Darshan
Hey everyone, welcome to another episode of DarshanTalks. I'm your host, Dr. Sancho Kearney. It's my mission to help you trust the products you depend on. As you may know, I'm an attorney. I'm a pharmacist, and I advise companies with FDA regulated products. So if you think about drugs, wonder about devices or obsessional pharmacy, this is the podcast view. I do have to specify that both me and my guests today are lawyers, but we're not your lawyers. So this is not legal advice. I'm a pharmacist, but I'm not your pharmacist. So it's not political advice. I do these podcasts because they're a lot of fun. And I find them find themselves learning something new every single time to be great to know someone's actually listening. So if you like what you hear, please like leave a comment, please subscribe. If you have questions, feel free to jump in and ask questions. And if you like what you actually see, share the actual podcast, we'd love to have you do that as well. If you if you want to find me, if you will reach out to me, you can find me on Twitter at DarshanTalks, or just go to our website at DarshanTalks calm. Our guest today is a rare treat for me. And the reason it's a rare treat is because I get to talk to a Food and Drug lawyer. And I don't get to do that often. And it's a lot of fun whenever I do, and I'm excited for it. Our guest today is a professor of law at the American University Washington College of Law. He is also off counsel at the Food and Drug practice of Covington and Burling. He is a co author of the leading food and drug law textbook. He's a practitioner of food and drug law, and currently a member of the National Academies committee on the security of the medical product supply chain. And lastly, but not least, he's the author of the forthcoming book with Oxford University Press titled choose your medicine, freedom of therapeutic choice in America. So as if that's not enough, I get to not ask him questions about all kinds of issues that we touched on. So I'm just excited to have you on our guests today most closely. Taylor, how are you, Louis?
Lewis
Very well, thank you. It's really an honor to be on this show.
Darshan
I'm glad you're here, I get to talk to you about some really, really cool things. You have a book coming out. So this is this is part of your press tour. So thank you so much for being on. Let's start with the basics. This book. We had a very brief discussion about it a few minutes ago, and you're touching some really interesting topics. Can you tell us a little bit more about what the books gonna be talking about in general?
Lewis
Yeah, so in addition to the other things you mentioned about me, I'm also a PhD in American history. And I approached this this subject as a historian as well as as a lawyer. And it is not an advocacy piece in favor of medical libertarianism. Rather, it is a historical examination of the notion of medical libertarianism, and freedom of therapeutic choice in American history, from the revolution through the Trump era, and the effect that that ideal has had on American Law and Policy throughout American history.
Darshan
So let's start with the basics. What does the word medical libertarian libertarianism mean, to say you're not that what what is that? First of all?
Lewis
Well, let me start by saying that there's kind of two aspects to what people think of when they talk about medical libertarianism. And one of them is freedom from government compulsion. And this book is certainly partly about that. This is the activism you see today against mandatory vaccination, and mandatory masking, so forth. But that is a relatively recent phenomenon in American history, although quite old, compared to another strain of libertarianism, which is the notion that people should be able to choose whatever caregiver or medicine they want, without government interference. And that is a much longer tradition that goes all the way back to the origins of the country. And it both organizationally and ideologically overlaps with the anti compulsion, strain of medical libertarianism. And you can see that today, by the way, I'm very much in the way that the that the anti vaccination forces and anti massed forces overlap heavily with the people who say that ivermectin should be widely used as a treatment they were. They overlap heavily with the people who were calling for greater access to hydroxychloroquine a year ago. And so it seems like there's always a yin and yang situation where the very same people who are arguing against medical compulsion are also arguing for freedom of choice in the sense of freedom to choose whatever they want to take free from government compulsion. And I emphasize that even more than the compulsion part.
Darshan
So you talk, you talk about this long history of freedom from government compulsion, you talk a little bit, because I wasn't aware that there had been a consideration in in the early history of the country to force any kind of medical compulsion. Can you talk a little bit about the origin ation of that.
Lewis
Okay. So when you're talking about medical compulsion, that part of the theme, that doesn't really start until the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with the rise of local and statewide mandatory smallpox vaccination, but when you look at the other side of it, the notion that people should be able to choose whatever medicine they want, without government interference, you have to look in a place where I didn't know I would have to look when I started this project. Neither federal nor state government was deep into the business of regulating medical products in the 19th century, in the late 18th century. But they were heavily into the business of regulating medical practice. And they did this through what were known as medical practice acts, or medical licensing laws. And when these laws were used in a way to suppress non orthodox medical, sex, like, you know, botanical medicine and homeopathy and eclectic medicine, Christian Science, some mind cure. That was the method by which governments, mostly state governments at that point, prioritized orthodox medicine over non orthodox medicine. And those were also the laws that were the target of very, very vigorous and successful activism against government restrictions on medical freedom.
Darshan
So you talk about they start off by rules, saying, we're going to practice control the practice of medicine, and then they shifted over to small, could you talk a little bit over the same same concerns raised during the smallpox, smallpox issues we're seeing now around COVID, where people are saying, it's my right not to take the vaccine, I don't believe in the vaccine, etc, was the same kind of education available? Well, one of the parallels between the smallpox vaccination program and COVID
Lewis
Um, so there are certainly a lot of overlaps. And indeed, the, the smallpox vaccination mandates gave birth to the most famous Supreme Court decision in this area, which is called the Jacobson case from 1905, which held that when it comes to protection of the public health, that that mandatory vaccination can Trump arguments in favor of individual liberty. Now, it should be said that, like all medical science and medical technology is a much less sophisticated thing back then than it is now. And there really were widespread episodes of contamination of the imparting of tetanus through contamination of vaccines. In fact, the problem was big enough that in 1902, even before it past the first Pure Food and Drug Act, Congress passed the biologics act in 1902, which gave the federal government regulatory authority over on vaccines and other biologic products. That was really the federal government's first major step into medical product regulation. And the arguments against mandatory smallpox vaccination vaccination would sound very familiar to somebody today, it was about basic notions of government overreach, individual freedom, but with enormous overlaps with other strains of freedom, including economic freedom, the notion and this when I say economic freedom here, I mean, freedom against medical monopolies, the notion that back then, the AMA And now the drug industry support mandatory vaccination, because it was an attempt to basically monopolize, and profit from the medical sphere. There's also a huge overlap with in both areas, in fact, throughout all American history, with freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, when it comes to anti vaccinations. And so my general theme in this book is that what we're seeing now is not America going off the rails, but rather America returning to the rails, it's been on for most of its history, the weird part of American history was the post World War two years, oftentimes called the Golden Age of medicine, when Americans had incredible confidence in establishment institutions, the government, the media, medicine, science, big business, and there was relatively little medical libertarianism during that period that some of the older of us remember. And this is more like what America has been like for most of its history.
Darshan
So that really begs the question, What changed between the smallpox era which was, which is characteristic of where we are now to the post World War history where they believed in medicine, if you will, for lack of a better term, what changed and cause that to happen?
Lewis
Well, my favorite chapter, the one I had most fun writing, because I think we all think so much about the periods of our youth was the the chapter on the 1970s. Because the 1970s, which was long, portrayed as a nothing decade in which not much happened, an incredible amount happened in the 1970s. And what happened most dramatically in the 1970s, was a dramatic decline in Americans trust of establishment institutions. And what you see in the 70s is the joinder of mistrust from the right, and mistrust from the left, getting together to the point where it means streams that distrust Now why did this happen? It happened because of the Vietnam War, because of the oil embargo, because of, you know, economic slowdown. But it also happened in the world of medicine and science because of a couple of very specific things, including the swine flu vaccination disaster, which happened in the late 1970s. I, I've heard very little mention of it in the course of this pandemic. But there were some perception that there was a swine flu that was going to sweep over America, and the United States implemented a nationwide vaccination campaign with Gerald Ford himself, rolling up his sleeves and taking the vaccination in the Oval Office, if I remember properly. And various people died as will happen whenever you give millions of people a shot with what is known as you can correct my pronunciation era syndrome, which is a common side of not a common a rare side effect of vaccination. And then the swine flu never came. And you had this, it's this forgotten incident is in such stark contrast to the polio vaccination campaign of the 1950s, which elevated American confidence in medicine and American technological know how, and elevated American confidence in the medical establishment. This eroded along with many other factors to the point where when you had kind of like a commentary from the left and the commentary from the right, in many media outlets back then, you had the two Washington Post column and this one from the left and one from the right, both bashing the the federal government's arrogant and unsuccessful swine flu vaccine campaign.
Darshan
This is so interesting, because I'll be honest, I haven't looked into the history of this like you haven't. It's, it's amazing what what I hear you saying is there are three separate types of vaccination campaigns there was there was the super successful smallpox vaccination campaign, the super unsuccessful polio process campaign. Successfully swine smallpox and polio were more successful and swine flu was not And that distinction seems to fall within certain timelines that contextualize how people saw it. Do we tend to always see this in a larger context? Like, was there? Is there always a backdrop that that you're seeing? So for example, right now, the major distrust issues we see, is that reflective of the major distrust we have with because of our divided country, and because of the political parties sort of being battling with each other right now, and half the country believing works and doesn't work. So there's not a comment on on the policies as much as a comment on general discussed against the government's
Lewis
Yes, I think that the stunning decline in trust, not just in the government, but in science, in medicine, in the media, in virtually every major establishment institution, plays an extraordinarily important role in explaining what's going on now. Now, I have a couple of caveats, though, which is, there's a hell of a lot of distrust about the COVID vaccine in particular, that does not mean that America in general, is a massively anti vaccination country. Now maybe we're seeing a switch with respect to that now because people won't distinguish. But for the most part, Americans get their kids their mandatory school vaccinations without too much complaint. Indeed, if you remember, a few years ago, there were some measles outbreaks and some states eliminated their religious, not usually the religious, but at least there are philosophical exemptions. And obviously, there's always medical Liberty activists who oppose anything like that. But um, for the most part, when it comes to compulsory vaccination, Americans up to this point in history, even with rising levels of distrust, have been relatively cheap, like, and I don't mean that in a derogatory way, in accepting it, the one place that they have been fierce advocates of choice is in that other strain of freedom I was talking about, let me let me acquire what I want to take that has ever since the 1970s been a, you know, an irrepressible cultural impulse in America.
Darshan
There are so many questions to rip up on that. The one thing that's that's really jumping out at me is you talked about this dramatic drop in trust. And when you talk about that, it reminds me of what happened in the early days of COVID, which is people are suddenly saying, I'm trusting pharma companies, more farmers generally sort of ranked at the bottom with tobacco and with Africa, with the other lower end with lawyers to be honest, but wise in trust in pharma. And then I'm sort of seeing that that rise sort of level off and if not declined? are we are we sort of seeing that the we have a push towards trust and lose it? You can you contextualize what's happening now in the context of trust, should we expect a future rise? like we saw in the 1940s, sudden, after the 1920s? Where there was that, that decrease in trust? Or did we lose it because of drug pricing and everything else? Does that make sense?
Lewis
Yeah, um, I think that it's somewhat contextual. I mean, let's talk again about the polio vaccine. If you speak to a certain age, if you speak to your parents or grandparents about polio, it was it was a disease that attacked primarily children. And it was incurable and devastating, and Americans were scared to death of it. And when the United States government, along with private industry created the polio vaccine, it was a miracle. It was a was a widely hailed miracle of modern medicine. Jonas Salk, the creator of that vaccine was year after year during that period, one of the most compare john Jonas Salk to it to Anthony Fauci, Jonas Salk, was so popular in the 1950s that I did some research on Google on sort of like mentions in the media and and and such, and his level of popular It was akin to that of Mickey Mantle, the baseball player or James Dean, the movie star. I mean, can you imagine if Anthony Fauci were a celebrity on that level, I mean, he's a very well known person, and he is beloved by some of America. But Jonas Salk, while he had his, his two tractors and opponents was popular in a way that in a modern American couldn't possibly imagine. Let's imagine that COVID was like the 1918 vaccine, or even which, which attacked people the prime of their life, or even worse if it was a pediatric illness that was killing American children. And the pharmaceutical industry came up with a vaccine that prevents children from dying, it is kind of the reverse now, right? children aren't even on the list of vaccine recipients right now. Uh, you know, I think it has got to eat the Pfizer vaccine has only been approved for I don't want to state this wrong, but 16 and over or something like that. I forget what there's 12 or 16? Well, yeah, well, yeah. But it is interesting to imagine if the next pandemic comes along, and its risk profile is even higher than COVID. And it is higher in a different part of the population. You know, this is a disease that's largely wreak havoc on underprivileged populations, and on elderly populations. Suppose another disease came along, and they managed actually to, to conquer the disease, maybe faith in medicine would go up again. But, but we're not really seeing that happen across the American population. Although, personally, I, if you want my personal opinion, view, the super fast creation of a vaccine against a dangerous newly evolved virus, a miracle. And I personally took the vaccine with pleasure, and it is improved my life and measurably over the past few months. So I can't I can't say that, like there aren't lots of Americans whose whose faith in the pharmaceutical industry may have been increased by, by this by this accomplishment. But it's a much more ambiguous situation overall, in terms of the disease that is threatening us, I think right now.
Darshan
So it's funny, you talk about this, the vaccination process and how we it almost ties into the desire for Americans to get the medicine that they want, when they want it. And I know that there's been a lot of pushback as we as we speak right now, in terms of the fact that children can get the vaccination right now. Do you? Do you believe that? What and the reason I'm going down this path is I'm fascinated by the issue of trust? And do you believe that once the vaccination will be available to children save children's lives? That will increase the trust in the pharmaceutical industry? Or do you see that not necessarily tying in together? Yeah.
Lewis
Well, I mean, I'm a historian more than a prognosticator. But the fact of the matter is one reason that we want to vaccinate children, of course, there are increasing levels of pediatric cases of COVID that are quite severe. But one of the main reasons we want to vaccinate children is because to prevent them from being vectors for a spread of the disease, and that is a much less visible, positive effect. So I don't think that pediatric administration of the COVID vaccine is going to change all that many people's minds unless the vaccine evolves in a way that starts attacking children more viciously, than it does now.
Darshan
So I'm going to touch a topic and as you know, I usually aim for about 15 to 20 minutes, but we're already at 25. But I,
Lewis
I'm not coming here as long as you want. And it's just thank you.
Darshan
Thank you for coming on. So I have to ask this question because it's a fun topic to touch which is best this give me the medicine that you let me get, let me get what I want. And now you tie that into medical marijuana and people are saying Let me get what I want and then there are people going but this is not safe for you This is safe for you but it's not been approved for the right indications or whatever and the FDA has general distrust in allowing cannabis to be to be regulated for example the dietary supplement and at the FT just as you know, policies around that registered announcement brand that recently so So do you see the history of food and drug law and control over the government's control over health sort of manifesting itself in cannabis and and how is that gonna play out as you see in the in the short medium and long term?
Lewis
Well to me the the rise of medical marijuana in this country is one of the greatest illustrations of the phenomenon I'm talking about in the book which is normally outside of court you nonetheless have a vast popular movements that unravel regulations that are in some way or another inhibiting people's medical choice you have to it's hard to remember this but you know as recently as you know the Reagan era you would be viewed as a you know, a pothead radical if you suggested legalizing madness, marijuana even for medical purposes. Think about the change, uh, you know, that there's been no formal change at the federal level, it remains an illegal schedule one substance, although that's not true of CBD, which is a slightly different issue, that's a cannabinoid that's derived from, from hemp. Um, but at the state level, you have state after state after state after state, either through referendum or through in one case in Florida, I think it was constitutional amendment, although I may be wrong about that. I'm embracing the legalization of medical marijuana. And it um, it is an astonishing phenomenon that's mirrored in other areas when, when a sort of feeling about something in this area starts sweeping through the nation and state after state takes it up. Now, although the federal government still treats it as a schedule one illegal controlled substance, as a practical matter, through some discretionary enforcement memoranda that have been sent out, as well as some congressional actions that have prevented the Justice Department from spending money to suppress legal marijuana systems in the States. The federal government, for the most part is keeping its hands out of the issue to unless it comes to people who are major traffickers or, you know, selling to children or something like that. And so when you look at the whole picture, it's not enough to ever look at just what the law says, it's important to look at the facts on the ground. And the fact of the matter is that medical marijuana is an almost universally, legal substance in America today. And that is all due to activity outside the courts and activity in legislators and in the street. Interesting,
Darshan
I think there's a significant amount of support around medical marijuana, I think I think we can also agree to that question, but how do you see that translating into something like stem cell treatments, or into something like pharmacogenomics? Which, in many, in many cases, the FDA is still mostly just practicing what they call enforcement discretion, which is what you were referring to a few minutes ago? Well, so I guess my question is, do we is this there always been this perspective on the American Zoomer wanting choice and deciding what treatment they want to go to, even if they were not wholesale, accepted by the establishment and the FDA specific?
Lewis
Well, I don't know whether this is where you're going with that question exactly. But I do draw a distinction in the book between movements for freedom of therapeutic choice, outside orthodox medicine, and movements for freedom of therapeutic choice. Within orthodox medicine. The movement for freedom of choice within orthodox medicine is quite different. in spirit, then alternative medicine activism, it was really, it really began to flower with the AIDS activists in the 1980s. And while there were aids activists who were demanding access to alternative cures, and so forth, what they mostly wanted was faster and more liberal access to products being produced by the scientific pharmaceutical industry. They just wanted quicker access to it and you know, faster approval of it. And they didn't have the same anti scientist, a spin that many alternative medicine activists have. They certainly had distrust of government officials, they certainly had distrust of the motives of pharmaceutical companies. They certainly had distrust of the media. But ultimately, they accomplished their goals, not by rejecting orthodox medicine, but by becoming players within it. And that's the revolution vay Ra. And I know that you think a lot yourself about clinical research and drug approval. And it is important to emphasize how different the approval of Orthodox drugs is today than it was 4050 years ago, both in terms of its pace, and in terms of the availability of life saving drugs prior to approval, although that's a little bit less dramatic. And most of you know dramatically, the role of patient activists in the drug approval process, a FDA advisory committee meetings on the approval of a drug used to be a bunch of bureaucrats and scientists. Now every important drug, the committee meeting advisory committee meeting is filled with patient activists, and both FDA and Congress have embraced this development by by by statute and FDA has embraced something called the site I forget exactly what it is, but the patient focused drug development program, and Congress itself demands consideration of patient views in various ways. And, and so there is this other type of libertarianism Oh, that's the wrong word in this context, freedom activism within orthodox medicine. Now, one thing that struck me during the pandemic is I always thought that those two strains were just completely different. But if you look at ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, those are both orthodox drugs. hydroxychloroquine is approved for malaria and various autoimmune diseases ivermectin for various types of parasitic problems in both humans and animals as well as some skin conditions I think, in humans, but what you see here is, um, the rejection of Orthodox science by people who are demanding access to those drugs. So there is this very striking story about a scientist who simply wanted to subject ivermectin to a placebo controlled clinical research and he was getting death threats from people who, who were saying, How in the world can you deny this miracle drug to people who are trying to fight off COVID You monster you Nazi I mean, literally, the language was like that. A thoroughgoing rejection of modern clinical research approaches even to an orthodox drug, although it's an off label use of unorthodox route.
Darshan
So that we can honestly keep going forever because this is such a fun conversation. I really appreciate you being on but amongst as you know, we're well past time, but I do get to ask you for questions as you know. So the most important one, how can they reach you? I've been flashing, what's the best way for people to reach you?
Lewis
So the best way to reach me personally is through my email, which is a My name is Louis le W is so Lewis g at wc l.american.edu. If you want to find out more about me, you can look at my website at the American University, Washington College of Law or my author, website. On amazon.com. I am also an increasingly active tweeter as well.
Darshan
And I'm looking forward to having increasingly active tweet chats with you. Now that I know that you're there, the den besides the other thing, you said, you're actually putting out a book, could you tell us a little bit more about where people can reach it, find it and buy it.
Lewis
Thank you for, for letting me promote my book. In this way. It's formal publication date is, I think, October 5, but it's actually shipping on September 23. And it's currently available for pre order through Amazon, Barnes and Noble, other book purchasing sites, as well as through Oxford University Press itself.
Darshan
Wonderful. Now I have three other unrelated questions based on our discussion, what is something you'd like to ask the audience?
Lewis
something I'd like to and I'm not going to get an answer to that, I suppose.
Darshan
Hopefully, someone will respond. But sometimes they just I'll answer the question and maybe the answer in the comments over time.
Lewis
Yes. So uh, so I just want to mention that I was not negligent. I did not know I'd be asked this question until the moments before I went on air. So as talkative and garrulous as I am, I'm having trouble coming up with a great one. But I mean, what the question would be is, I want to touch the pulse of America and figure out how they are feeling about these issues themselves. And so let me narrow it down and not talk about vaccines and masks and so forth. But I'd be interested in hearing people's views, for example of the recent approval of an Alzheimer's drug based on surrogate endpoints, I'm making it available earlier than it otherwise would be. In, you know, instinctually people have feelings about that. And I, you know, I think that a lot of the, the learned classes are outraged by that decision. I suspect that many people out there who have had relatives with Alzheimer's, have a different feeling about it, and that they would demand a lower level of evidence in order to have something to try. I'm not advocating for one position or the other. I am just curious as to what the the public's reaction to that was.
Darshan
So I try to answer the first question first, just so you have some feedback. And my general perspective, I guess I'm more libertarian than I knew. But I tend to believe in hope. And I tend to believe that, especially in the case of Alzheimer's, the drug options that are out there right now, are not the greatest like, and you see that with patients are struggling with a disease. So I think the idea of the idea of approved drug based and surrogate markers, showing that it actually has minimal efficacy is better than not approving it at all. Having said that, I think that there is a dramatic impact on on cost. So I would argue that in those situations, depending on the level of evidence that you provide, you might get a different level of reimbursement. And that, that, and that speaks to sort of balancing with cost and the font of economics associated with it. I'd be curious, have you ever taken better?
Lewis
Well, I think that where you are is I suspect, although I don't have polling data, a place where a lot of Americans are, where they are, you know, inclined again, I'm making this up, I don't know, inclined to let the drug out there but concerned about the costs of it, and concerned also about, you know, the profits that the company might be making on it. I have an entire chapter in my book called The right to be covered therapeutic choice and health insurance. And that addresses that paradoxical issue of demands for freedom of therapeutic choice when what you're demanding is not just access to the drug, but Also the right to be paid by the government or your insurer for the drug. And so that always complicates people's calculations in this, this era when drugs themselves are so expensive. But I will say something else, which is I wouldn't be surprised if there are many people out there who support government paying for a slim hope. And you saw that you've seen that at various times that there are some very people who very passionately argue, even for that more. I don't mean extreme in a negative way. But that more extreme position of not just therapeutic choice, but therapy of choice funded by the government. But it's very, very difficult to draw the lines of where you stop. If you're going to to do that.
Darshan
I would expect that the people who want that are generally in favor of gm of basically expanding Medicare and Medicaid anyways, so I expect that there's some level of crossover anyways, with something like, like that program. But why don't you? Go ahead, sorry. What's
Lewis
interesting about that, though, is when a breast cancer a drug called Avastin, which was approved for other cancers and then was approved for breast cancer. When FDA withdrew the approval for breast cancer, the only impact of that was to affect possible reimbursement policies, the drug was still available for prescription by physicians. And yet the right wing went absolutely bananas, and said that this was tyranny and rationing and death panels. And so I wouldn't say it's a very neat parallel between progressive visions of funding the healthcare system versus conservative visions of funding the healthcare system.
Darshan
Oh, we have to have you back on to have this discussion, because it sounds like a super fun discussion to have. And then I'm gonna ask you two more questions. My next question is, what is something you've learned in the last month that you think the audience might find interesting.
Lewis
Um, something I learned in the past month that the audience might find interesting, I am a voracious consumer of information. And normally, I would have something at my fingertips. But if we're going to say, in the area of, of medicine and health, I would say, I learned how nice it is to be in the physical presence of my students again, after a year of sitting where I'm sitting right now at my desk chair at home, seven days a week. And a real appreciation for how how, even if the bottom half of a person's face is covered, there's something about looking into the eyes of another individual, that is just different from anything you can do on the computer.
Darshan
It's funny, you say that, actually, I'm gonna be teaching my class for the semester, starting today. I'm still in me teaching remotely. So So I, I am curious what that feeling will be like when I go back to class, so I'm glad you're having fun with it. Which actually leads us to the last question I have for you, which is what's something that's made you happy in the last week?
Lewis
So I guess I've already answered that question.
Darshan
Fair enough. We'll count it twice. Yeah.
Lewis
So I am delighted this week, by the wonderful developments in my children's lives in the past a past week. I won't violate their privacy by giving too much information. But let me say I'm really, really proud of my three kids. Oh, it's been a very difficult time for everyone over the past year, and all three of them have had a really good week.
Darshan
That's awesome. That's such a great, that's such a great note to end us on. Again. How can people reach you?
Lewis
Louis, G, le, W i s g at W CL. That's Walter, Charlie lollipop.american.edu. And I look forward to hearing from listeners.
Darshan
Thank you again, and I hope you'll consider coming back on again. This was a lot of fun. So thank you.
Lewis
I will definitely more than consider coming back on again. I promise you I will if I get an invitation
Darshan
Excellent. We'll talk to you soon. Thanks everyone. Thanks for listening in.
Lewis
This is the DarshanTalks podcast, regulatory guy, irregular podcast with host Darshan Kulkarni. You can find the show on twitter at DarshanTalks or the show's website at DarshanTalks.com
