It needs proper regulation, for sure. But that doesn't mean the idea behind it — an expansion of compassionate use that allows people to bypass the bureaucracy of the FDA — isn't sound. It just means that it needs to be carefully implemented.

I think that a HUGE part of this bill needs to be emphasizing education. Patients and their loved ones will grasp at any and every straw to find a cure and there is a serious danger of taking advantage of people at their most vulnerable. That needs to be addressed in the bill itself.

That's not true actually. It's explained in the article she linked above.

Let me walk back totally support. I have not read entire the bill and am speaking to articles on it and the concept behind it. Obviously it should not be an "ask and ye shall receive" set up for trial medications, but the ability to bypass the slow moving FDA for a terminally ill patient is an important one.

I appreciate the explanation — I worked in medical research for a long time so I'm aware of the above but thank you for laying it out, it's important to get the info out there. I also should have been more clear. All medicines have side effects and there is no phase of trial where researchers can rule those out.

It's basically an expansion of compassionate use that takes it out of the hands of the FDA, that's the primary difference (the FDA hasn't even issued a statement rejecting the bill). Compassionate use can take a long time to navigate, sometimes more than patients have. I understand that this is a slippery slope, but…

There are definitely issues to be worked out — it's basically giving drug companies access to free human guinea pigs, for one thing. That said, what I've read about it applies the bill to scientifically researched drugs that have been proven to not harm and maybe help; real drugs that have not gone through the full…

Yeah, this is really scary. A totally valid and important piece of legislation is going to get tarred with a lunatic Libertarian brush and people are going to reject it wholesale without understanding what it's about.

The laws allow patients to request drugs that have passed the first clinical trial stage – the one during which scientists determine whether a drug hurts people, not whether it can cure them. Just because a drug passes the first clinical trial does not mean it eventually will gain FDA approval.

I want a list of all the monsters who starred your comment. Immediately.

SHUT UP FLEFF

Nevermind, this was the greatest move pulled on me because apparently I can't read. I've never pick anyone up because I'm incapable of flirting so on any given day I'm either celibate or have recently crossed paths with a forward guy.

Alemi recommends making a run for the northern Rockies. While not an entirely practical implication, it's "fun to know," he says

(Kinja fail)

This is an excellent point. I think they should set up a video camera in a confession booth in the Gawker Media office and everyone has to go in and fess up.

Yeah, but Jia what color do you think the dress is?

I feel like I missed an important cultural moment here. People will ask in years to come where you were when the Llamas Were Loose and I'm going to have to mumble "I missed it, I was on a conference call"

I am in no way saying that Christianity shouldn't be mocked. All religions should because they are silly. Mock away.

Because unless someone is imposing their beliefs on you, you should respect whatever ridiculous mind games they play to get them through the day —- including worshiping a power that you may or may not believe in. These girls are not making a statement about the Christian belief system, they are mocking the losing…

Before anyone gets to compiling, what concerns are you looking for, exactly? Ones involving the ramifications of adults cheering children's disrespectful behavior and mocking of others' belief systems? Or reinforcing this behavior in teenagers who will soon decide whether they want to be asshole adults? The…