I assume that they were using the other tens of millions of dollars to fund the research. Did you read the Reuterts report? That's part of the reason I was skeptical of the original report, it was pretty biased! (by pretty biased I mean shocking)
Sorry, but you can't be serious? Can you honestly still be trying to defend this study where 10% of the funds were syphoned off and say there's nothing wrong with it... Everything about this studies must be questioned and re-evaluated.