> safety and effectiveness of this procedure is unknown, all three patients received injections in both eyes I hope this is not too cynical, but I guess they e

> safety and effectiveness of this procedure is unknown, all three patients received injections in both eyes I hope this is not too cynical, but I guess they even got a discount on making their two eyes in one run. This really sounds like a "two for the price of one" mentality. More generally, this is one of the many examples where typical marked-oriented thinking utterly fails when non-financial risks are involved. You need either high regulation without loopholes like those described here, or you need to pipe everything through a mandatory public health care system which would simply refuse to pay for non-evident treatments. In most countries it is a combination of both.