What to do when research is ending up in useless clinical trial I wonder a bit whether I should have behaved differently. I worked in a institute. They developed "drug candidates" for a disease.
At the end of my PhD I definitely proofed that the binding mechanism is unspecific and the binding coefficients are low (for the whole class of candidates). I was, by the way, not allowed to publish that stuff and PostDocs working there started to get angry in meetings acting like I do crap.
I noticed that experiments from other PhDs were manipulated as well:


Small sample size (1-3 mice)
Repeat until you see what you want
General problems with positive controls


Later, I left for PostDoc and had to sign a confidentialiatity contract. Now one of the besaid drug (candidates) is going into human patient test trials, and I suspect that they take something which will not do anything (good). A subsequent PhD published parts of what I was forbidden. In the initial manuscript a friend send me, my name was missing, than I got one of the last positions, for "previous work". I guess, they got afraid, that I may read it later somewhere. Of course all the initial PostDocs which opposed, were in the author list :D

Actually, during that time I started to write a Review which illustrates all the contradictions in that field in general, knowingly that no higher IF journal will ever take it. I also noticed that many groups in the field are doing similiar fake science and even publish sometimes high (Nature, ..). I once wrote to the journal that one paper is based on a wrong experimental setup without any further answer.

Question:


Is it worth it to write a Review when you actually work in industry and have no institute email anymore
What should you do, if you know that you will lose your job and others their founding if you whistle blow?


Against this idea speaks the fact that you cannot really proof manipulated setups 
.. and institutes tend to roll over single persons
The problems you indicate should result in non-replicable results. The way this can be shown is repeat the published experiments as closely to the published protocol as humanly possible, with a correct design, carefully documented, etc. etc., and get different results. That is a publishable result. 

Whether such a replication will somehow violate your confidentiality contract is something you need to discuss with a lawyer. My feeling of justice says that it should not violate that, but justice and law are two very different beasts. 

Just writing down your experiences, risks ending up in a "he said, she said" situation, which is not going to resolve anything. Moreover there is the legal aspect of you signing a confidentiality contract. Anything legal needs to be discussed with a lawyer, not random persons on the internet.