My point is that if they are lying, they aren't doing science. If they are lying about a scientific point, they aren't a real scientist in my opinion. No matter what great things they may have accomplished, they can't be considered reliable sources if they are lying. An intentionally unreliable scientist is not a real scientist because he is muddying the water.
There was a scientist a few years back who was producing a certain chemical he used in research and was selling this to others doing similar research. Since the stuff was hard to synthesize, he made something that was easier, but which wasn't the same stuff. A bit later, someone anylyzed the stuff and found out. Many hours and many dollars of research were lost. This kind of thing is becoming more and more common.
Agree with your point.