The FDA buries evidence of fraud in medical trials. My students and I dug it up
In healthcare, there are many skeletons in the closet - and many closets.<p>This FDA story is sad, but not surprising. The article seems to suggest the European equivalent (the EMA) is way better. Maybe it did behave better on this case, but as a rule of thumb, I strongly doubt it is much better.<p>The only advantage Europe has is how it works: if you want to bring a drug to the market, you either have it to get it accepted in one member state (then you can sell it everywhere) or go to the EMA. That's moderate competition. It may works slightly better, but it's still limited by the number of countries and regulatory agencies.<p>The only conclusion we should make from such stories is that there should be no public bodies susceptible to  regulatory capture, but various independent organizations doing that.<p>See that as adding redundancy - if one was found to cheat and lie, it wouldn't be too big to fail, and a competitor would be glad to update its rating on say the 40 generics whose bioequivalence ratings are based on cooked data. That's a bit like how I trust Michelin guides more than any government evaluation of restaurants.<p>EDIT: I noticed a comment about financial ratings agencies. You realize there are only 3 big ones (Moody's, S&P, Finch) and that they have very strong ties to some governments, right? I predict they give you more quality that the FDA (because it's a legal monopoly), but less than what more competition could bring.