Not directly attributable.
I will agree that there is some corruption out there, but it is not nearly as bad as you lead to believe. First off, when a pharm company decides they want to put a drug out, they need to go to the FDA with a proposal for clinical trials. In this proposal, they need to lay out exactly how they intend to run the trials and the reasoning that led them to believe that this was the way to run them. In this document, there will be a list of the independent and dependent variables and these cannot change without authorization. Generally there are multiple phases to this research and many drugs do not make it to past phases 1 or 2. If a company fails to comply to the FDA's guidelies, they are done. These "audits" can occur at any time and without notice. Since I started at the University of Penn, we have been audited 3 times. To show you how serious they are about abiding by their guidelines, let me tell you a little something that does not even really pertain to the research method. If they come in, and you do not have all records locked up in files, or the room that the files are in is not locked, or there is one little mark on a form that is not dated and initialed, bam, your funding is gone and your drug WILL NOT be gven FDA approval. Also, if you do not report results, you do not get approval. Sure, the research is not given out to the general public, but neither is the drug so that is irrelevant.
This is just a general synopsis of what happens, believe me, it is a million times more involved and a huge pain in the ass.
As for the doctor you speak of, if she did not let the FDA of Canada know what was going on, she is the bad guy here. I gave up a job a few years ago because the dickhead I worked for wanted me to tamper with results and I wouldn't. I left and told him that if I ever saw those numbers changed in a journal I would report his ass.