There is a standard of evidence above guesswork and below controlled trials, that is still useful: you accumulate enough survival rate data of whatever specific

There is a standard of evidence above guesswork and below controlled trials, that is still useful: you accumulate enough survival rate data of whatever specific terminal condition you're hoping to treat, and compare it to the baseline untreated survival rate, which is already known. Any statistically significant difference there can then incentivize a drug research company to invest in the (expensive) clinical controlled trial process. It's strange that people here are actually saying it's better to waste perfectly good research opportunities and watch patients die, than to risk having anything less than perfect evidence of efficacy.