The studies I've seen were poorly designed but I don't think we can infer malicious intent. So , so many cfs studies are, simply bc there is so little funding etc that it ends up attracting junk.
And it would be just as bad to discredit a treatment or theory based on a poorly designed trial , as to push a treatment based on a poorly designed trial . The data isnt sound, for proving things in either direction.
Anyway, I don't think there's a grand scheme to push DCA. There are some instances of mundane "corruption" in cfs research that don't even bother me bc the doctors involved probably could use the research funding and the drugs weren't that harmful. But for example, some company was patenting a combination of ritalin and a bunch of vitamins (supposedly to reduce oxidative stress from the ritalin) and a doctor I respect did a quick trial of this in moderate cfs patients. I thought it seemed a bit corrupt but with cfs there aren't huge riches to be won. Yet. Bc there's no cure that would even close to pass fda inspection, so there's no market. That's why there isnt private funding in this disease. We're more numerous than MS patients, but the etiology is so far from being understood that there's no way to sell drugs based on what's known.