Let me distinguish between a scientist and a "scientist". The former is honest and follows truth. The latter is a propagandist, usually in service to some cause other than truth. For example, the tobacco companies and the petroleum companies employ a lot of "scientists", though they may also employ scientists. But they have an obvious agenda, and it has little to do with truth. So, in such cases, the work of the "scientists" is promoted and that of the scientists is suppressed (non disclosure agreements, and such).
But in general, in most places, science isn't under control of political or economic powers with a non-truth agenda. So yes, contrary studies will get published, provided that they can be conducted.
But a complicating factor is that governments and economic powers do control a lot of the funding around research and some of the rules that govern it. This can be a problem. It means that a lot of science just won't get done in the first place.
For example, in the US, the NRA and others have made it impossible for the government to fund most studies on gun related violence. They also, for many years, made it impossible for law enforcement agencies to treat domestic terrorism in the same way it treats other forms. The first case is about funding. The second about regulations.
Therefore, a lot of research just doesn't happen. People decided, generally, to give up research on gun violence since funding was unavailable and there seemed to be little future in building a career on that topic.
However, if the research does get done, somehow, I have no doubt that it can be published. Most places, anyway.
A different situation would occur in countries with authoritarian governments. In such places, certain research can be dangerous. People have died mysteriously.
But if you need to decide whether something is valid or not, you can, in addition to making your own judgements, look at the source of the information. If the person has a "post truth" agenda you would be well advised to be cautious.