The Implant Deception: A Critical Analysis of Nexplanon and Implanon
An Essay
Introduction: The Promise vs. Reality
This essay was inspired by Candace Owens’ groundbreaking investigation in Episode 28 of “A Shot in the Dark,” where she exposed the dark history of birth control and its eugenic origins. Her work uncovering Margaret Sanger’s letters and the systematic deception surrounding hormonal contraception provided the foundation for this deeper examination of implantable birth control devices.
A matchstick-sized rod slides beneath the skin of a teenager’s upper arm. The insertion takes 27.9 seconds on average, according to FDA documentation. For the next three years, this 4-centimeter piece of plastic will release synthetic hormones into her bloodstream, chemically altering her natural fertility, her brain chemistry, and potentially her future ability to have children. She’s told this is freedom. She’s told this is empowerment. She’s rarely told that the manufacturers themselves admit they haven’t studied the long-term effects on adolescent development, conducting no clinical studies in women under 18 despite routine use in teenagers.
The numbers tell a story the marketing brochures won’t. In clinical trials for Nexplanon, 11.1% of women stopped using the implant specifically because of changes in their bleeding pattern—bleeding irregularities being the single most common reason for discontinuation. The FDA’s own documentation reveals that women on these implants face mood swings, weight gain, headaches, acne, and depressed mood as common side effects. More disturbing still are the complications buried deeper in the prescribing information: implants that migrate through the body, some ending up in pulmonary arteries, others simply vanishing, unlocatable even by MRI or ultrasound, continuing to release hormones with no way to stop them.
Nexplanon and its predecessor Implanon represent the apex of a decades-long project to normalize the daily chemical alteration of healthy young women. Unlike pills that can be stopped or IUDs that sit in one place, these subdermal implants create a unique form of pharmaceutical dependency—once inserted, many women find themselves trapped with side effects they cannot escape without medical intervention. Some discover their implants have migrated so deep that removal requires surgery in a hospital setting, with risks of nerve and blood vessel damage.
The FDA information sheets, meant to ensure informed consent, instead reveal an astonishing admission of ignorance. The manufacturers explicitly state they have not studied these devices in women over 65, have conducted no clinical studies in women under 18 despite approving use in teenagers, and cannot determine effectiveness in overweight women because—remarkably—they didn’t include enough overweight women in their trials. For a device marketed specifically to young women, often beginning in their early teens, this systematic lack of research into adolescent effects constitutes a population-wide experiment.
This essay examines what three decades of implantable contraception have revealed about the true cost of synthetic hormone exposure, drawing primarily from the FDA’s own documentation and admissions. The evidence shows these devices were never about women’s health or autonomy. They represent instead a convergence of population control ideology, corporate profit, and labor market manipulation, wrapped in the language of female empowerment.
The Documented Damages
The FDA’s prescribing information for Nexplanon reads like a catalog of female suffering presented as acceptable trade-offs for pregnancy prevention. The most common adverse reaction, affecting more than 10% of users, involves changes in menstrual bleeding patterns—a clinical euphemism for the complete disruption of women’s natural cycles. In studies, one out of ten women stopped using the implant because these changes made their lives unbearable. Women experience prolonged bleeding, frequent bleeding, or no bleeding at all. The manufacturers acknowledge these patterns are “unpredictable,” essentially admitting they cannot tell women what will happen to their bodies.
Beyond bleeding disruption, the documented side effects create a portrait of systemic damage. Weight gain affects enough women that clinical trials showed an average gain of 2.8 pounds after one year and 3.7 pounds after two years—seemingly modest until multiplied across years of use beginning in adolescence. Headaches plague 24.9% of users. Vaginitis afflicts 14.5%. Breast pain affects 12.8%. Acne emerges in one of every eight users. These percentages represent millions of women experiencing predictable, documented harm.
The FDA documentation reveals more serious complications with disturbing frequency. Implants have been found in blood vessels, including the pulmonary artery. When an implant migrates to the lung’s blood supply, surgical removal under general anesthesia becomes necessary—if the implant can be located at all. The prescribing information warns that implants inserted too deeply “may not be palpable and the localization and/or removal can be difficult or impossible.” Women are left with synthetic hormones coursing through their bodies with no way to stop them.
Removal complications constitute their own category of harm. The FDA admits that “special procedures, including surgery in the hospital, may be needed” for difficult removals. These procedures risk nerve damage, blood vessel injury, and significant scarring. In clinical trials, even routine removals took an average of 3.5 minutes—seven times longer than insertion—with some taking up to 60 minutes as healthcare providers dug through tissue searching for migrated implants. The documentation notes cases where implants simply cannot be found, leaving women with continued hormone exposure against their will.
The metabolic effects reveal how profoundly these implants alter basic bodily functions. The devices affect carbohydrate metabolism, requiring special monitoring for diabetic and prediabetic women. They alter lipid metabolism, potentially accelerating cardiovascular disease. They cause fluid retention, elevated blood pressure, and gallbladder disease. The liver, tasked with processing these synthetic hormones continuously for three years, shows evidence of strain—the FDA mandates removal if jaundice occurs, acknowledging the hepatotoxic potential.
Perhaps most revealing is what the FDA classifies as “common” adverse reactions occurring in 5-10% of users: depression, mood swings, nervousness, loss of libido, dizziness, nausea, and back pain. Each represents a fundamental alteration of women’s physical or psychological wellbeing, yet they’re presented as acceptable costs. The prescribing information treats these effects as minor inconveniences rather than what they are: evidence of a device that systematically undermines women’s health across multiple organ systems.
The documentation includes a special warning about ectopic pregnancies—when the device fails, pregnancies are more likely to implant outside the womb, creating life-threatening emergencies requiring surgical intervention. The manufacturers acknowledge this increased risk but provide no explanation for why synthetic hormone exposure creates this specific danger, revealing either ignorance of their product’s mechanisms or unwillingness to fully disclose known risks.
The Unstudied Territory
The FDA-approved prescribing information for Nexplanon and Implanon contains admissions of ignorance that would be shocking in any other context. These manufacturers acknowledge vast territories of unstudied effects while simultaneously marketing their products to millions of women worldwide. The phrase “have not been studied” appears throughout their documentation like a confession hidden in plain sight.
Most glaring is the admission that “no clinical studies have been conducted in women less than 18 years of age.” Despite this complete absence of adolescent safety data, these implants are routinely inserted in girls as young as thirteen. The teenage years represent critical periods of brain development, bone density accumulation, and reproductive system maturation. The manufacturers simply state that “safety and efficacy of NEXPLANON are expected to be the same for postpubertal adolescents”—expectation substituted for evidence, hope replacing research.
The effects on future fertility remain essentially unstudied. While the documentation notes that women can become pregnant “as early as the first week after removal,” no long-term studies examine whether three years of continuous synthetic hormone exposure during adolescence affects later reproductive capacity. Women who use these implants from their teens through their twenties—prime fertility years—serve as unwitting participants in an ongoing experiment about whether suppressing ovulation during critical developmental windows impacts future ability to conceive.
Overweight women face particular neglect. The prescribing information admits that “studies did not include many overweight women,” then acknowledges that the device “may become less effective in overweight women over time.” Given that approximately 40% of American women are classified as obese, this represents a stunning research failure. The manufacturers cannot determine effectiveness in nearly half the potential user population, yet continue marketing to all women regardless of weight.
Drug interactions remain largely unexamined. The documentation lists multiple medications that may decrease effectiveness or increase side effects, but admits these interactions are based on theoretical concerns rather than systematic study. Women taking antifungals, antibiotics, anticonvulsants, or herbal supplements enter uncharted territory. The prescribing information essentially tells healthcare providers to guess at appropriate management, acknowledging that “the clinical significance of these interactions is unknown.”
The impact on bone density during adolescence—when young women should be building bone mass to last a lifetime—receives no meaningful examination. The documentation mentions monitoring women with conditions affecting bone metabolism but provides no data on whether synthetic hormone exposure during critical growth periods affects peak bone mass acquisition. This omission becomes more troubling given that hormonal contraceptives are known to affect bone density, yet the manufacturers haven’t studied this effect in the population most likely to suffer long-term consequences.
Psychological effects beyond “depression” and “mood swings” remain unexplored. No studies examine impact on cognitive function, memory formation, or emotional development during adolescence. The documentation doesn’t address whether continuous synthetic hormone exposure affects stress response, anxiety disorders, or the development of emotional regulation skills. Women report “feeling like a different person” on these implants, yet no research investigates these profound psychological changes.
The manufacturers acknowledge they haven’t studied effects on women over 65—seemingly reasonable until recognizing this means no long-term follow-up exists on women who used these devices in their reproductive years. Do women who spent decades on synthetic hormones face different health outcomes in menopause and beyond? The question remains unasked, unstudied, unanswered.
The Psychological Toll
Buried within the clinical language of the FDA documentation lies evidence of profound psychological damage inflicted by these implants. The documentation reveals that 5.5% of women experienced depression, with 1.0% having it severe enough to discontinue the implant—and among US subjects, this figure rose to 2.4%. Emotional lability affected 6.5% of all users, but among US subjects, 6.1% experienced emotional lability severe enough to lead to discontinuation. The prescribing information warns healthcare providers to “carefully observe women with a history of depression,” tacitly acknowledging that these devices can trigger or worsen mental illness.
The documentation reveals that 1.0% of women in clinical trials had the implant removed specifically due to depression, while 2.3% removed it due to emotional lability—figures that climb to 2.4% and 6.1% respectively among US subjects. This figure represents only those whose psychological suffering became unbearable enough to undergo a removal procedure—it doesn’t capture women who endured depression for months or years, believing it was their own failing rather than a documented drug effect. The true psychological toll remains unmeasured and likely vastly exceeds reported rates.
The mechanism by which these implants affect mood receives no explanation in the prescribing information. Synthetic progestins cross the blood-brain barrier and bind to receptors throughout the brain, affecting neurotransmitter systems that regulate mood, motivation, and emotional processing. The continuous hormone release means women never experience the natural fluctuations that characterize healthy reproductive cycles. Instead, they exist in a state of perpetual chemical pregnancy, their brains bathed in synthetic hormones for years at a time.
Nervousness, anxiety, and “emotional lability” appear in the adverse reactions list, clinical terms that fail to capture the lived experience of women who report feeling disconnected from themselves, unable to access their full range of emotions, or experiencing sudden personality changes. The documentation treats these as minor side effects rather than fundamental alterations to women’s psychological wellbeing and sense of self.
Loss of libido, affecting a significant percentage of users, represents more than a sexual side effect—it signals disruption of the basic drives that connect humans to life and relationships. Women report not just decreased sexual interest but a broader dampening of passion, motivation, and joy. The implants create a chemical anhedonia, a flattening of emotional experience that the FDA documentation reduces to a single line in a list of adverse reactions.
The prescribing information includes a cryptic warning: healthcare providers should “evaluate patients with new or worsening headaches” for potential removal. Hidden in this medical language is the reality that these implants can trigger severe, persistent headaches that may signal more serious neurological effects. Women describe migraines that last for days, cluster headaches that destroy their ability to function, yet the documentation presents this as merely something to “monitor.”
Most disturbing is what remains unmentioned in the psychological effects section: the numerous reports from women who describe experiencing their first panic attacks while on these implants, developing anxiety disorders that persist even after removal, or feeling a complete loss of their sense of identity. The documentation acknowledges that women with depression should be “carefully observed” but provides no protocol for this observation, no screening tools, no guidance on when psychological effects warrant removal.
The adolescent brain, still developing until the mid-twenties, faces particular vulnerability to these psychological effects. Yet as previously noted, no studies examine how synthetic hormone exposure during critical periods of emotional and cognitive development affects long-term mental health. Teenage girls, already navigating the challenges of adolescence, receive these implants without any research into how artificial hormone suppression affects their psychological maturation.
The Feminist Betrayal
The widespread adoption of implantable contraceptives represents one of modern feminism’s greatest betrayals of women. As documented in “The Feminist War on Human Nature,” the movement that claimed to liberate women instead delivered them into pharmaceutical dependency, reframing chemical alteration of healthy bodies as empowerment. Feminists who should have questioned why women alone must bear the medical risks of contraception instead celebrated these devices as tools of liberation.
Feminism’s embrace of hormonal contraception aligned perfectly with population control objectives outlined in Henry Kissinger’s National Security Study Memorandum 200. The document explicitly identified “raising the status of women” as essential to reducing birth rates—not for women’s benefit, but for resource control. Feminist organizations, funded by the same foundations that promoted eugenics, pushed hormonal contraception as the key to female advancement, never questioning why women’s professional participation required chemical sterilization.
The feminist framework transformed fertility from a sign of health into a disease requiring medical intervention. Young women learn to view their natural cycles as impediments to success, their ability to create life as a professional liability. This ideological conditioning primes them to accept the risks of implantable contraceptives—after all, what’s a little depression, weight gain, and cancer risk compared to the catastrophe of unplanned pregnancy?
Contemporary feminists continue this betrayal by refusing to acknowledge the documented harms of these devices. When women report severe side effects, feminist discourse frames their suffering as anti-contraception propaganda rather than legitimate medical concerns. The movement that claims to center women’s voices systematically silences those who speak about contraceptive injury, maintaining the fiction that synthetic hormones equal liberation.
The intersection of feminism and pharmaceutical marketing created a perfect storm of exploitation. Feminists provided ideological cover while corporations profited from creating lifelong customers. Women who spend their teens and twenties on hormonal contraception often struggle with fertility in their thirties, creating demand for the same industry’s fertility treatments. Feminism convinced women this cycle of pharmaceutical dependency was freedom.
Most perniciously, feminism reframed the mass administration of synthetic hormones to healthy women as healthcare rather than what it clearly represents: a population-wide experiment in endocrine disruption. No other demographic receives powerful drugs to suppress normal biological function for decades at a time. Only women, under the banner of liberation, submit to this systematic medicalization of fertility.
The feminist betrayal extends to informed consent. While feminist scholars write extensively about women’s bodily autonomy, they remain silent about teenagers receiving implants without understanding the documented risks. The movement that fought for women’s right to make medical decisions ignores that young girls receive these devices based on incomplete information, with side effects minimized and long-term consequences unstudied.
Labor Market Technology
The FDA documentation for Nexplanon and Implanon never mentions employment, careers, or workforce participation. Yet these devices function primarily as labor market technologies, ensuring women remain available for economic exploitation without the interruption of pregnancy. The three-year duration of these implants aligns perfectly with employment contracts, educational programs, and career advancement timelines—this is not coincidence but design.
As outlined in “The Birth Control Deception,” the development and promotion of hormonal contraception was never about women’s health or autonomy but about creating a stable, exploitable workforce. Women who cannot become pregnant can be worked like men—long hours, inflexible schedules, no accommodation for biological reality. The implant ensures three years of guaranteed availability, making women ideal employees for corporations that view pregnancy as a productivity loss.
The targeting of these devices to teenagers and young women reveals their true purpose. By inserting implants during high school or early college, the system ensures women remain sterile during their prime fertility years, which conveniently coincide with early career development. By the time the third or fourth implant expires, women are in their thirties, established in careers that depend on their continued availability, with fertility windows closing.
The economic coercion underlying implant adoption remains carefully hidden. Young women are told they need contraception to pursue education and careers, but the inverse is never acknowledged: that our economic system is structured to punish fertility. Rather than creating workplaces that accommodate women’s biological reality, we chemically alter women to fit workplace demands. The implant becomes a requirement for economic participation, though it’s never explicitly stated as such.
The class dynamics of implantable contraception expose another layer of exploitation. Wealthier women can afford to take career breaks for pregnancy, to freeze eggs, to access fertility treatments when ready. Poor and working-class women receive long-acting contraceptives through public health programs, ensuring they remain available for low-wage labor without the complication of children. The same device marketed as choice to middle-class women becomes population control for the poor.
Government promotion of these implants through Medicaid and public health programs reveals state interest in women’s sterility. Programs that provide free implants to teenagers and low-income women frame this as expanding access to healthcare. In reality, it’s ensuring a stable supply of workers unencumbered by children, particularly in sectors that rely on female labor—retail, healthcare, service industries that would face disruption if their workers could become pregnant.
The removal barriers built into these devices—requiring medical appointments, potential surgery, insurance coverage—create additional economic control. A woman who wants the implant removed but lacks insurance, paid time off, or access to qualified providers remains chemically sterilized against her will. The same device marketed as reversible becomes functionally permanent for women without economic resources.
The Eugenics Thread
Candace Owens’ investigation into Margaret Sanger’s letters reveals the eugenic ideology underlying modern contraception. Sanger wrote explicitly about preventing “defectives” from breeding, about contraception as “weeding out the unfit,” about targeting black communities through trusted intermediaries who could “straighten out” any suspicion about intentions to “exterminate the Negro population.” These same strategies—targeting marginalized communities, using trusted authorities, denying population control intentions—continue with implantable contraceptives today.
The deeper history, as James Corbett documents in his essay on eugenics, reveals that this obsession with controlling human breeding has always been the province of elites seeking to justify their power. From Francis Galton coining the term “eugenics” in 1883 to the Rockefeller Foundation funding Nazi sterilization programs, the same wealthy families have consistently promoted the idea that they deserve to rule because of their supposedly superior genes. The Darwin-Wedgwood-Galton family tree reads like an incestuous tangle of cousin marriages and intellectual justifications for why the poor deserve their poverty.
The American eugenics movement, led by Charles Davenport and funded by the Carnegies and Rockefellers, resulted in over 60,000 forced sterilizations, upheld by the Supreme Court in Buck v. Bell with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes declaring “three generations of imbeciles are enough.” The Rockefeller Foundation didn’t stop at American borders—they provided $290,000 to German eugenics research between 1922 and 1926, directly funding the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry where Ernst Rüdin would architect the Third Reich’s sterilization laws. By 1939, Nazi doctors had forcibly sterilized 400,000 people using what American eugenicists proudly called “the American model sterilization law.”
After World War II exposed the horrors of applied eugenics, the movement didn’t disappear—it rebranded. As C.P. Blacker of the British Eugenics Society wrote in 1957, they would pursue “crypto-eugenics,” achieving eugenic goals “by less obvious means.” The American Eugenics Society became the Society for Biodemography and Social Biology. The British Eugenics Society transformed into the Galton Institute, then the Adelphi Genetics Forum. John D. Rockefeller III’s Population Council absorbed the American Eugenics Society into its New York offices, where population control replaced racial hygiene as the acceptable face of the same ideology.
The FDA documentation for Nexplanon never mentions the racial disparities in implant promotion, but the pattern is unmistakable. Public health programs aggressively promote these devices in communities of color, particularly to teenagers. School-based health centers in predominantly black and Hispanic neighborhoods offer implants to girls as young as thirteen, without parental knowledge in many states. The manufacturers’ admission that they haven’t studied effects in overweight women becomes more sinister considering higher obesity rates in these same communities—certain bodies aren’t worth studying, but remain worth medicating.
International distribution follows the same eugenic blueprint laid out in Kissinger’s NSSM 200. The organizations promoting implants in Africa, Asia, and Latin America trace their funding directly back to the same foundations that once openly promoted eugenics. Women in developing nations receive implants through programs that link contraception to food aid, educational access, or economic assistance—the “crypto-eugenics” Blacker advocated, achieving population control through “less obvious means.”
Modern eugenics operates through what Corbett calls “manufactured consent.” The irreversibility built into these devices—the removal barriers, the medical gatekeeping, the insurance requirements—serves the same purpose as forced sterilization laws once did. Women “choose” implants because they’ve been taught their fertility threatens their economic survival. The eugenic project continues, having learned to hide force behind the language of choice, to replace “racial hygiene” with “reproductive health,” to transform population control into “family planning.” The same families, the same foundations, the same goals—only the euphemisms have changed.
Conclusion: The Real Cost of Chemical Sterility
The FDA documentation for Nexplanon and Implanon tells two stories simultaneously. The first, written in marketing language, promises convenient, reversible, long-acting contraception. The second, hidden in adverse event data and clinical trial admissions, reveals a massive experiment in female endocrine disruption, conducted without adequate research, continuing despite documented harms, targeting the most vulnerable women with the least ability to refuse.
These matchstick-sized rods represent the convergence of multiple systems of exploitation: pharmaceutical companies creating lifelong customers, governments ensuring stable labor supplies, eugenicists continuing population control under medical cover, and feminists providing ideological justification for mass chemical alteration of women. Each system depends on women accepting that their natural fertility is a disease requiring medical management.
The documented damages—depression, blood clots, weight gain, migraines, lost libido—are not unfortunate side effects but predictable consequences of disrupting the endocrine system for years at a time. The unstudied territories—adolescent brain development, long-term fertility impact, psychological consequences—reveal deliberate ignorance, a refusal to ask questions whose answers might threaten profits.
Young women receiving these implants today join an uncontrolled experiment spanning decades. They trade their hormonal health for the promise of educational and economic opportunity, never told that the system requiring this trade is the true pathology. They accept depression and anxiety as the price of participation in an economy that refuses to accommodate biological reality.
The path forward requires recognizing these devices for what they are: tools of control masquerading as instruments of freedom. True reproductive autonomy means the right to fertility without economic punishment, the ability to refuse synthetic hormones without sacrificing opportunity. It means acknowledging that women’s natural cycles are not impediments to success but signs of health that no economic system should require them to suppress.
Until we confront the convergence of profit, control, and ideology driving implantable contraception, young women will continue sliding these rods beneath their skin, accepting documented harm and unstudied risk as the price of participation in modern life. The real cost of chemical sterility is not just the individual suffering hidden in FDA statistics but the collective acceptance that women’s bodies must be fundamentally altered to be valuable. This is the ultimate betrayal: convincing women that their liberation requires their medicalization, that their freedom depends on their sterility, that their worth increases when their fertility disappears.
References
Primary Sources - FDA Documentation
Nexplanon® (etonogestrel implant) Prescribing Information. N.V. Organon, Oss, The Netherlands, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc. Revised: 10/2018. FDA Reference ID: 4422253.
Implanon™ (etonogestrel implant) Prescribing Information. Organon USA Inc., Roseland, NJ. November 2008. FDA approved labeling.
Media and Documentary Sources
Owens, Candace. “A Shot in the Dark, Episode 28: Birth Control Implant Analysis.” 2025. Podcast transcript.
Books and Essays
Fiamengo, Janice. “The Feminist War on Human Nature: A Treatise.” Lies are Unbekoming, July 21, 2025.
Unbekoming. “The Birth Control Deception: What 60 Years of Lies Cost Women.” Lies are Unbekoming, July 27, 2025.
Corbett, James. “They Don’t Want Your Genes in the Pool.” In Reportage: Essays on the New World Order. 2025. Republished in Lies are Unbekoming, March 23, 2025.
Historical Documents Referenced
Kissinger, Henry. National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests. December 10, 1974. Declassified 1989.
Sanger, Margaret. Letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble. December 10, 1939. Margaret Sanger Papers, Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College.
Legal Cases
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927).
Additional Sources Cited in Essay
Black, Edwin. War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race. Washington, D.C.: Dialog Press, 2012.
Blacker, C.P. “The Eugenics Society’s Future.” Internal memorandum, British Eugenics Society, 1957.
Osborn, Frederick. “Eugenics After World War II.” Eugenics Quarterly, 1968.
Note: This essay draws primarily from official FDA prescribing information and documented historical sources. All statistics regarding side effects, discontinuation rates, and unstudied populations come directly from manufacturer-provided FDA documentation. Historical claims about eugenics programs are sourced from published works and declassified government documents.
I appreciate you being here.
If you’ve found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While 99% of everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.
Please make full use of the Free Libraries.
Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.
Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.
Stories
I’m always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don’t hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com
Baseline Human Health
Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.
It’s bewildering to consider how mass populations are interfered with by a never-ending stream of pHarma products.
And facilitated by the doctors, the handmaidens of industry.
You’re producing prodigious output Unbekoming…
Have you published an article yet on what’s happening in clinic appointments now, i.e. people being upsold on other interventions during medical appointments, e.g. people’s age making them eligible for this, that or the other medication, vaccination or test?
How much is all this so-called ‘preventative health’ costing?!
One clause in a sentence leaps out: "systematic lack of research"...For all the money poured into the coffers of the researchers and medics, what appears to be lacking is the discipline of quality-control...