I, for one, am sure that at least a few sitcom episodes have been based on my brilliant bon mots.

NOT AT ALL. I miss that inexplicably old school roller skate.

Because you asked nicely and The Good Wife is on a commercial break....

Thank God they used the pre Kinja layout so we could see all the other headlines.

I know you're wrong because you're talking about a subset of studies, not all of them. Also because it's my job.

OK, this is going nowhere fast because I know you're wrong and you seem convinced that I am, so instead of running around in circles, I'll bow out here. Have a good night.

be *insulated*

That's a description of the Right to Try law. It involves drugs past Phase I that are in the FDA approval process, they just haven't completed it (a process that can take decades). The wording may vary from state to state but there seems some consistency in that these aren't random things people make up but rather…

As far as I can tell, that's the plan. Only drugs that have gone through phase I are considered.

That's always going to be the problem, so it's up to the wording to make things clear. Someone posted a link to the New Hampshire bill in the comments and it explicitly mentions scientifically tested, valid drugs. In other words, no baking soda treatments allowed.

Clinical trials will still be run in the same manner. The drugs won't be thrown at people, they will be given to specific people with a specific set of symptoms/issues who qualify for the drug in question. The bill only applies after the drug has passed Phase I, which is the stage where you determine whether it is…

Less paranoia, more cynicism borne of experience. A quality I share. That's why regulations need to be in place and you kind of have to trust that you're not working with unethical assholes —- I feel like at least 75% of receiving health care is gathering up the courage to trust that the person across the desk from…

That's fair and I'm sorry you had that experience —- you're certainly not alone in that, the system is deeply flawed. It doesn't need to be left in the hands of either though, it can be regulated but allow for patients in dire need access to drugs that are not yet on the regular market.

You're certainly entitled to doubt my credentials, but they're actually kind of irrelevant. The free guinea pig comment term was not in earnest — I meant that they would not be put through the same rigorous and time consuming testing that precedes enrollment in clinical trials. That is true because that is the goal…

Considering that I used to run them, a lot. These patients would not be enrolled in clinical trials.

That's not true — the motivation behind it is that some people are ineligible for clinical trials (disease to advanced) or the drug has not yet begun enrolling in phase II or III. They will still be monitored by the drug companies, they will just not be enrolled in a double blind placebo control trial.

OK, that's what I was asking. So apparently what I want is this bill under federal regulation, just not by the FDA. I work in health care so I am acutely aware of the need to protect patients, I just also understand the frustration of having a dying loved one locked out of clinical trials because of their stage of…

So won't it be like everything else (like abortion rights) —- some states will get it right and others wrong? NH seemed to have a good handle on it (someone linked below). Basically what I'm getting from you is that this should be a federal law rather than state by state? With the assumption, obviously, that the…

Isn't bills like this being developed state by state kind of how our government works? I know that sounds sarcastic but I'm genuinely asking — is there anything out of the ordinary about how this is going down?

Slippery slope. Listen, it's not perfect, I'm not denying that. And I'm open to the idea that it needs to be throttled almost entirely. But rejecting it because of what this woman said is not something I can get behind.