Hmm sure, that makes sense from a global perspective, but the friction to business, which you already point out, is exactly the point in which this argument becomes not so productive.

Because... If it isn't real, they shouldn't be wasting resources to prepare for it, at least from an efficiency stand point. However, it does seem completely detrimental to everyone (even themselves) if they are spending money exactly to fund a biased and unscientific alternative narrative.

I don't think I'm talking crazy here, I feel like we've seen plenty of examples of exactly this kind of behavior of funding studies that engage in some unethical practices in their studies to alter the desired conclusion. Unfortunately I do not come prepared with any references, so you should all take what I'm saying with a grain of salt too.