> 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 ph

> 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