In fact the drivel that many universities churn out is often far worse and just as open to bias
I disagree that it is worse, but otherwise this is just what I was pointing out with respect to shoddy statistics.

The vast majority of pharmacological medications are simply not at all fit for the market or for general use. This would not change even if all development was conducted under public or governmental organizations. Since there is a poor understanding of what constitutes rigorous design or statistical validation, there is a general trend for even approved medications to be less effective and/or riskier than was initially thought. This isn't even an issue of hindsight, as applying the appropriate techniques to old studies and reports often demonstrates that, hey, we should have realized this from the beginning and factored it into the cost-benefit analyses.

This is all without taking obfuscation, cheating, or fraud into account.