> How do they evaluate the drug?!? Personal data about a (particular) patient should be possesed only by that patient and probably their doctor. The party dist

> How do they evaluate the drug?!? Personal data about a (particular) patient should be possesed only by that patient and probably their doctor. The party distributing drug doses knows "<patient UUID> care of <doctor's post office box> is recieving <experimental/placebo>", but doesn't know who the patient is and ideally shouldn't even know which doctor they're mailing it to. The evaluators (plural) each recieve "patient with <age/sex/preexisting conditions/etc> equal to <value> <improved/worsened> <a lot/a little/not detectably>", with each evaluator bucketing and adding up the data for their particular trait (eg "18-25-year-olds did this well, 25-40-year-olds did this well, etc"). The company that has a obvious conflict of interest (incentive to corrupt the trial results) shouldn't be involved at all besides shipping a crate of medication to the dose distributer. In practice things wouldn't be quite as strictly compartmentalized as they in principle should be, but if the patients' personal infomation is ever all present in one place to get 'stolen', your healthcare system is so fucked up it's not even funny. (Note, preemptively, that I am not claiming that your healthcare system is not so fucked up it's not even funny. I'm making normative claims here, not descriptive ones.)