You misunderstand what I wrote. I’m saying that had they done things properly, people should be free to try their product if they so choose. Under the auspices of a proper “right to try” scenario, it necessarily means there is a “buyer beware principle” with an experimental medication. This is nothing new, and it’s logical. I’m saying I don’t have a problem with that particular principle so long as there is honesty on the side of the people running the trial. The fact is that with any experimental medication, no one is entirely sure if it’s safe or effective. That’s precisely what makes it “experimental” to begin with. It’s a fucking Hail Mary play. The problem is that in this case, they took an experimental medicine, and not only abandoned all of the normal protocols that would be in place for a “right to try scenario”, but actually lied and committed fraud in order to justify the abandonment of those protocols. Another way to put it is that we need to be very precise in our arguments against what they’ve done. Because if we’re not, then we could throw the entire idea of “right to try” out the window…which I don’t think is a good idea. We need to be sure to make a distinction between what they did here and what a proper “right to try” scenario actually looks like. You are correct in saying that they had zero, or at least insufficient, evidence that the product actually worked. And then they lied about that. But the lie is the big issue here. The lack of confidence in safety or effectiveness should be implied as that’s pretty much the case with any experimental medication..that’s precisely what makes it “experimental”, because they don’t really know if it’s safe or effective. But see, in a legitimate “right to try scenario”, the test subject is aware of this. At the least, they aren’t lied to, and they certainly aren’t forced to take the experimental medication. I’m trying to be as clear as I can here. Hopefully my intended message is getting through.