We have those parameters today.
Don't get me wrong. I recognize that the reality is that we need longitudinal studies to determine the validity of any of the research we do. Oftentimes, the problem we have today is that people don't understand we need these longitudinal studies. It's like when we looked at issues such as polio and the reality of the value of the polio vaccination. It took 10 years before we actually knew how valuable that was.
The reality, here, is that we're talking five years and making decisions on advertising. We're assuming that advertising is the only parameter impacting over these five years, when there are so many other variables that could be impacting that person. We're making an assumption—this legislation is making an assumption—that it's the advertising causing the changes, when it could be so many things.
When we don't have that value.... By knowing the fact that we look at children with diabetes and we recognize that a 15-year-old is tested for diabetes, and then, we find out, through steps being taken, over those five years, that, perhaps, their diabetic issue has gone down.... They're not necessarily taking the metformin they need to take, their diet has changed or their cholesterol level has changed—it's gone up or down. Those are parameters that I think, if you don't have those values in that time frame.... Yes, five years is a short term and you need the long term, but it is a step for people to recognize, “Here we are. We can see the trends that are happening.”
Would you not agree we need those trends and should be pointing them out?