TONIGHT, WITHHAT THE GROUNDBREAG DEVELOPMENT FOR COV COVID COULD MEAN.

"METROFOCUS" STARTS RIGHT NOW.

♪ >>> THIS IS "METROFOCUS" WITH RAFAEL PI ROMAN, JACK FORD AND JENNA FLANAGAN.

"METROFOCUS" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY -- >>> GOOD EAVENING.

WELCOME TO "METROFOCUS."

I'M JACK FORD.

IT'S REMARKABLE HOW QUICKLY A CORONAVIRUS VACCINE WAS DEVELOPED.

TO SOME IN THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY, IT WAS NOT NECESSARILY A SURPRISE.

UNLIKE OTHER MEDICAL RESEARCH PROJECTS, SCIENTISTS AROUND THE WORLD SHARED THEIR VACCINE DATA WITH EACH OTHER.

HELPING TO SPEED UP THE PROCESS AND ENSURING THAT EVERYONE WAS WORKING WITH THE BEST POSSIBLE INFORMATION.

THOUGH SHARING THIS TYPE OF DATA IS TYPICALLY RARE, SOME SCIENTISTS ARE ARGUING IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THAT WAY.

ONE SUCH SCIENTIST IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHILDREN'S TUMOR FOUNDATION RIGHT HERE IN NEW YORK CITY.

SHE BELIEVES THAT LEANING INTO NEW IDEAS SUCH AS SHARING RESEARCH DATA AND REPURPOSING DISCONTINUED MEDICATIONS COULD NOT ONLY HELP US COME UP WITH TREATMENTS FASTER BUT COULD EVEN BE THE KEY TO SOLVING SOME OF THE WORLD'S RAREST DISEASES.

WE ARE DELIGHTED TO HAVE YOU THE DOCTOR HERE JOINING US TONIGHT.

WELCOME.

THANKS FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

I'M DELIGHTED TO BE HERE.

>> THERE'S A LOT I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT.

LET ME START WITH WHAT I MENTIONED IN THE BEGINNING.

PEOPLE MIGHT BE AWARE OF THIS.

IT GOT SOME PUBLICITY DURING THE TIME.

THIS WAS AN EXTRAORDINARY SWIFT PROCESS TO DEVELOP THE VACCINE HERE.

WHY WAS IT SO SWIFT?

WHAT WAS IT THAT HAPPENED HERE THAT WE GENERALLY DON'T SEE WITH REGARD TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF VACCINES?

>> SO WITH A NORMAL DRUG DISCOVERY PROCESS, TAKES 15 YEARS TO GET FROM CONCEPT TO MARKET OF THE DRUG.

THAT'S KIND OF A NORMAL TIME.

I THINK WHAT WE SAW WITH COVID IS THAT SINCE THIS WAS SUCH AN INCREDIBLE PROBLEM, WAS A PANDEMIC, THE ENTIRE WORLDWIDE ECONOMY WAS FLAT, EVERYBODY WAS STUCK IN THEIR HOUSES, IT WAS COSTING US BILLIONS OF DOLLARS EVERY DAY, HONESTLY, THIS WHOLE COVID.

THAT CREATED A MOVEMENT.

HONESTLY, SOME OF THAT MAY NOT BE ABLE TO APPLY OR TO STAY FOR THE REST OF OUR OTHER INDICATIONS, BECAUSE THE ENTIRE RESEARCH ENTERPRISE WAS ALMOST PUT ON HOLD ALL TOWARDS FIGURING OUT THIS COVID PROBLEM.

JUST LET'S SAY GIVING ONE EXAMPLE, LABS WERE NOT GETTING SUPPLIES ANYMORE, BECAUSE THEY WERE SUPPLIES GOING TO PCR TESTING.

ALL THE PLASTICS WERE GOING TO, LET'S DEVELOP THIS VACCINE, ALL THE LAB MATERIALS WERE FOCUSED ON COVID.

THERE WAS AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY PUT ON THE TABLE BY GOVERNMENTS TO SAY, YOU NEED TO FIX THIS.

BUT WHAT WE DID SEE IS THAT IT CREATED A MOVEMENT OF DATA SHARING, REPOSITIONING DRUGS.

EVERYBODY WHO HAD A DRUG ON THEIR SHELF OR IN THEIR FRIDGE THAT COULD HELP COVID PATIENTS WAS SUDDENLY THERE TO PROVIDE THE DRUG TO THE PATIENTS.

THAT MADE ME THINK.

WHAT MADE ME THINK IS, CAN WE PLEASE NOT GO BACK TO 2019?

CAN WE PLEASE LEARN SOMETHING FROM THIS COVID SITUATION AND DO BETTER FOR THE PATIENTS IN THE FUTURE?

>> LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS YOU MENTIONED.

I THINK THAT WILL HELP US TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE THRUST OF YOUR THINKING HERE.

WHY IS IT THEN -- LET'S TALK ABOUT PRE-COVID.

SOME OF THIS MIGHT SEEM OBVIOUS, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO TALK ABOUT ANYWAY.

LET'S LOOK AT THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES.

THEN I WILL ASK THE SAME ABOUT THE ACADEMIC WORLD.

FIRST PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES.

WHY IS IT THAT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN DOING THIS ALL THE TIME?

>> IT IS A SYSTEM.

I ALWAYS SAY, THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE PEOPLE.

PEOPLE WANT TO COLLABORATE.

PEOPLE WANT TO DO THE RIGHT THING FOR THE PATIENTS.

PEOPLE ARE NOT THE PROBLEM.

IT IS THE SYSTEM.

THAT IS WHAT WE AT THE FOUNDATION HAVE BEEN TRYING TO SOLVE.

THERE ARE SOME MAJOR SYSTEM CHANGES THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IF WE WANT TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN OR IF WE WANT TO MAKE COMPANIES REPURPOSE THEIR DRUGS, REPOSITION THEIR DRUGS.

IF WE WANT RESEARCHERS TO COLLABORATE, IF WE WANT PEOPLE TO SHARE THEIR UNPUBLISHED DATA, IF WE WANT COMPANIES TO OPEN UP THEIR DRUG CRATE, THOSE ARE SYSTEMATIC PROBLEMS.

THOSE ARE NOT PEOPLE PROBLEMS.

WE ARE, IN FACT, IF WE WANT PEOPLE TO BEHAVE DIFFERENT, WE HAVE TO INSEINECENTIVIZE THEM.

I HAVE MANY EXAMPLES.

>> I THINK THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO PEOPLE.

WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, BECAUSE IT USUALLY TAKES 15 YEARS.

THERE'S AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT INTO THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

IF IT DOESN'T WORK OUT, THEN THEY ARE NOT GOING TO GET ANY PROFITS.

THEY ARE BUSINESSES, AFTER ALL.

YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THAT.

WHAT ABOUT IN THE ACADEMIC WORLD?

THAT MIGHT BE MORE DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE NOT IN THAT WORLD TO UNDERSTAND.

WHY IS THERE NOT AN INCENTIVE -- THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO DO IT.

>> Debbie: -- FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE ACADEMIC WORLD TO SHARE IT WITH OTHERS?

WHY NOT?

>> THE DATA SHARING IS HAPPENING.

IT'S HAPPENING TOO LATE.

BASICALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS DEPEND ON FUNDING, GOVERNMENT FUNDING, FOUNDATION FUNDING.

IN ORDER TO GET ACCESS TO FUNDING, YOU HAVE TO SHOW THAT YOU ARE A SUCCESSFUL RESEARCHER.

IN ORDER TO SHOW THAT YOU ARE A SUCCESSFUL RESEARCHER, YOU HAVE TO PUBLISH.

THE PUBLICATIONS ARE KIND OF WRITE UP YOUR STORY OF THE GREAT WORK YOU HAVE DO, THE GREAT RESULTS, THAT GETS INTO JOU JOURNALS.

PEOPLE KNOW JOURNALS LIKE "NATURE" AND ALL "CELL DEVELOPMENT," THE IMPORTANT JOURNALS.

THE MORE IMPORTANT THE JOURNAL YOU PUBLISH IN, THE MORE YOU ARE AN ESTEEMED RESEARCHER.

THERE IS ONE TRICK IS THAT THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORS ON THOSE PUBLICATIONS MATTERS.

THE AUTHOR, THE FIRST AND THE LAST AUTHOR, ARE TYPICALLY THE MOST IMPORTANT.

NOW YOU HAVE TO TELL ME, HOW CAN YOU EXPECT PEOPLE TO COLLABORATE WITH MORE THAN TWO IF THE FIRST AND THE LAST AUTHOR ARE THE TWO THAT MATTER MOST WHEN IT COMES TO A PUBLICATION?

THAT IS A SYSTEM PROBLEM.

>> AND PEOPLE MIGHT BE FAMILIAR WITH THE TERM PUBLISH ER IN THE ACADEMIC WORLD.

YOU NEED TO DO ORIGINAL RESEARCH AND FINDING NEW THINGS.

>> CORRECT.

>> AS YOU MENTIONED, WHAT IS INCENTIVE FOR ME IF I'M DOING THIS RESEARCH, AND I'M GETTING CLOSE TO SOMETHING, WHAT'S THE INCENTIVE TO SHARE WITH YOU WHEN IT MAY WELL QUITE LITERALLY HAVE AN IMPACT ON MY CAREER?

HOW DO WE INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE IN THAT WORLD WHO ARE DOING THIS RESEARCH?

HOW DO WE GET THEM TO SAY, ALL RIGHT, I'M GOING TO SHARE IT HERE?

HOW DO WE DO THAT?

>> WHAT WE DID IN THE FOUNDATION IS WE CREATED A NEW COLLABORATIVE MODEL WHICH IS WORKING TOGETHER IN HARMONY.

IN FACT, THE IDEA WAS, OKAY, SO YOUR PROBLEM, MR. AND MRS.

RESEARCHER, IS FUNDING.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, THAT IS WHAT YOU NEED TO KEEP YOUR LAB RUNNING.

RIGHT?

SO WE SAID, OKAY, THE FUNDING PROBLEM WE ARE GOING TO SOLVE.

WE ARE GOING TO NOT GIVE YOU $50,000 OR $100,000.

WE ARE GOING TO GIVE YOU $3 MILLION.

THE SECOND THING WE DID IS WE SAID, WE ARE GOING TO WORK WITH THE PUBLICATION HOUSES THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THE AUTHORS ON THE PUBLICATION IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER.

THE ASTROPHYSICIST CAN DO IT.

WHY CAN'T BIOMEDICAL PEOPLE DO IT?

I'M INVITED THE PUBLICATIONS HOUSES WHO HAVE DONE IT WITH US, OTHERS CAN DO IT AND THEY HAVE TO IF THEY WANT TO HELP THE COMMUNITY TO HAVE THIS UNPUBLISHED DATA AND HAVE THIS PROBLEM OF PUBLICATION AND AUTHORSHIPS, BECAUSE IT CAN BECOME REAL WORSE ABOUT WHO IS THE FIRST AND THE LAST AUTHOR IF YOU ARE WORKING TOGETHER WITH A COLLABORATIVE CONSORTIUM.

YOU CAN ONLY IMAGINE HOW HARD THIS IS.

THE THIRD THING WE DID IS, WE WORKED WITH OUR PATIENT COMMUNITY AND WE SAID, YOU GUYS ARE THE CLIENTS.

HELP US.

THE PATIENTS CAME IN, COLLABORATED WITH US TO DEFINE WHAT THE PROBLEM IS.

THEN WE WENT OUT TO THE COMMUNITY AND WE SAID, THIS IS THE PROBLEM, SOLVE IT.

BUT YOU REALLY HAVE TO BE FROM ALL OVER THE GLOBE.

I ALWAYS COMPARE IT WHEN I TALK TO MY DONORS, I COMPARE IT TO A FOOTBALL TEAM.

RIGHT?

NOT ALL THE FOOTBALL TEAM MEMBERS COME FROM NEW YORK.

THEY COME FROM ALL OVER.

SO WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IN SCIENCE THIS IS DIFFERENT?

THAT IS WHERE WE CREATED AN ENVIRONMENT OF PEOPLE FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD THAT COLLABORATE.

THE DATA SHARING, WE CREATED A DATA PORTAL WHERE WE INVITED EVERYBODY TO SHARE THEIR DATA, EVEN PREPUBLICATION.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT IN THE BEGINNING, WHEN WE ASKED THAT, IT FELT A LITTLE BIT LIKE ASKING PEOPLE TO SHARE THEIR TOOTHBRUSH.

WE ARE NOW IN A DIFFERENT PLACE.

>> YOU ARE SEEING SOME -- MAYBE SOME -- >> ABSOLUTELY.

>> LET ME COME BACK TO ANOTHER THING.

THAT WAS THE IDEA OF SHARING MEDICATIONS.

THERE'S A TERM THAT I SAW WHEN I WAS DOING RESEARCH FOR OUR CONVERSATION ABOUT SHELVED ASSETS.

EXPLAIN TO US WHAT THAT MAINS AND HOW YOU ARE SUGGESTING AND OTHERS SUGGESTING THAT COULD BE CHANGED BENEFICIALLY.

>> A SHELVED ASSET, IN OUR DEFINITION, IS A DRUG THAT IS A GOOD DRUG, BUT SAFE AND HAS SOME INDICATION, HAS SOME PATENT LIFE.

IT'S A GOOD DRUG.

BUT SINCE MANY COMPANIES ARE WORKING ON VERY SIMILAR DRUGS, WHEN A COMPANY SEES THAT THERE IS NOT REALLY A MARKET OPPORTUNITY, THAT THERE'S NOT REALLY A STRATEGIC WIN HERE, THEN THE COMPANY PUTS THAT ON THE SHELF AND SAYS, SORRY, WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO WIN THIS GAME.

WE ARE NOT GOING TO DEVELOP THIS PRODUCT FURTHER, BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW, A PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF PATIENTS, BUT IS ALSO IN THE BUSINESS OF MONEY.

THEY HAVE TO MAKE MONEY TO DEVELOP THE NEXT GENERATION OF DRUGS.

THEY LOOK AT THE DRUGS AND THEY ARE LIKE, FOR THIS DRUG, THIS COMPANY IS WINNING, THIS COMPANY IS SECOND, WE ARE GOING TO BE THIRD.

WE'RE NOT GOING DO IT ANYMORE.

THEY PUT THAT DRUG ON THE SHELF.

NOW SOME OF THESE DRUGS ARE REALLY GOOD DRUGS.

VERY GOOD DRUGS FOR ESPECIALLY PATIENTS WITH RARE DISEASE.

WHAT WE HAVE BEEN ADVOCATING FOR IS TO TALK TO COMPANIES TO WORK WITH COMPANIES, TAKE THOSE DRUGS AND PUT THEM BACK INTO THE DEVELOPMENT SO THAT THESE DRUGS CAN BE DEVELOPED FOR RARE DISEASE AND NOT DIE UNDER THE DUST.

>> I THINK, AGAIN, PEOPLE MIGHT BE ASTONISHED TO KNOW THAT, THAT COMPANIES HAVE PUT THE RESEARCH DOLLARS AND THE TIME AND THE ENERGY, DEVELOP A GOOD DRUG, AND HAVE ESSENTIALLY SAID, IT'S ON THE SHELF.

WHAT HAS TO BE DONE -- LET'S GO BACK TO YOUR TERM ABOUT YOUR NOTION ABOUT INCENTIVIZING.

WHAT HAS TO BE DONE TO INCENTIVIZE THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES TO SAY, TAKE THAT OFF THE SHELF AND LET'S USE IT IN SOME OTHER FASHION?

HOW DO WE DO THAT?

>> WE HAVE DONE IT ONCE SUCCESSFULLY.

BUT IT WAS HARD.

WE WORKED WITH PFIZER.

THEY HAD THE DRUG THAT WE ARE NOW DEVELOPING.

A DRUG WAS ON THE SHELF OR WAS GOING TO BE ON THE SHELF.

I WORKED WITH BOTH THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, HIGH LEVEL PEOPLE IN THE COMPANY, THAT WOULD AGREE WITH US THAT THIS DRUG WAS A GOOD DRUG FOR THE COMMUNITY.

THEN WE BROUGHT IN THE CLINICIANS AND PATIENTS AND EVERYBODY TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT DRUG WOULD NOT GET FORGOTTEN.

>> LET ME INTERRUPT ONE SECOND.

YOU MENTIONED THE NF COMMUNITY.

GIVE US AN EXPLANATION.

>> THE FOCUS OF OUR FOUNDATION IS THE CHILDREN'S TUMOR FOUNDATION.

WE ARE FOCUSING ON A RARE GENETIC DISORDER THAT IS CALLED NEUROFIBROMATOSIS.

NF IS A FAMILY OF THREE DISORDERS.

IT'S ONE OF THOSE RARE -- TYPICAL RARE DISORDERS, WHICH MEANS AFFECTING MULTI-SYSTEMS AND ALSO PROGRESSIVE IN NATURE.

THE COMMONALITY BETWEEN THE THREE IS THAT THEY DEVELOP TUMORS ON NERVES.

BUT THE BIOLOGY IS HIGHLY OVERLAPPING WITH BIOLOGY AND ONCOLOGY SPACE, IN THE CANCER SPACE.

SO THAT IS WHY WE HAVE BEEN BANGING ON THE DOOR OF EVERY COMPANY WHO HAS ONCOLOGY DRUGS SAYING, WE WANT YOUR DRUG.

THAT IS WHY I'M SO OBSESSED WITH THE SHELF CONCEPT, BECAUSE I SEE DRUGS AND I WANT THEM.

>>BANGING ON DOORS, IS ANYBODY ANSWERING, OPENING THE DOORS?

OKAY, HERE IS WHAT WE HAVE.

>> WE HAVE HAD TWO COMPANIES OPEN THE DOOR.

ONE OF THEM IS ACTUALLY DELIVERED INTO A NEW COMPANY NOW, A SPINOUT FROM PFIZER, CALLED SPRING WORKS.

THEY ARE DEVELOPING THE DRUG FOR NF-1.

THE OTHER COMPANY WE BANGED ON THE DOOR, OPENED THE DOOR, BUT THEN THEY GOT ACQUIRED.

SO WE -- THE NEGOTIATION HAD TO STOP.

IT IS HARD TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHAT THE INCENTIVE FOR COMPANIES IS.

WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT MULTIPLE DIFFERENT OPPORTUNITIES, BOTH WITH TALKING TO THE COMPANIES, ESPECIALLY C LEVEL EXECUTIVES.

THE REASON WHY THIS IS SO HARD IS BECAUSE ONCE THE -- SOMEBODY DECIDES IN THE COMPANY, WHICH IS VERY OFTEN A C LEVEL PERSON, TO SAY, THIS DRUG WE'RE NOT GOING TO DEVELOP ANYMORE, IT BECOMES A PRETTY UPHILL BATTLE TO GET THAT DRUG BACK OUT OF THIS COMPANY.

WHY?

BECAUSE THE PROJECT TEAM IS DISASSEMBLED.

SOME PEOPLE LEAVE BECAUSE THEY ARE UNHAPPY AND THEY WERE SAD ABOUT THIS HAPPENING AND THEY'RE NOT THERE ANYMORE.

THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE TEAM GET REALLOCATED TO DIFFERENT PROJECTS.

SO THEY HAVE NO TIME ANYMORE.

THE DATA IS SOMETIMES A LITTLE BIT EVERYWHERE.

YOU NEED TO GO FIND THE DATA.

THEN THERE IS THE EMOTIONAL FACTOR.

SOMEBODY PUT THAT DRUG ON THE SHELF WHO DOES NOT WANT TO BE WRONG.

THERE IS ALSO AN EMOTIONAL UPHILL BATTLE.

AN ORGANIZATIONAL EMOTIONAL OBSTACLE THAT WE HAVE TO COMBAT.

>> THERE ARE A LOT OF OBSTACLES OUT THERE FOR YOU.

WE HAVE ABOUT TWO MINUTES HERE.

LET ME ASK YOU A LAST QUESTION, IF I CAN.

WE HAVE TALKED BRIEFLY ABOUT THE ROLE OF NON-PROFITS.

YOUR ORGANIZATION.

YOU ARE WORKING WITH SOMETHING CALLED THE BRIDGE INITIATIVE.

>> CORRECT.

>> ABOUT A MINUTE AND A HALF.

GIVE ME A SENSE OF WHAT YOU THINK CAN BE DONE WITH THE EFFORTS OF THE NON-PROFITS, INCLUDING YOURSELF AND THE BRIDGE INITIATIVE.

>> SO WHERE I SEE THE ROLE OF THE NON-PROFITS IS THAT WE ARE -- WE SHOULD BE SEEN AS BUSINESS PARTNERS.

PATIENT ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS ALSO, BUT AS BUSINESS PARTNERS.

BUSINESS PARTNERS WHO HAVE ONE CLIENT, THE PATIENT.

I THINK WHAT WE CAN DO IS NOT ONLY HELP COMPANIES IDENTIFY WHICH DRUGS ARE ON THEIR SHELVES THAT COULD BE VALUABLE FOR NF, AND WE WILL REALLY HELP THEM WITH AN ENABLING PLATFORM TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

WE HAVE BUILT FRIENDSHIPS WITH SOME OF THE INVESTOR COMMUNITY, SO THAT THERE IS SOME MONEY IF THEY GIVE -- IF THEY GIVE OR THEY ALLOW US TO REUSE THE DRUG FOR NF.

WE HAVE INVESTORS THAT ARE WILLING TO INVEST IN IT.

WE HAVE FIGURED OUT A WHOLE PLATFORM TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN GET THOSE DRUGS.

WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO EXPLORE NOW IS, CAN WE REALLY HELP THE PHARMA COMMUNITY INCREASE THEIR ESG SCORES?

IF THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO WORK WITH US.

I CAN'T WAIT -- WE ARE TALKING TO A LOT OF COMPANIES NOW.

THERE IS START TO BE WARMING UP TO SOCIALIZING OF THE IDEA THAT THIS IS MAYBE A GOOD IDEA.

>> IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY ARE ALL WONDERFUL IDEAS.

WE APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT YOU ARE DOING, YOUR ORGANIZATION, THE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AND HELPING TO SHINE A LIGHT ON THIS AND PERHAPS OPEN UP THE MINDS OF OTHERS.

ONCE AGAIN, DOCTOR, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR SPENDING SOME TIME WITH US.

YOU HAVE BEEN VERY HELPFUL IN GETTING US TO UNDERSTAND ALL THIS.

GOOD LUCK TO ALL OF YOU.

WE HOPE TO GET YOU BACK AND WE WILL TALK MORE ABOUT THE PROGRESS YOU ARE MAKING.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

HELP US RECYCLE DRUGS.

>> WE WILL.

GOOD SEEING YOU.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

WONDERFUL.

THANK YOU.

>>> GOOD EVENING.

I'M JACK FORD.

CANNABIS, POT, DOPE, MARIJUANA HAS BEEN OFF LIMITS TO DOCTORS AND RESEARCHERS.

BUT NOW WE SEE A MAJOR PUSH NATIONALLY FOR ITS RECREATIONAL AND ALSO FOR ITS MEDICINAL PURPOSES.

IT WASN'T UNTIL RECENTLY THAT SCIENTISTS HAVE DISCOVERED ITS POTENTIAL ANTI-CANCER PROPERTIES.

DESPERATE PATIENCEM DESPERATE PARENTS ARE TURNING TO IT AS A LIFE LINE TO SAVE THEIR CHILDREN FROM CHILDHOOD CANCER.

THE NEW DOCUMENTARY "WE THE PEOPLE" FOLLOWING THE FAMILIES THROUGH UNCHARTERED WATER AS THEY TAKE THEIR CHILDREN'S SURVIVAL INTO THEIR OWN HANDS.

TAKE A LOOK.

>> I JUST FIND IT STAGGERING TO ACCEPT WITH THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON CANCER RESEARCH THAT THE MEDICINE IS MADE IN SOMEBODY'S KITCHEN.

>> THE DRUG POLICY REFORM ISSUE IS A HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE.

>> WHY AS A SOCIETY ARE WE DENYING PEOPLE THE USE OF SOMETHING THAT I HAVE SEEN OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN BE HELPFUL?

>> JOINING ME NOW IS EMMY AWARD WINNING TELEVISION HOST RICKIE LAKE, WHO AMONG OTHER ACCOMPLISHMENTS, THE EXECUTIVE FEATURE OF THIS AND THE DIRECTOR.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING US.

>> RICKIE, LET ME START WITH YOU.

WITH ALL OF THE THINGS OUT THERE THAT YOU COULD BE DOING AND FOCUSING ON AS A FILMMAKER, WHAT DREW YOU TO THIS PROJECT?

>> I WISH I COULD SAY IT WAS ME.

IT WAS NOT.

IT WAS MY HUSBAND.

MY DECEASED, BELOVED HUSBAND.

THIS WAS HIS MEDICINE.

IT WAS HIS JOURNEY OF RESEARCHING THIS MEDICINE FOR HIS OWN AILMENTS AND OTHER PEOPLE.

WE STUMBLED UPON A LITTLE GIRL.

WE WENT ON THIS JOURNEY.

THESE MOVIES THAT WE MAKE TEND TO COME FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.

IT WAS MY HUSBAND'S PASSION WITH THIS MEDICINE.

>> IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT GOOD FILMMAKING, IT'S ABOUT GOOD STORYTELLING.

IT USUALLY FOCUSES ON PEOPLE.

THAT TAKES ME TO YOU, ABBEY.

IN TERMS OF -- A LOT OF FOLKS GAVE YOU INCREDIBLE ACCESS TO MOMENTS THAT WERE INTIMATE AND PROVOKING AND VERY DIFFICULT FOR THEM.

GOING INTO THIS AS A FILMMAKER, WHAT WERE YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT FOLLOWING THESE PEOPLE IN THESE MOST DIFFICULT MOMENTS THAT YOU COULD EVER IMAGINE IN SOMEONE'S LIFE?

>> IT'S TERRIFYING.

IT WAS ACTUALLY REALLY TERRIFYING.

BECAUSE HERE WE ARE TAKING ON THESE CHARACTERS, TAKING ON THESE CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES, AND REALLY HAVING NO IDEA WHO WILL SURVIVE, WHO WILL DO WELL, WHO MIGHT GET REALLY SICK.

IT WAS ACTUALLY REALLY TERRIFYING.

I FELT LIKE WE WERE ON THIS JOURNEY WITH THE FAMILIES.

I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE WERE DOCUMENTING THEM FROM AFAR.

I FELT LIKE WE WERE LIVING THIS WITH THEM.

IT WAS QUITE A ROLLER COASTER FOR FIVE YEARS.

>> I THINK THAT'S A SIGN OF GREAT FILMMAKING, YOU ARE TAKING EVERYBODY ON A JOURNEY HERE.

GIVE ME A LITTLE DESCRIPTION OF THE HURDLES THAT THESE FAMILIES ARE ENCOUNTERING HERE IN TERMS OF -- MAYBE A BETTER QUESTION TO ASK IS, HOW WERE THEY LEARNING ABOUT THE POTENTIAL IMPACT THAT THE CANNABIS OIL COULD HAVE FOR THEM AND THEIR CHILDREN?

>> I MEAN, I THINK IT'S -- I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY FIRST HAD ACCESS.

IT'S LIKE PUTTING THE PIECES OF THE PUZZLE TOGETHER.

THEY HAVE TO LIVE IN A LEGAL STATE.

MOST LIVED IN CALIFORNIA, WHICH THEY WERE LUCKY ENOUGH TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE MEDICINE TO GET A LEGAL RECOMMENDATION.

ONE OF THE FAMILIES -- >> YOU READ THING YS ONLINE.

IF YOU GOOGLE CANNABIS AND CANCER.

>> MY DAUGHTER IS A CANCER SURGEON, GYN ONCOLOGIST.

WE TALKED ABOUT THIS.

YOU WILL SEE ABOUT PAIN HELPING TO DEAL WITH PAIN, USING THIS AS OPPOSED TO OTHER OPIOIDS.

>> NAUSEA.

>> FOR NAUSEA.

BUT I THINK WHAT'S FASCINATING AMONG OTHER THINGS ABOUT THE FILM IS, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE NOTION OF THIS DERIVATIVE OF MARIJUANA ACTUALLY FIGHTING CANCER CELLS.

>> RIGHT.

>> NOT JUST PUT A MASK OVER PAIN, BUT ACTUALLY FIGHTING CANCER CELLS.

>> KILLING THE CANCER CELLS AND NOT THE HEALTHY CELLS.

THAT'S THE THING -- >> I DON'T WANT TO GIVE AWAY THE WHOLE FILM.

WASN'T I WANT PEOPLE TO WATCH IT.

TELL WHAT THIS RESEARCH IS SUGGESTING.

>> WE WENT TO ISRAEL.

IN ISRAEL THEY LEAD IN THE SCIENCE.

>> WHAT ARE THEY FINDING?

>> WE WENT TO ISRAEL, THE UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM.

WE REALLY TALKED TO THE TOP, TOP CANNABIS SCIENTISTS.

THEY SHOWED US THAT WHAT THEY ARE REALLY INTERESTED IN IS THIS MECHANISM WHICH IS PROGRAMMABLE CELL DEATH.

ESSENTIALLY, WHEN THE BODY HAS CANCER, IT'S BECAUSE THE IMMUNE SYSTEM CAN'T DETECT THE CANCER CELLS AND CAN'T SEND THE SIGNAL TO THOSE CELLS TO SELF-DESTRUCT.

SOMEHOW -- THEY DON'T KNOW HOW.

BUT THE CANNABIS AT LEAST IN THE TEST TUBE AND IN SOME ANIMAL MODELS SEEMS TO TRIGGER THIS PROGRAMMABLE CELL DEATH.

THE CANCER CELLS COMMIT SUICIDE.

BUT THE HEALTHY CELLS ARE INTACT.

>> THEY ARE ABLE TO PINPOINT THE STRAINS FOR THE SPECIFIC CANCERS.

THIS STRAIN OF CANNABIS WORKS FOR PROSTATE CANCER BUT DOESN'T WORK FOR BREAST CANCER.

THEY ARE FIGURING OUT WHAT WORKS BEST FOR WHICH CANCER.

>> WE SHOULD -- THERE ARE PEOPLE NOT FAMILIAR WITH IT.

GIVE A SENSE OF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CANNABIS OIL AS OPPOSED TO THE PS PSYCHOACTIVE SMOKING THAT EVERYBODY IS TO SOME EXTENT FAMILIAR WITH.

>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHOLE PLANTS.

IT'S NOT JUST CBD.

THEY TALK ABOUT EPILEPSY.

WITH CANCER, SHRINK -- TUMOR SHRINKAGE.

IT'S IN A CANNABIS OIL EXTRACT.

>> PEOPLE ARE LIKE, THESE LITTLE KIDS ARE SMOKING POT.

THERE'S NO SMOKING.

>> REEFER MADNESS.

>> THAT'S, I THINK, WHAT WE HAVE TO CHANGE IN OUR MINDS AND IN THE CULTURE IS THAT WHEN YOU HEAR CANNABIS, YOU DON'T IMMEDIATELY GO TO A ROLLED SMOKING JOINT.

THIS MEDICINE IS BEING INGESTED, IT'S BEING TAKEN IN PILLS AND EXTRACTS AND TINCTURES.

>> SUPPOSITORIES.

>> YEAH.

IT'S STILL SMOKED AND SMOKING IS HELPFUL FOR CERTAIN CONDITIONS, ESPECIALLY PEOPLE WHO NEED A VERY IMMEDIATE ONSET OF PAIN RELIEF.

FOR THE MOST PART, THESE ARE -- IT'S LIKE A BOTANICAL.

IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY BOTANICAL DRUG OR MEDICINE.

>> WHAT DID YOU FIND THEN IN FOLLOWING THESE FOLKS ON THEIR JOURNEY?

I THINK PEOPLE LISTENING TO US WOULD SAY, WOW, WE SHOULD BE ALL OVER THIS IN TERMS OF RESEARCH AND PUTTING RESEARCH MONEY INTO THIS AND EFFORT AND RESOURCES.

THIS SOUNDS LIKE -- I DON'T WANT TO SAY A SILVER BULLET, BUT CLOSE.

>> IT'S A SCHEDULED 1 DRUG.

THE GOVERNMENT SAYS THAT THERE'S NO MEDICINAL VALUE.

THEY STOP ALL THE FUNDING.

IT'S REALLY, REALLY DIFFICULT.

YET, THEY HOLD A PATENT FOR THIS.

HOW CAN IT BE BOTH?

>> THE GOVERNMENT IS THE -- THE SCHEDULING IS A BIG OBSTACLE.

THE STIGMA IS A HUGE OBSTACLE.

I THINK THAT PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES AND EVEN DOCTORS ARE NOT REALLY COMFORTABLE.

GOD MADE ALL THE PLANTS.

THIS IS A PLANT.

THIS WAS PUT ON THE PLANET.

WE CO-EVOLVED CONSIDER THIS.

IT WAS FASCINATING TO LEARN ALL THIS.

>> IT MAKES TOTAL SENSE.

>> I THINK IT'S THE POWER OF KNOWLEDGE.

WHEN WE LEARN, WE ARE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND.

AGAIN, IT'S A MARVELLOUS FILM "WE THE PEOPLE."

PLAY ON THE WORDS.

>> SOME PEOPLE DON'T LIKE IT BECAUSE THEY THINK IT'S MISLEADING.

>> I THINK IT'S GREAT.

>> I THINK IT'S JUST FOR US.

THE TITLE MEANT ABOUT, THIS IS OUR RIGHT.

>> IT MAKE PS PEOPLE TALK.

MAKING PEOPLE TALK IS OF VALUE.

IT'S A VERY COMPELLING -- ON SO MANY LEVELS -- FILM AND A VERY THOUGHT FUL FILM.

>> IT BEATS THE TALK SHOW.

>> WE WANT YOU BACK.

WE WANT YOU BACK AGAIN.

WE WILL START A MOVEMENT.

>> A PLEASURE TALKING TO YOU.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

GREAT WORK.

>> FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THE DOCUMENTARY, VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT METRO FFOCUS.ORG.

>> "METROFOCUS" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY --