And as bad, sad and frustrating as it sounds to someone in a desperate situation, it is for the greater good of many more human beings, protecting us from snake oil.
*this person takes the drug. Two days later they die of a heart attack. Was it caused by the drug? How many resources should be spent to determine that? Should that death be listed in the potential side effects? What if the news story publishes an article and scares people off from the trial? What if it's later proven that the drug had no effect on the heart attack but the distraction from it delayed 10,000 people's access to the drug?
The world is complicated.
This is untrue, in this case.
Typically, only some phase 2 and phase 3 trials are randomised; the treatments that the author refers to are at an earlier stage of development and so not in either of these phases. All patients will receive the active therapy.
It's also worth noting that for cancer trials, while new treatments in these later phases may be tested against a placebo, it's never just a placebo - that would be unethical. If the new treatment is an add-on to an existing standard-of-care treatment, then they'll receive the standard-of-care treatment in the placebo group. If it's not an add-on, then it will be tested directly against the standard-of-care. If there isn't an established SoC, it can sometimes be approved without a randomised trial, if the results are good enough.
And in this case he would be actively helping humanity as well by being a test case. We would all gain knowledges and information from his treatment, if he could get it.
This policy hurts all of us.