In Australia, managers and workers face up to 5 years jail, and huge fines, for failing to ensure a safe workplace. This includes things like noise exposure, unlicensed trade work, failing to have safe work method statements etc.

https://www.business.qld.gov.au/running-business/whs/whs-laws/penalties

People have been jailed, for example:

https://www.wa.gov.au/government/announcements/first-imprisonment-under-was-workplace-safety-and-health-laws

https://www.salaw.com.au/company-directors-imprisoned-work-health-safety-breaches/

This has caused a dramatic change in the culture of Australian workplaces, particularly in high risk industries such as oil and gas. Being personally liable has made management hypervigilant when it comes to safety.

Compare this with the pharmaceutical industry. They have copped some massive fines for doing things that jeopardise the life and health of far more people, misleading the public and the medical profession about the dangers of the drugs they sell, offering kickbacks etc. In the US, fines of up to 3 billion dollars have been handed out. Going by the number and scale of fines issued, it was not enough to stop them doing it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_settlements

But if you try to google examples of individuals going to jail for this, you cannot find any. All I found was pharmacists going to jail for ripping of medicare or the foreign equivalent.

Jailing big pharma executives for promoting this fraud is the only way to stop them doing it, and it will lead to better health outcomes. In addition, it should be illegal for them to make researchers sign non-disclosure agreements, which would facilitate whistle-blowers speaking out when the published results from drug trials do match the original evidence. Or at least, limit the scope of NDA's to exclude situations where the researcher acts in good faith. Both of these measures would improve the reliability of pharmaceutical research.

Efforts within the research community to address conflicts of interest and fraud:

https://www.cureus.com/articles/336128-amid-growing-evidence-of-conflicts-of-interest-and-obdurate-groupthink-in-medical-journals-researchers-must-entertain-contrarian-ideas#!/

freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2025 at 12:20pm:


freediver,

No doubt about it.

We are all living in an imperfect [i.e. an overwhelmingly LAWLESS] world.

......'let the buyer beware' !!



It took myself......many decades 'to open my eyes' to just a small portion of 'the reality',
we experience.



.



"We shouldn't hold ourself captive, to someone elses feelings/prejudices."
- ?


"Tolerating inconsistency, will cause you to become inconsistent."
- ?


"What we tolerate.....we encourage and condone."
- ?


"The standard you walk past is the standard you accept."
- Lieutenant General David Lindsay Morrison AO


"What you ignore, you permit."
- ?


"Today i'm speaking up,     ....for myself."
- ?


.


Psalms 119:165
Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.

Another interesting proposal from Peter Parry is that all research data from medical trials be made public as it is acquired. A big part of the problem is that published medical data only represents the tip of the iceberg in terms of what is out there. A lot is simply not published. There are also plenty of examples of data being published with key results (eg from individual trial participants who died or had a negative reaction) being removed, and of data being published along with an interpretation or conclusion that is not supported by the data. The consequences include loss of life, exposure to negative side effects, and inferior medical treatment due to the wrong drug being used.

If data from government funded medical trials was put on a public database as it was gathered (with appropriate privacy controls), then we would have 10 or 100 times as much medical data available, and it would be easily accessible. Also, making the data available before the CEO, the lawyers or the marketing team reviews the final publication would make it far harder for them to manipulate the data, observations or conclusions.

Most medical trials come under the supervision of the US FDA and similar government regulatory bodies. They are done to get government approval to market a drug for a specific problem. So most of the legal infrastructure is already in place for this.

This is not about the coronavirus.