New labels coming for many over-the-counter pain relievers - Your Houston News: Living

New labels coming for many over-the-counter pain relievers - Your Houston News: Living



AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION NEWS



Consumers soon will see new labels strengthening the warnings about the risk of heart attack and stroke on medicine commonly used for headaches, backaches, arthritis and even multi-symptom cold remedies.



The Federal Drug Administration issued an advisory this summer requiring all non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs prescriptions to revise their labels. The agency said it soon also will ask for the same for over-the-counter NSAIDs. The prescription form of the drugs include those used for arthritis relief, known as COX-2 inhibitors, sold by brand as Celebrex. The non-prescriptions drugs include ibuprofen, sold as Advil or Motrin; and naproxen, sold as Aleve.



Tylenol, known generically as acetaminophen, is not an NSAID. Aspirin, although considered an NSAID, is often used in low doses for heart attack prevention and is not included in the warnings. In fact, the FDA said consumers who take low-dose aspirin for protection against heart attack and stroke should know that some NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen and naproxen, can interfere with that protective effect.



“We’ve been concerned for a long time,” American Heart Association President Dr. Mark Creager said. “With this new warning the public will be more aware about the risks and won’t be reaching so quickly for these drugs to treat aches and pains.”



The American Heart Association issued a statement in 2007 advising physicians to be wary of using COX-2 inhibitors and NSAIDs as a first line of defense in patients with heart disease or those at risk for developing it. It also called for more data and investigation into the heart safety of the drugs.



NSAIDs work to block enzymes called COX-1 and COX-2 that are responsible for manufacturing substances called postglandins, chemical messengers that can cause inflammation, pain and fever. Some of those same postglandins also help regulate blood clotting, protect the lining of the stomach and intestine and help with kidney function.



Doctors and researchers have been debating NSAIDs and their effect on the cardiovascular system for about a decade. The FDA first required the labels in 2005. Back then the labels said they might cause an increased risk of heart attack and stroke. The new warnings are more definitive, saying NSAIDs do have an increased risk.



The FDA issued a statement saying that risk can occur early in the treatment, even in the first weeks. And while people who have cardiovascular disease – especially those who recently have had a heart attack or bypass surgery – are at greatest risk with NSAIDs, the risk is also present for people who don’t have signs of the disease.



The FDA has been mulling over the warnings since February 2014 when it called together two of its advisory panels, one specializing in drug safety and one on arthritis, consider whether new research warranted a label change. A research paper published in May 2013 in The Lancet concluded that people who take high doses of NSAIDs daily increase their risk of heart attack and stroke by as much as a third. The report analyzed data from more than 600 trials, including detailed case histories of more than 350,000 patients.



Creager, director of the Heart and Cardiovascular Center at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, said it is good advice to take the lowest effective dose for the shortest amount of time. Any risks should be assessed as part of a conversation with a doctor, taking into account a person’s personal and family medical history.







“Make a reasoned decision based on what is known about the benefit of NSAIDs for the disease being treated,” he said.

China: Drop Draft Criminal Law Amendments & Protect Human Rights | Chinese Human Rights Defenders

China: Drop Draft Criminal Law Amendments & Protect Human Rights | Chinese Human Rights Defenders

Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders – August 4, 2015) – CHRD is very concerned about proposed articles legalizing human rights abuses in the current draft 9th Amendments to the Criminal Law, which are open for public consultation until August 5. In suggestions sent to the National People’s Congress, Chinese human rights defenders draw attention to proposed changes that are particularly troubling, including those affecting the independence of lawyers, freedom of assembly and demonstration, rights protections under anti-terrorism priorities, and online information and expression.

The National People’s Congress must scrap proposed amendments to the Criminal Law that would essentially legalize rights abuses.

The overarching problem with these proposals is that they lack definitions and include vague language that open the door to arbitrary interpretation, potentially legitimizing rights abuses. If these draft amendments became law, they would give police legal backing under the Criminal Law (CL) to further infringe on Chinese citizens’ rights to free expression, association, assembly, and religion, and would legitimize persecution of lawyers in the conduct of their work.

Only minimal changes were made to the first draft of the 9th amendments following their unveiling in November 2014. And the NPC has ignored what were highlighted by Chinese rights lawyers in anopen statement recommending changes to the first draft,  aspects of the amendments that would encroach on citizens’ constitutional and internationally-protected rights. The lawyers urged the NPC to consider dropping several amendments, but none of them was removed.

CHRD is gravely concerned about the following amendments in the second draft of the Criminal Law:

• Disrupting court proceedings (Amendment 36 to Article 309): The draft law would amend the existing article to give authorities broad powers to interpret speech in court as “insulting,” “threatening,” or “disruptive,” and it includes a vague provision prohibiting “anything else that seriously disrupts court proceedings, where circumstances are serious.” These changes could effectively criminalize lawyers’ speech during trials if they challenge court procedures or treatment of their clients, which would become a “crime” punishable by up to three years in prison. Chinese authorities through state media have attacked the professionalism of several lawyers detained in the ongoing crackdown on rights lawyers, claiming they had exhibited “unruly behavior,” “disrupted” court order, or “insulted” judges. The amendment, if passed, would provide legal rationale to criminalize the speech of lawyers when they defend clients’ rights at trial.

• Disclosure of case information (Amendment 35 to Article 308): The draft law adds a new sub-article on prohibiting “judicial personnel, defenders, agents ad litem or other litigation participants” from disclosing case information “that should not be disclosed in a case that is not tried in public in accordance with law,” punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment. This provision may increase abuses of clients’ due process rights that already occur with secret detentions and closed-door trials. Lawyers have often challenged law-enforcement and judicial authorities for citing “national security concerns” as a pretext to deny individuals involved in “sensitive cases” their rights to fair and open trials, access to legal counsel, and family visits. This new sub-article would allow authorities to criminalize challenges made by lawyers over abuse of clients’ due process rights.

• Peaceful assembly and demonstration (Amendment 30 to Article 290): The draft law adds a new sub-article to expand the scope of the crime “disrupting social order” and “gathering a crowd to disrupt social order,” to include a provision that bans “organizing or funding others to illegally assemble several times, disturbing social order, and [when] the circumstances are serious,” which would be punishable by up to three years in prison. Authorities have frequently used Article 290 to detain or prosecute Chinese citizens exercising their rights to free expression and assembly. The new amendment would go further, as it could be used to prosecute those accused of “organizing” or “funding” a gathering even though they themselves may not have been present.

• Terrorism (Amendment 7 to Article 120 of the CL): New sub-articles are added that prohibit advocating or promoting terrorism through books/materials or by wearing apparel or emblems, punishable by between three-five years in prison. Without any concise definition of “terrorism” in the existing Criminal Law and amendments, however, it is not clear what ideas, opinions, or clothing could become illegal. Thus, the amendments may simply legitimize police power in abridging civil liberties in the name of anti-terrorism. The definition of terrorism in a draft Counter-Terrorism Law that is now being circulated for “comments” is overbroad. It includes any thought, speech, or behaviour that attempts to “influence national policy-making,” and could be used to criminalize legitimate exercise of Chinese citizens’ rights. The Chinese government has a history of labelling ethnic Uyghurs and Tibetans as “terrorists” while systematically depriving their rights. This amendment would further legitimize ethnic suppression of religious and cultural expression in these regions in the name of “anti-terrorism.”

• Information security and Internet crimes (Amendment 27 to Article 286): The draft law adds a new sub-article to punish Internet service providers who do not perform “information network security management duties” if there are any “other serious circumstances.” Violators can face up to three years in prison. In an attempt to legalize its vast Internet censorship apparatus, the government has already promulgated regulations and put out a draft Internet Security Law that would allow authorities to restrict Internet connectivity in entire regions for the purpose of “maintaining public order.” The proposed CL amendment goes further, making it a criminal offense for Internet service providers not to comply with government censorship.

CHRD urges the NPC to drop or revise the above amendments to the Criminal Law to ensure Chinese citizens’ rights, as guaranteed by China’s constitution and the International Bill of Human Rights, are protected. It is imperative that the National People’s Congress revise the CL to fully comply with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as the Chinese government promised to do to the UN Human Rights Council at the conclusion of the 2013 Universal Periodical Review. In revising the CL, the NPC should also comply with a recommendation made by the UN Committee Against Torture in 2008, to abolish or amend Article 306 of the Criminal Law so as not to undermine the independence of lawyers. This action would be in line with the government’s treaty obligations under the Convention Against Torture, which it ratified in 1988.

CHRD asks the European Union, United States, and other like-minded governments to go beyond publically raising concerns on China’s problematic draft laws, including the 9th Amendments to the Criminal Law, that would legitimize systematic human rights violations if enacted. These governments must demonstrate a firm commitment to holding the Chinese government accountable for human rights abuses. More strong public statements are better than weak or private ones, but they must be coupled with actions with real teeth to deter the rapidly escalating political, ethnic, and religious suppression under Xi Jinping’s reign.

World Trade Center dust-inhalation: assessing the fallout - The Lancet Respiratory Medicine

World Trade Center dust-inhalation: assessing the fallout - The Lancet Respiratory Medicine

Nearly 14 years after Al-Qaeda's Sept 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York City, USA, residents and others exposed to dust from the collapsed buildings continue to suffer and die from respiratory diseases—while efforts to study the epidemiology of these cases have been hampered by gaps in environmental sampling data, experts tell The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

Faulty Towers | The Lancet USA Blog

Faulty Towers | The Lancet USA Blog

by Rebecca Cooney

New York City is recovering from its largest and deadliest Legionnaires' disease outbreak. According to city health officials, the number of infections has grown to 124 confirmed cases. And as of the third week of August, the death toll has reached 12—all people with underlying medical conditions. With temperatures climbing over 90 on many days and air conditioners running full blast, it has had the city warily looking at every vent.

The culprit is L pneumophilia, a species of Legionella bacteria, which causes pneumonia-like symptoms and flourishes in cooling towers—heat rejection devices used for air conditioning—that are heavily relied on in the summer months. Narrowing the skyline down to a handful of units is no small task. The exact number of cooling towers in New York City is well into the thousands and includes all shapes, sizes, makes, and models. But unlike previous years where sporadic infections have been reported around the city, this outbreak has been traced to roof-top cooling towers in a geographically clustered area. Five buildings in the South Bronx, including a hotel and a medical center, have tested positive for the bacteria and hundreds of spots have been inspected.

The incubation period from Legionella infection to disease is about 2-10 days. With the first positive tests for the bacteria having been identified in mid-July and city sources reporting no new cases after August 3, it is likely that the worst has passed. Enter the next set of hurdles. Although, the “ground zero” contaminated cooling tower is probably one of the five in the high-impact South Bronx cluster previously detected, to make that determination, genetic testing is under way.

Industry standards suggest that cooling towers should be maintained and cleaned twice a year. But in response to the magnitude of the current outbreak and number of deaths, on Thursday, August 13, 2015, the City Council of New York passed aggressive new legislation governing cooling tower upkeep. Ratcheting up the urgency for building owners, all cooling towers must now be registered within 30 days of the law’s enactment (by mid-September). But the law does not stop there. Building owners must also perform quarterly inspections for Legionella bacteria and provide the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) with annual certification that cooling towers have been tested, cleaned, and disinfected. Failure to comply could result in penalties of $2000 for an initial infraction to up to a year in prison and a $25 000 fine for disobeying maintenance orders from the DOHMH. While some critics have decried the new measures as being overly punitive, safety governance of cooling towers should be on par with other building-wide regulations, such as fire codes.

It is surprising that such precautions have not already been enacted in a city of skyscrapers, where air conditioning runs for months, electric bills peak, and people bring sweaters to wear in chilly offices. But before New Yorkers can breathe deeply and welcome cooler fall weather, the new measure must be firmly enforced to align building owners with the public health needs of the city. That means greater vigilance and diligence, even with a hefty price tag. There is simply no room to be complacent. We’ve already seen the tragic effects this summer of giving cooling towers a cold shoulder.

Preparation for global introduction of inactivated poliovirus vaccine: safety evidence from the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, 2000–12 - The Lancet Infectious Diseases

Preparation for global introduction of inactivated poliovirus vaccine: safety evidence from the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, 2000–12 - The Lancet Infectious Diseases


Findings

Of the 41 792 adverse event reports submitted, 39 568 (95%) were for children younger than 7 years. 38 381 of the reports for children in this age group (97%) were for simultaneous vaccination with IPV and other vaccines (most commonly pneumococcal and acellular pertussis vaccines), whereas standalone IPV vaccines accounted for 0·5% of all reports. 34 880 reports were for non-serious events (88%), 3905 reports were for non-fatal serious events (10%), and 783 reports were death reports (2%). Injection-site erythema was the most commonly coded term for non-serious events (29%), and pyrexia for non-fatal serious events (38%). Most deaths (96%) were in children aged 12 months or younger; most (52%) had sudden infant death syndrome as the reported cause of death. The safely profiles of combined IPV and whole-cell pertussis vaccines, OPV and whole-cell pertussis vaccines, and OPV and acellular pertussis vaccines were similar. We noted no indication of disproportionate reporting of adverse events after immunisation with IPV-containing vaccines compared with other vaccines between 1990 and 2013.
Interpretation

Fairly few adverse events were reported for the more than 250 million IPV doses distributed between 2000 and 2012. Sudden infant death syndrome reports after IPV were consistent with reporting patterns for other vaccines. No new or unexpected vaccine safety problems were identified for fatal, non-fatal serious, and non-serious reports in this assessment of adverse events after IPV.

$3M Ethicon Mesh Bellwether Verdict Upheld

Law360, New York (August 19, 2015, 4:18 PM ET) --

 A West Virginia federal judge refused to throw out a $3.27 million jury verdict against Johnson & Johnson unit Ethicon Inc. in a bellwether pelvic mesh implant suit on Wednesday, saying the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the verdict.

U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin picked apart Ethicon's arguments in its motion for judgment as a matter of law, or alternately for a new trial. The judge found the plaintiffs had brought sufficient evidence that Ethicon failed to warn Jo Huskey’s doctor of certain risks implicit in implanting the company's TVT-O polypropylene mesh product, and even stronger evidence that there were defects in the product's design.

“I decline to disturb the jury’s verdict in this case because, as explained below, a reasonable jury could find in favor of the plaintiffs on each of their claims,” Judge Goodwin said. “The evidence on the defective design claim is particularly strong and is capable of upholding the verdict on its own.”

Huskey sued Ethicon in 2012, claiming the polypropylene mesh in her TVT-O sling eroded, causing her severe, ongoing pain as the mesh could not be entirely removed through surgery. Her husband, Allen, also sued for loss of consortium.

The suit was the first bellwether case to go to trial in the massive multidistrict litigation against Ethicon over its mesh implants. The trial concluded on Sept. 5, with the jury deliberating for about three hours before returning its compensatory damages verdict.

In its renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, which the judge said he had deferred ruling on during the trial, Ethicon argued against the failure to warn claim, saying Huskey's doctor testified she would use the TVT-O again.

But the judge shot that argument down, pointing to the doctor's testimony that she would not have implanted the device in Huskey had she known it carried a higher risk of causing pain in physically active women.

The judge also ruled that Huskey had presented “significant evidence” of the risks of the device, such that a reasonable jury could find that the risks outweighed the device's benefits, a major pillar of the design defect claim.

Ethicon argued that the design defect claims were barred by a product liability doctrine known as “comment k,” which holds some products, such as vaccines, are unavoidably unsafe though not unreasonably dangerous given the harm they are meant to abate. The company also argued that the jury should have been instructed to use the criteria in its consideration.

Pointing to his earlier consideration of the doctrine in another mesh case, the judge said thatcomment K is redundant under Illinois law, which was applied in the case because Huskey is an Illinois resident. Like West Virginia, the state has adopted a risk-utility standard for weighing whether a product was defective. That standard was incorporated into the jury instructions, the judge said.

Knives, gasoline and even fondue pots carry some level of risk, the judge said. These products can be found defective by balancing their intended utility against the inherent risks of using them, and medical products are no different, the judge said.

“The TVT-O is not unique simply because it is a prescription medical device,” Judge Goodwin held. “Rather, the medical benefits and side effects are factors for the jury to consider in weighing the product’s risks against its utility”

Judge Goodwin was not swayed by Ethicon's argument that it should get a new trial because the weight of the evidence was in its favor and the court had undermined the company's success by allowing prejudicial evidence. Ethicon had not shown there were “exceptional circumstances” or “grievous error” that warranted overruling the jury, the judge said.

Edward Wallace of Wexler Wallace LLP, who represents the Huskeys, told Law360 plaintiffs counsel are “very happy” for the couple and hope the ruling drives home the importance of the verdict.

“The bellwether process is designed to give the parties an understanding of the value of their claims. That should mean something to Ethicon,” Wallace said.

Matthew Johnson, director of communications at Ethicon, said the company now plans to appeal the judgement.

“The evidence showed the TVT-O midurethral sling was properly designed and Ethicon acted appropriately and responsibly in the research, development and marketing of the product,” Johnson said. “We empathize with all women suffering from stress urinary incontinence, which can be a serious and debilitating condition, and we are always concerned when a patient experiences adverse medical events.”

Huskey is represented by Edward A. Wallace and Mark R. Miller of Wexler Wallace LLP, Fidelma L. Fitzpatrick of Motley Rice LLC, and Thomas P. Cartmell and Jeffrey M. Kuntz ofWagstaff & Cartmell LLP.

Ethicon and J&J are represented by Christy D. Jones of Butler Snow O'Mara Stevens & Cannada PLLC and David B. Thomas of Thomas Combs & Spann PLLC.

The case is Huskey et al. v. Ethicon Inc. et al., case number 2:12-cv-05201, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

China Court Allows NGO's Oil-Spill Lawsuit Amid Pollution Fight

China Court Allows NGO's Oil-Spill Lawsuit Amid Pollution Fight

A Chinese court allowed a lawsuit by a domestic non-governmental organization against Cnooc Ltd. and ConocoPhillips over the Bohai Bay oil spill in 2011, in what may be one of the first tests for the government's new environmental-protection laws.

China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation are seeking restoration of the bay's ecology after it was damaged by an oil leak from the Penglai 19-3 field, the Qingdao maritime court in eastern China said on its official microblog Sunday. The court accepted the case on July 21.

Leaders in China have pledged to combat pollution, a byproduct of its rapid economic growth and a leading cause of social unrest. In January, the nation, the world's biggest carbon emitter, reduced court charges for NGOs that file public-interest litigations in the biggest change to environmental-protection laws in 25 years.

"This can't be done without support from the government," said Ge Feng, director of the law and policy department of Beijing-based Friends of Nature. Government support is critical as it helps environmental authorities collect evidence and resist political pressure from local governments, she said.

Cnooc, which owns 51 percent of Penglai, was ordered to shut the field in September 2011 after at least 3,200 barrels of oil and fluids leaked into Bohai Bay in northern China. Production resumed in February 2013.

China National Offshore Oil Corp., Cnooc's parent company, and ConocoPhillips, the field's operator, agreed in 2012 to pay 2.28 billion yuan ($367 million) to resolve claims and pay for environmental cleanup. ConocoPhillips, responsible for the leak, paid 1.09 billion yuan of that as well as 113 million yuan to "support environmental initiatives," the Houston-based company said.

ConocoPhillips's communications office in Beijing didn't immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment, while Cnooc's Beijing-based spokeswoman didn't answer two calls to her office seeking comment.

"The lawsuit, regardless of results, will encourage more NGOs to follow suit and will target state-owned enterprises and big international companies for environment-related lawsuits in China," said Shi Yan, an analyst at UOB-Kay Hian Ltd. in Shanghai.

What New Orleans Post Katrina Shows About Urban Class and Race

What New Orleans Post Katrina Shows About Urban Class and Race 
by Drew Altman //Kaiser Family Foundation

Blacks and whites in New Orleans have very different views of the opportunities available to young people and whether the city is a good place for children to grow up, and the racial divide in how residents view these basic measures is widening. These and other findings of a comprehensive study of New Orleans a decade after Hurricane Katrina highlight the progress that can be made in urban America and the issues underlying our debates about race.

Last week the Kaiser Family Foundation released its fourth comprehensive survey of New Orleans residents since Katrina hit and the levees failed 10 years ago. This fourth survey was conducted in partnership with NPR, which has been reporting the results. Kaiser also conducted a survey of evacuees in the Houston shelters with the Washington Post in 2005.

There is a remarkable sense of progress in New Orleans, with a majority of residents saying the city has mostly recovered from Katrina. Seventy-three percent of residents say the city is moving in the right direction and 78% are optimistic about its future. When asked about a broad range of challenges to recovery, residents gave New Orleans the highest marks for repairing the levees, attracting new businesses, and making health and transportation services more available. Fifty-nine percent of New Orleans residents said a lot or some progress has been made improving schools, while 38% said not too much or no progress has been made. Crime was the issue for which residents say there has been the least improvement, with 64% saying not too much or no progress has been made. Mistrust of the police by African American residents–a national issue after racial incidents in Ferguson, Mo.;Baltimore; and other places–emerged as a raw nerve in the survey.

Can Tort Damages Discriminate? – Anthony Sebok New Private Law

» Can Tort Damages Discriminate? – Anthony Sebok New Private Law

On July 30, 2015, federal district court Judge Jack Weinstein refused to allow a jury to take the race of a plaintiff into account when calculating future earnings loss.  The case,G.M.M. v. Kimpson (discussed here:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/30/nyregion/award-in-lead-paint-lawsuit-cant-be-tied-to-ethnicity-judge-rules.html), was a lead paint poisoning case and the plaintiff was a four year-old boy.  The defense put on the stand a forensic economist intended to base his testimony, on part, statistical assumptions about the academic achievement and earnings potential of Hispanics, as a group.  Judge Weinstein flatly refused to allow any testimony based on ethnic group characteristics.

Judge Weinstein’s followed precedent that he established inMcMillan v. City of New York (2008), where he refused to allow “‘racially’ based statistics and other compilations . . . to find a shorter life expectancy for a person characterized as an ‘African-American,’ than for one in the general American population.   Then, as in the most recent case, Judge Weinstein based his argument in a mixture of private law and constitutional law arguments.

I want to consider only the private law arguments.  Recent scholarship, especially by Martha Chamallas and Jennifer Wriggins, has exposed the patterns of race and gender inequality in tort damages in American law over the past two centuries. Some states, through legislation, have mandated that damages be calculated with blended race or gender tables, and while the grounds for these tort reforms may overlap with the arguments a common law judge applying tort principles might adopt, they might not.  By the same token, norms expressed by the Due Process Clause and/or the Equal Protection Clause may overlap with the sorts of reasons that common law judges might find in tort law, but again they may not.  Where public law or constitutional reasons diverge from private law reasons, a question arises as to whether public law or constitutional reasons should trump private law reasons.  I want to focus instead exclusively on private law reasons, leaving aside as much as possible constitutional considerations.

Clinton To Black Lives Matter: 'You're Not Going To Change Every Heart' (VIDEO)

Clinton To Black Lives Matter: 'You're Not Going To Change Every Heart' (VIDEO)

by Caitlin Cruz

A video last night showed Hillary Clinton meeting privately with Black Lives Matter representatives from Massachusetts last week, and telling activists that change would come through changing the system, not changing hearts.

The videos were released by GOOD Magazine after activists Daunasia Yancey and Julius Jones appeared on MSNBC on Monday night.

The videos were filmed during a closed-door meeting following a campaign stop in New Hampshire last week, New York magazine reported early Tuesday.

At first, Clinton gave a fairly canned response, citing her work with the Children's Defense Fund. She seemed to chastise the activists' questions and dodged the question about her and former President Bill Clinton's role in the rise of mass incarceration.

"You’re going to have to come together as a movement and say, ‘Here's what we want done about it,'" Clinton said to the activists in the video. "You can get lip service from as many white people as you can pack into Yankee Stadium and a million more like it."

But when an activist called her response "victim blaming," Clinton had an incredibly candid response:

Look, I don't believe you change hearts. I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate. You're not gonna change every heart. You're not. But at the end of the day we can do a whole lot to change some hearts and change some systems and create more opportunities for people who deserve to have them to live up to their own God-given potential ... You can keep the movement going, which you have started, and through it you may actually change some hearts. But if that's all that happens, we'll be back here in 10 years having the same conversation.

Watch the videos HERE