Lots for u. S. News and report about a year ago. At the time only five states had passed right to try laos. Now it it has climbed to 24 states. Pretty quickly, and one year one of the senators, who supports this bill said it was the first piece of legislator he had come across those both prolife and prochoice. Lets just talk about what right to trial laws are. What right to try laws are is all about when your life hangs in the balance, when you have a terminal illness it is without giving you the right to try to fight to save your life by using experimental medicines while the understudy with the fda but before they receive that these final green light. The reason he calls that prolife and prochoice is because you have a choice as to whether or not you want to try some of these investigational medicines. It is prolife because instead of right to die laws we have not only the option to hasten your death but actually fight to live and prolong your life. In your book you talk about the Goldwater Institute got involved in this cause. You immediately dive into how it affected you and your personal life when he heard about this issue. Im going to read a passage quickly from your book. You write about your uncle kenny. He said he died when i was about four years old form of cancer for which there are now multiple treatments with very high curates. He is my fathers only brother and i remember my dad saying when i was growing up that uncle kenny had died just months before new treatment was approved. At that moment he hit me, if kenny had been allowed to try the treatment earlier, my father might still have his brother and my cousins still have their father. As we mentioned earlier this legislation has passed quickly and unanimously do you think having a story like that and a story you tell here, theres a lot of legislators who can immediately identify their own family or friends lives and since is where this has happened. Weve all had people in our lives like my father, michael kenny. Weve all known people have suffered from terminal illnesses. Many of us have known people where cures came onto market the best treatment came on shortly after they passed. This really hits home for a lot of people. One legislator told me, this is a twominute decision, the first one is for copy. This is just something that is common sense to people, of course you should have the right to fight for life. Even if something hasnt been tested and 50 nickel trials, if its safe for human Consumption Habits along that the moment process and the only alternative is that youre going to die, you should have the right to try those investigational treatments as long as you know the risk you are taking. At the beginning of your book you read about a mom with two sons both with muscular dystrophy which is a fatal disease that attacks the muscles. One of the children was able to access experimental drugs but the other was not. Can you tell us that story and go into detail about what happened . And the right to try our talk about jen who is the mom and i first read about jen story in the Burlington Free press in vermont. Both of her, two of her sons two of her sons has muscular dystrophy which will basically cripple the boys and most boys who have this will not live past their 20th birthday. One of her sons was able to get into a Clinical Trial and he was doing extraordinarily well. He he went from being in a wheelchair parttime to being able to play soccer and be on the playground at school. Really incredible progress, never before seen with boys with this disease. His his brother did not make it into the Clinical Trial. He did not qualify so he had to watch as his brother went on to the soccer field and he was deteriorating. He got to the point where he could not a cup of water to his lips. This is a situation today in the United States. If youre lucky enough to get into a Clinical Trial many patients will find improvements. The challenges it is about a 15 year process for that particular treatment to make it to market. In the the meantime, if you dont get into the Clinical Trial, you die. So the right to try is about saying if its good enough for people in Clinical Trial, its its good enough for all of the people who need it at this time. They should be able to make that choice was long as they know their risks and some things that are not quite proven. When he first got involved with this cause with the Goldwater Institute you decided to go after it at a state level targeting state lawmakers. Why did you you do that instead of going after congress. The fda is a federal agency. It would be wonderful to see washington reform this and they have the power to do it, in fact the fda already has rules and regulations that enable it to help more people than it chooses to do. We know that its been 25 years since the fda has made any major reforms to really affect large numbers of people with these terminal diseases. So we decided to go to the state legislatures of course, as you mentioned in the beginning of the program 24 states have adopted this law in just over a year. It has moved with unanimous support on a voting margin of 99 to 1. It is a left right and everyone in between type of issue. And going after this issue, why did you focus on people who are terminally ill . What about someone who is losing their site what about someone with multiples laroche sclerosis. We designed this law so it will prevail in the u. S. Supreme court, should the fda try to challenge. We know previous cases thats been important to the courts is a safety question. Focusing on people with terminal illnesses where their lives really to hang in the balance, where they they really have no other option, we not talking about rushing medicines for teenagers with pimples. Her cough medicine. This is for boys with dmd, people with lou gehrigs disease who may have two years to live when they get their diagnosis. As jen mcnary said to me once, by the time the fda finally approved this particular treatment, we will have lost an entire generation of boys to this disease. That is unacceptable. We move this to the states because we knew we could get the action that patients need. The fda is responsible for overseeing whether drugs are safe and effective. I reached out to them about this issue, they point to the fact that they have trials available for which people can enroll to try these different treatments. They also have something called compassionate use in which you can apply for access, if you are terminally ill and outside of these Clinical Trials. Can you give me more detail about this and explain why passionate use is not enough to ensure that people can get access to lifesaving treatment westmark. Thats right, the fda fda does have a few programs, clinical treatment programs and it is supposed to help patients in situations like this. The fact is, less than 1 of patients with terminal illness will ever get access to these treatments through the Compassionate Use Program. The program was never designed to help hundreds of thousands of people let alone the million or so who will be given terminal diagnoses this year. Under the fda rules, compassion is an exception to the rule. What we are fighting for is to make compassion the rule. How does a hope rests us work for compassionate use and how how long does the application . The fact that 99 of of the people never make it through tells you if its working or not. Cancer patients a must have full try to get in and only 3 will even get in. We know Patients Want access to treatments and we know they are not getting them. The reason there not getting them are many. One is some people dont know about the program. Another one is the process is so incredibly timeconsuming that most physicians and doctors simply cannot navigate the system or have the time. By the fdas own admission, just the application paperwork requires over 100 hours of a physicians time. Its not something he can give to his assistant or intern to fill out. So doctors who do this basically clear their desk for two and half weeks just to do paperwork for one patient. You can see how if you have hundreds of patients, which, which positions do, this is not a good solution. Of course their tremendous delays, and the right to try to tell a heartbreaking story about a girl named andrea who is in her thirties, she had Ovarian Cancer and she fought it hard for seven years, she had she had exhausted all of the conventional treatments. Her dr. Was with the Anderson Center and said there is something that can help you, we we have to go to the compassionate use process. Said he had never seen a process used in more than ten years. Its sort of this mythical unicorn but he was an incredible physician, he went to the process, he did all of the paperwork and it still took the fda 24 days to turn around their decision. They say they turn it around on the spot, the fact is, they dont. By the time she got the treatment it was too late, even though it had started to reduce the tumors and their beginning to see shrinkage, she had had we can so much that she passed on. In fact, in texas her friends and family fought hard for the right to try law, it was too late for andrea but we are very grateful that will be in time for other patients needed. The fda also told me that they are working on shortening the forms, as you said it took 24 days i believe for the turnaround in that case. They say they have up to 30 days, d days, do you think shortening the form will help this a little bit along as we wait for more right to try lost a pass . I mean its fine but is really windowdressing. From a position of principal, you should not have to beg the federal government for permission to try to save your life. The person in the situation who has your best interest at heart, knows your case inside out, the first person is you, the second person is your physician. Frankly, there is no role for the fda in administering compassionate use. Its its really not what the agency was designed to do. Nor is it something the agency truly desires to do. When i was conducting interviews for this book, we interviewed the head of the center for new Drug Development at the fda. We asked the theoretical question of, would you, in theory like to see tens of thousands of patients accessing compassionate use, given the chance to try some of these promising cuttingedge treatment . She sighed and she said, well it would be another burden on the health care system. That attitude is quite prevalent throughout the bureaucracy. Now not saying everyone there has that attitude, theres incredible people fighting for patients there. As an agencys job job is not to treat patients. Its job is to approve medicine and products for the u. S. Market. It is for physicians to decide whether something is needed to save your life. So, we would like to see the fda not even have a role in this particular aspect of compassionate use. It really should be between the physicians and patients, in fact that is how the system works in europe. You talk about how you have approach state legislators in particular to pass these law, in most cases they have passed almost unanimously. And if you cases where they have not voted in favor of these laws, what have been some of the reasons they have given her some things you have heard where they may have hesitation about passing the laws . Is passed on a 9099one margin. People are concerned about safety, i think thats dense from a misunderstanding about what the right to try is. This is about equity. This is extending to all patients with terminal illness, the same treatments that are already available in clinical studies. And the fda has said its already okay to test for scientific purposes. The safety issue really stems from misunderstanding. We have had some hospice organizations oppose this because if you are fighting for your life at the end, often hospice cannot treat you or the insurance for hospice will not cover you. So their concern is that theyre probably going to die anyway even if they try this, we want to make sure they get that quality treatment. We consider those logistical issues, they should not be hurdled from trying to save your life. Those. Those things can be worked out. In europe where they have widespread compassionate use, Insurance Companies do help cover these treatments. A lot of these things have been thought through before. The few voices of opposition in the United States i feel come from a misunderstanding of what the right to try is, or quest for absolute perfection in a system with terminal patients, they dont have the luxury of waiting for statistical perfection. I know you are approaching this from a state measure, wondering if you have heard anything from president ial candidates or if youve been able to meet with any of them to discuss right to try laws . We have not taken us to the president ial candidates, frankly, frankly we been so busy with the states moving us along that working at the federal level is an afterthought. It takes so long to get anything as far as reform through congress that we really felt like time was of the essence. We need to move quickly through the states. Once the issue was brought to our attention, in fact how this issue became an issue to the Goldwater Institute was that the Cancer Treatment centers for america learned about some of our other work, they came to us and said we have Cancer Patients that we want to treat, we know for some of them the most effective treatments out there are pending approval at the fda or are in europe or other places of the world, is there anything you can do, can you think of any way to help us able to improve our patients access to these treatments. We are being stymied by these rules that make you wait 15 years for a drug to come to market. Is there anything you can do . Time is of the absence so we have really focused on the state legislators were people are closer to their constituents and in every state where this is passed we have people who are testifying with all sorts of diseases. Lou gehrigs, cancer, some muscular dystrophy types and some really trying illnesses. Policymakers feel that they see those folks and as we mentioned earlier almost all of us have had an experience like this in our immediate families, certainly in our friendship groups. No matter what your politics are, your heart goes out to people, we would all like to see people access treatments if they can possibly be available. You just talked about the availability of some drugs in europe, a chapter in your book you share stories about patients who travel across the world to access drugs that are still being developed and are showing a lot of promise, can you tell her viewers about those stories . Sure many of the drugs of europe have been the standard of care there for ten or 20 years. They been fully developed and for whatever reason have not gone through the fda process. One story, boy name diego was 11, he lived in arizona. He was diagnosed with osteosarcoma, type of bone cancer in his leg. He was an athlete and he noticed the pain, they went in and got a diagnosis. The dr. Said that, the best available treatment for you is not available in the United States. Youre going to to need to go overseas. So he and his family moved to england for almost one year in order to get the treatment that saved his life. That drug is called knee pack. It has been the standard of care in europe for some time and another two dozen countries, when they tried to get that same drug approved in the United States, even after it was the standard of care and all of the test showing it had come out all over the world, the fda demanded that the company test on 900 people in its Clinical Trial. Well 900 patients, thats more patients than will be diagnosed with this disease in a year for this particular type. So sometimes the fda, theyre just not willing to look at avatar evidence, they come they come up with things that are insurmountable barriers of trying to get these things approved. So here you have something that is standard of care, it is lifesaving, lifesaving, the only people in the United States can access it are people who can afford to go abroad. Think we all know patients who can travel abroad for treatments are few and far between. Some of the criticisms of right to try save these oneoff cases get in the way of collecting data. Some part pharmaceutical Companies Say that whatever adverse effects occur and people have to be reported in the fda. As you mention Clinical Trials are very controlled in terms of who gets chosen to appear in these Clinical Trials. What are some of your responses to concerns like that . All of these things have been worked out in europe. I would say we do not have to recreate the wheel. We can take the lessons that have been learned and apply them here. One of the things is positions and patients, when they get these investigation treatments they want to be contributing to science. They want their information recorded. People have talked about open ended Clinical Trials where you let more people in with more conditions, is more reflective of the real world. Theres talk in Clinical Trials where theyre looking for athletes with tumors, and other words they want to focus on just that tumor treatment but the reality is, most patients have multiple conditions going on, and, and their excluded from Clinical Trials. With Something Like the right to try when have a bigger sample of people and you record that information, you can end up with better scientific information that will better serve patients in the long run. Those are some of the things we are talking about. With companies, to the the second point you raise, Many Companies are concerned that if you treat patients who are to the end, which by definition under the right to try laws these are folks that have terminal conditions, they have exhausted all of the standard treatment, so they are near the end unless they can get something that will help them. They know that there is increased risk of what they call an adverse event happen. Theyre afraid of the fda looks at that they will say it is the treatment rather than the condition of the patient. I dont know how overstated or if that is accurately stated. I hear talk that the fda would slowdown the trials and add or ask for more trials which would increase their cost. The fda has seldom done that, with that said, in defense of the companies right now it takes an average of 1,000,000,000 dollars or more in 15 years to get a treatment to the end and actually get it on pharmacy shelves. It is understandable if a company does not want to take on any additional risk. To be able to raise that money, especially if your startup where most new developments are coming from is an incredible hurdle. So they are saying, we we cannot afford to take that risk where the fda may approve the final version of the drug with patients who are in tougher circumstances. So those are real concerns, on the other hand, i have also spoken to ceos who are in favor of the right to try, one in particular i spoke with has a product that is in stage iii of the fda which means it is very close to coming to market. Probably within two or three years of coming to market. For for the particular disease this drug is designed for, it is very rapid and i said, why would you be willing to treat patients who are at the end when at the end you will be on the market with your product. And what he said to me was by the time the fda finally proves this treatment, not a single one of my patients will still be alive. The person, one of the ceos many people went off the record but the story is about richard who is the ceo of an Extraordinary Company developing all sorts of treatments for patients with terrible conditions. His company five years ago in a Clinical Trial traded a patient treated the patient ted lazarus is what we call him he had this garricks disease but instead of being in a wheelchair but he is walking a 5k in the first person to whom have never recovered from a ls. But it is five years since he was able to get that treatment and in the meantime 24,000 patients in this country have died of lou gehrigs disease so why shouldnt the 13 people lucky enough to get in the Clinical Trial be alive today . And i think richard i dont want to put words in his mouth but he believes that to end was to see more people get access because this is the difference between life and death and he tells the story of his own son when he was john had a brain tumor in but that was like as a father and i tell that story in the book. Host how is ted do we now . Guest he is doing great. A remarkable story to see him with his wife and his kids. He speaks about it in spiritual terms as of blessing and the right to try and giving people the right to fight for their lives even if it seems hopeless. People tell you with lou gehrigs disease to go home and get your affairs in order. Not because there are not a good treatments. But in the course of writing this book people have testified with lou gehrigs have passed on it is absolutely devastating and heartbreaking. And for other people to have what he has had an irony to be treated in a Clinical Trial is once you were treated because of the fda protocol he is no longer eligible to be retrieved it treated again so if it comes back in full force he is ineligible. Said he could be the first person to recover from lou gehrigs and also the last person to die of it. Host he will need more of the drug to continue . Guest it is possible but it is not known so what they can determine is the higher the dose the greater the efficacy. It looks like something he may indeed again. He is doing well. He cannot run a full marathon but can walk a 5k strunc in his arms no loss of lung capacity and for patients with als just to maintain your will and capacity is a miracle. Not entirely eliminated but they dont see signs of it as a typical patient and others in the trial had pretty spectacular results. Host that is an incredible story. Is there any clue as to when it may hit the market . Guest i have not talked to richard about that. I would encourage people who are interested to go to the companys web site. I know is neurostem. I know the ceo answers most of his emails firsthand which is remarkable what their other treatments that are quite promising i dont know the names of all of the companys but a lot of traffic and a lot of patients are talking about different things. One of the differences i hope people listening today will take back to their loved ones is it is good to have hope. There are things out there for these illnesses that people may not be aware of. Were hoping we can help them gain access. Host the way to do that is through legislation. In one part of the book i will read directly directly, increasing years activist on the left have gone to the states to pass initiatives from medical marijuana to the right to assisted suicide. It states have the authority to give citizens access to marijuana in drugs to end their life they have the authority to allow Cancer Patients access to investigation and medicines to save their lives. One reason development occurred in california this year. The governor passed a the right to die law that allows physicians to give like bending drugs to their patients. But he vetoed the the right to try which was surprising. Here is what he wrote about right to die. I do not know what i would do if i were dying in a prolonged and excruciating pain. I am certain it would be a comfort to consider the option afforded by the bill that i would not not deny the right to others. But when asked about right to try it supported the fda compassionate use clause and said it should not get in the way of that. Were you surprised . What do you think of those arguments . I think it is an absolute shame that the law passed unanimously in the California Assembly. There were a lot of patience there who would have benefited from right to try so the governor said you want to end your life that is fine. That is sure value to of the but if you want to fight i will let the fda work that out. They have that Compassionate Use Program over 25 years i think they have had enough time i believe he will see the California Assembly go back to send it back to Governor Brown and this is one of the most outrageous things that we have seen this support to write to terminate life cannot fight to live even people who supported Governor Brown feel that is so fundamentally antifreedom and antieverything we stand for in america not to dismiss those to decide to hasten their death through the righttodie laws but given the option would choose to fight and should have that right and what Governor Brown has done is absolutely shameful. Host this talk about the logistics of these laws if you live in the state in which right to try has been passed so how do you go about to try the drug . What other steps you need to take care of the requirements to access these drugs . Guest i have said chapter how to do this in the book that is a little guide book inside one of the chapters at the Goldwater Institute we have helped patients and doctors to navigate the system we are not large but we will do everything we can so when some states physicians dont know what to do with to do yet as it is a sea change as they become available but what it boils down to is if the physician needs to believe a treatment is indicated for you then they can look at the clinical research. Because they are exchanging every little bit of information as it becomes available from these Clinical Trials. They are their own best advocates. To think it is indicated for you each state the law is a little different in the gun maker of that treatment or protocol has to be willing to give it to you. You cannot force the company and if so it can be administered. Host if the drug is in another state . How does a person go about accessing that in another state . Does it need to be shipped . What are the logistics to get the drug to the person . Guest if you are a patient and you have the right to try a new state the manufacturer is it your state and things will be simpler. If you are a patient like california that does not have the right to try you can travel to all of the other 24 states that have adopted this that allow you to come into a get treatment in the state. If you can find a physician who indicates the treatment for you you can go ahead and get the treatment. If you are a review facture you can ship your treatment across state lines we believe without violating state law. Why . Under right to try whatever the treatment is it already has a number from the government is undergoing Clinical Trials with the fda already. That is what permits the transport across state lines. Manufacturers can already do this. These drugs are being developed in the Clinical Trials phase two or face three so theyre moving along. This is just about moving that door a little sooner to those who dont have five or six years to wait the be five or six weeks in a river that treatment is is what they need to live. Host walked us through the phases of Clinical Trial so people understand what the drug czar doing and when they can access them and the risk they may be taking . The process in general is 15 years to take a drug from research to the pharmacy shelf. There are three main phases at the fda. Even before you get into the first phase basically millions of dollars testing your product on animals and quite a bit of data as even before you get to phase one that is called basic safety testing it is tested on people for the first time and basic safety is shown but phase ii and phase iii our about efficacy in dosing how much of something to you need and the more he had the better he didnt like we were talking earlier. And their right amount of the dosing. Somewhere between 20 and 60 of the drugs in phase phase ii and phase iii will be given the green light. Many will not. But just because drugs dont clear the fda it doesnt mean the drugs are ineffective it means it is not effected in a large enough population to be valuable to the fda but it still may help 5 of patients. Some more people are expert that in this than i am but there is talk from nih revisiting over 100 field trials for Cancer Treatments now they are retesting these drugs and checking them against different genetic markers because if you have a certain type of genetic code it will be effective. Maybe it doesnt help a 95 percent but it may help 05 percent did it could be the only thing so science is coming far enough along that we can tailor a medicine for individuals. The fda process by and large has not learned to accommodate that yet. That will be critical as medicine is a completely different ball game 25 and 50 years from now. Host talking about Clinical Trials and the process taking years seniors but what comes to mind immediately is ebola. Said drug that has not even in tested in humans but it was used as experimental treatment to help those who were working in west africa and comeback to the United States. So does this example of zmap makes you feel there are exceptions that can workout . Have you respond to Something Like that . I am extremely grateful that people who could take zmap saved many lives and people all over the world of very grateful for that even though it was never tested on humans. All the rules are of all regulations are often people were treated in an emergency situation. We wish the fda would do more of that. What we did at the Goldwater Institute under freedom of information act to tell us of the decisionmaking process they used to judge that ebola was such an emergency that all rules were off the table to immediately give something to people that had never even been tested in human beings but baldis patients with terminal illnesses cannot access these medicines to save their life. The mother that we talked about with the two boys with muscular dystrophy said that is an emergency to my son and if you have a brain cancer that is an emergency for you in your family and it is the same as ebola your life is on the line. The fda refused to share their Decision Making process with us so we have taken them to court to force their hands. The fda has the power literally of life and death over american citizens. Regardless of what you think of the policies the American People have a right to know how the fda is making decisions that will leave some people to live and others to die. Host the ebola example for those who are critical or skeptical of right to try laws have said to meet for interviews that i have done they are concerned right to try will only be able to be accessed by people who have a lot of money or connections and resources. How would you respond to that criticism . To read the Current System is where we have a terrible situation like that. If retrieve it is only available in europe who can go to europe . We have a situation right now where in europe they will develop 30 percent of the most innovative careers and treatments so if you are steve jobs and i have a chapter that includes him him, you can go abroad to get these treatments that could be standard or investigational but if you are a regular person and you cannot afford to do that let alone you dont have a health to go overseas to be treated for one year so that i hate to say it favors anybody because all patients should have access here but if anyone is favored it is the people with the resources to go abroad to seek these treatments. And with compassion use, if you have good resources youre more like the to find a doctor in compensate for taking a two 1 2 weeks to literally clear their desks and do the paperwork paperwork to have those connections to prevail on the company to release the drugs. Regular people get the door slammed in their face and i tell those stories. Right to try is the great equalizer if your position in physicians says it is indicated you could be rolled with almost no money in a rural area but a fine dash company to give you that at a cost is all they can charge then and least you have access. That is a far better situation than what we have today. It is a great improvement. Is that charge for the drugs are to travel . Who pays for that . Im in shape europe a few times i like to look there because they have done this most of the Insurance Companies will cover investigational treatments because in fact, they are more standard. We would expect the Insurance Industry to follow suit. Right now they dont cover experimental treatments because patients cannot access them. So there really never has been a market source at this point we would expect patients would self pay and there are Many Companies when they do have compassionate use or a Clinical Trial will give it away for free or just charge cost of production. They cannot make a profit or take advantage. That cuts both ways. Here we are people have their lives in the balance and many are willing to pay just about anything to save their life and the Ask Companies to give something away that cost 1 billion to develop if you are merck is a of a drop in the bucket but the innovative treatments are coming out a small labs of 10 doctors and they dont have a lot of extra drug available. Even though the willingness to part with it. Those are real challenges. And they will need to be tackled. The system will let the perfect but it opens the door for right to try and getting the movement going. That is critical. Host youre talking to Insurance Companies about this possibility . Have not spoken with Insurance Companies yet. But i have spoken with people who are working overseas with Insurance Companies and theyre telling me they have a strong sense they will come to be helpful with this. It will take a little bit of time but it is interesting when you talk to the patients. It is a great theoretical discussion but the patients say dont let that be a barrier to my treatment. If ive told fundraisers i will do that. Real peoples lives are at stake. Said the Insurance Company is a real one but dont let that be a barrier for people today. To what extent to make use of their right to try a lot and what can you tell us about people who have done so . Of course, space is required to come to the Goldwater Institute though we have had will the people come to was and physicians who have entered into a treatment and are being treated today. I do want to tell you i want to respect their privacy but we do know there are treatments that are occurring in people are utilizing the laws so we are glad to see that. I hope when i have been able to use the into my organization is of a tip of the iceberg and many more are gearing up. Many folks wrongly believe only the fda or the federal government has the authority to permit these treatments and that is a myth. Of the righttodie ted years ago oregon passed the law the federal government said you cannot do that so they went to court in the u. S. Supreme court said no. The states to have the authority to determine if they want to offer this to the citizens of their stay. They do have this right there is a lot of historical precedent and other precedents that i go into detail in the book but we are on sound legal footing it is a fundamental right in one the American People have right that these guarantees are passing in the are vindicating with most americans already assume they have the right but to be fundamental to fight to save your life and we are codifying something that frankly should already be the practice of the law of the land but unfortunately the way they have worked out that has been eroded. Most days have been supportive but you talk about the challenges of legal standing reconsider and there may be challenges to the right to try and law . To make it is anyones guess of the federal government it would be the department of justice to come after a doctor or patient i think that would be a bold move for the department of justice to walk up to a cancer patient to say this is probably saving your life but we will take this away from you today and tried to prosecute. I dont know if there is the political willpower to do Something Like that. This is overwhelmingly supported by the American People overwhelmingly supported by doctors and physicians in the establishment and with dr. Say even talking about the specialist 80 or more say as long as a patient is informed about the risks and a doctorate in physician should be able to retrieve them with the best available care. And that is the oath they have taken in not to treat patients or have their hands tied when they know the best available treatment is in switzerland for one illness i talked about in the book, it is heartbreaking and they feel is an ethical so it is possible but we are prepared to defend the patience and the doctors lee would be proud to stand up for them in court. Their right to try lot in the farthest pharmaceutical companies to access those experimental drugs without going through compassionate use our Clinical Trials in the with the state without right to try what kind of charges or penalties . If you are trying to do this in area where the law does not protect you come i am not exactly sure and i would not encourage people to break though lot. We will move this as quickly as we can in the other 26 states and hopefully there is a neighboring state you to get treatment. But when your life is hanging in the balance that is your decision and i would not be above civil disobedience. I think very few of us would played anyone who tried that. Host going into a neighboring state and then bringing it back to one that doesnt is okay . Is that legal . You could bring your treatment if it was in a pill form i believe you can bring it back to your state but depending on what is happening with you you made that position there for treatment there are so many conditions that are so individual is hard to give a blanket answer but if they have a particular question we will try to answer as best we can at the institute which states are you headed to next year . Were hoping