I don't think you know what clinical research is. Which is fine, but for clarification purposes...
Clinical research is performed by many different entities, including every academic and many private institutes. For example, we as an academic vascular surgery department have a very robust clinical research group. We produce a dozen or so papers a year and maybe a hundred or so presentations/abstracts. In the last year, I have had 8 students work with me. They vary from 3rd year medical students all the way down to high school graduates about to start pre-med (over the summer). My general expectation is that they will help with the on going projects, but if they find something that they want to focus on or there is something small that they can take ownership of, they will do it. To this end, every student gets assigned a case report to write up. While not all of them go to publication, some have. Virtually every student that has spent time with us has published. Some have first authorship. All have opportunities to present locally and one is actually presenting at our national meeting in March. You bet that he had massive amounts of creative input on that project.
The reality is that the vast majority of medical school applicants do not have substantive research. They don't design projects, they don't derive hypothesis, they don't get funding, etc etc. Which is completely and totally fine. Medical schools are NOT trying to train researchers. They are trying to train physicians, some of whom may end up doing research (sometimes a lot of). Applicants with publications are rarer than people think. Applicants with strong research experience is even fewer (publication doesn't mean a ton by itself). By the same token, a fundamental understanding of the research process goes a long way. Being able to read papers, being able to appreciate the nuances of setting up a project or study, being able to understand basic statistical methodology is all incredibly valuable to a pure clinician. Thus, medical schools value research experience, even if it isn't a massive undertaking. You get this from clinical research just as well as anything else.
To answer your questions.
#1 Clinical research is perfectly fine for medical admissions and is many times preferred.
#2 If by "count" you mean adcoms see it as a positive, yes it "counts". But, overall using this methodology of what "counts" and what doesn't is a terrible way to go about an application.
#3 It doesn't mean a ton for someone to regurgitate the hypothesis and data analysis. Honestly, anyone reading your paper should be able to do that. When I interview people and I ask them about their research (which is every single applicant that I meet), I want to know their level of involvement and where that leaves them going forward. Do they have those basic skills? Were they a dish washer who read the paper? In simple terms, are they a better applicant for having those experiences. If the answer is yes, then it absolutely helps.