Nowluke... I think your post at 13:11 is quite revealing. Firstly, I made no assumptions, except ones which are inarguably obvious. Obvious, like, I don't need to see a double blind peer-reviewed study with controls to know, say, that parachutes save lives.
Secondly - and not that it matters in the context of this discussion - I am not (and never have been) a pilot, and have very little to do with aviation other than as a regular passenger on typical commercial airlines. "My" response is an objective analysis of comparative data and CASA's decisions based on that data. Whatever assertion you make about "me" in regard to the effects CASA actions will have on whether actual pilots reveal medical information is (like some of your qualitative maths) way off the mark. If the regulator appears to punish honesty and (more importantly) obstinately defends/protects its own decisions from new information and independent review, then the end result will be increased dishonesty = reduced safety. Whether you or I like it is irrelevant - unless you are a person with responsibility in the field. If you are, I counsel against denial.
"My" magical "Jim" is described in CASA's own published case study. I cannot post links (yet), otherwise I would have saved you 5 secs of search.
I suggest you read its details very, very carefully and understand fully the facts it reveals, and then try again to credibly defend your carefully crafted claptrap - after recovering from your surprise. It's clear you did not read the Case Study, when you theorise about all those mitigating restrictions which were not placed on Jim's flying. Similarly, disingenuously quoting failure rates of 15% to 40% in engineered parts as if these are the numbers that equate to Clinton's incapacitation risk was the icing on the cake.
I will repeat for you, but I know your opinion is set (perhaps you should apply for a job at CASA - or better still, don't): despite the comparative stats and data/studies available, CASA's application of stats for safety risk assessment between Clinton's case and "Jim's" case is inconsistent.