vaccines and their history, and things such as the SV40 virus, or the fact that they have no safety studies done on vaccinations or pretty much anything else that comes from the pharmaceutical co's, or opened up a book about viruses or vaccines and asked yourself "how and why" to be baffled that it's all based on assumption, and suppositions, down to the methods for how these things work, one myth supporting another, and it's called medical science, honest medical science where they say "we suppose it works like this" and don't simply affirm "it works like this" without any proof of why and how they derived that conclusion.
If you tried to explain those things in the narrative of most scientists are honest, it just the people that fund their honesty that aren't honest it would be one massive contradiction and the conflict of interest would be evident: why would honest people be sponsored by dishonest ones, why would dishonest people sponsor honest people?
The only reason dishonest people would sponsor honest people is to cover their dishonesty and to sell themselves as credible, either way, the honest people in the middle, if they know this aren't honest, and if they don't aren't smart enough to figure it out, hardly worth the salt of critical thinkers.
Either they want to make money, first and foremost, or they want to heal and help, because if the secondary objective interferes with the primary only one wins.
My point is. Scientists often get financed by the corporations promoting something. Seeing as how a big part of the pharma industry is profit driven, it seems logical to me to assume they would sponsor positive research for them to sell the product. If they were to put money in research like for example a possible cause of autism by vaccines, it wouldn't do them much good. So scientist won't have the chance to do research into these specific fields, cause there is no funds going into its research.