In my reading there were three parts of the article:<p>Part I: Optimism. Is this a new curative treatment for a cancer with an extremely poor prognosis? We get to see Muizelaar&#x27;s perspective on why he (presumably) thought he was doing the right thing.<p>Part II: The Fall. Deaths, lawsuits, the expose, resignations.<p>Part III: Resolution. Maybe there is some value in an alternative approach that focuses on mechanism and iterates towards human trials via animal studies. But also, maybe there is something to be said about Muizelaar&#x27;s approach that our current medicolegal system isn&#x27;t equipped to handle.<p>To me, the structure of the article helped to underscore that Muizelaar might have been right, which is key for using this article as a way to learn about science and rationality as opposed to solely for its object-level information. Just listing the facts almost certainly would not have been as useful for getting that point across.