> Why are you assuming that the general public ought to have access to imperfect tools?

Could you tell me which source of information do you see as "perfect" (or acceptable) that you see as a good example of a threshold for what you think the public should and should not have access to?

Also, what if a tool still provides value to the user, in some contexts, but not to others, in different contexts (for example, using the tool wrong)?

For the "tool" perspective, I've personal never seen a perfect tool. Do you have an example?

> I live in a place where getting a blood test requires a referral from a doctor, who is also required to discuss the results with you.

I don't see how this is relevant. In the above article, the user went to their doctor for advice and a referral. But, in the US (and, many European countries) blood tests aren't restricted, and can be had from private labs out of pocket, since they're just measurements of things that exist in your blood, and not allowing you to know what's inside of you would be considered government overreach/privacy violation. Medical interpretations/advice from the measurements is what's restricted, in most places.