The article really doesn't say the exact ages, so we don't know how many are infants. It does say "under 16" so there's a chance they could have their shots, and I'm sure there were some parents out there hysterically begging a doctor to shoot up their young'uns.
The article really doesn't say the exact ages, so we don't know how many are infants. It does say "under 16" so there's a chance they could have their shots, and I'm sure there were some parents out there hysterically begging a doctor to shoot up their young'uns.
True. The headlines didn't specify age either, just left it ambiguous to suggest pre-pubescent... there is no reason anyone in these age ranges should be needed a liver transplant let alone en-masse. Somethings a foot
True. The headlines didn't specify age either, just left it ambiguous to suggest pre-pubescent... there is no reason anyone in these age ranges should be needed a liver transplant let alone en-masse. Somethings a foot
That's the biggest problem with this. How are children getting hepatitis to the point where it's late stage, liver destroyed?
That's the biggest problem with this. How are children getting hepatitis to the point where it's late stage, liver destroyed?
(post is archived)