[flagged]

> A pharmacist, or one of their relatives, openly taking a large position against a trial's success would be far more likely to attract scrutiny than, say, a pharmacist being secretly paid by a competitor to interfere with the trial.

the later would not be affect by betting on clinical trials being allowed or prohibited, so I don't think the comparison proves that this would help

Will there be anyone hanging around to scrutinize though? The pharmacist patsy maybe, but whoever bribed them is already paid out and off doing their laundry