The argument for not making this decision fully decentralized is that assessing the risk-to-benefit ratio requires a significant level of expertise, both in the subject matter itself (were the studies conducted well? what possible blind spots may they have methodologically? what plausible effects could these blind spots have on public health?), and in the more political/social side (are the doctors running these studies trustworthy? are the results being accurately reported between observation and collation? will this medicine be over-sold to patients in disregard of the studied benefits/risks? what is the cost/benefit estimate for using this in public hospitals?).

Now, it would be possible in principle for the state to provide the current centralized verification services, but then only give consultation-level opinions to the populace, doctors (and/or the public health system). But given the strength of PR and direct-to-consumer marketing, this seems to be extremely risky in terms of people ending up swindled to spend huge amounts for terrible medication sold by unscrupulous corporations (a free-for-all version of the opioid crisis).

You don't get to claim this and also simultaneously make claims about low prevalence myocarditis from Covid vaccines. Sorry, I'm not letting you get away with that rhetoric.

People like to think they have higher risk tolerance--until their bet comes up snake eyes. At that moment, you find out what their risk tolerance really was.

Lots of anti-vaxxers thought that they had high risk tolerance about Covid and vaccines--until they came down with Covid and landed in the hospital. Suddenly, their risk tolerance went out the window and they all wanted lots of heathcare treatment and suddenly were asking for the vaccine (without the understanding that the vaccine was now useless).