You may have heard over the past few weeks that rumors have been circulating about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s health, namely that she has a serious health issues that she is lying to the American public about.

For most of us, save for the most avid supporters of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, the rumors were just that — mere rumors. Regardless of what the truth was, Trump would use the rumors as part of his rhetoric and the Clinton campaign would continue to categorically deny it.

The whole thing was getting ridiculous, Clinton even going so far as to appear on “Jimmy Kimmel Live” and open a jar of pickles to prove she was healthy and strong –you can’t make this stuff up.

But all of this changed over the weekend. A video of Clinton collapsing on Sept. 11 surfaced. Many of the media outlets that had previously dismissed the health rumors as pointless, even saying they had “an element of sexism to it” as CNN political analyst Kirsten Powers did, now find themselves having to change their positions on it.

The video of Clinton collapsing is certainly a bit shocking, but it raises many questions when coupled with video of her roughly four-minute coughing fit during a speech she gave on Labor Day in Ohio.

Not to mention, in 2013, she had suffered a blood clot in a vein on her head, which was discovered in a brain scan during a follow up to a concussion she suffered from collapsing two weeks before the clot.

Obviously, this has hurt Clinton severely in the polls, and largely eliminated the lead she was holding after the Democratic National Convention.

However, health isn’t necessarily the important part. Clinton is 68, only about 10 years below the national life expectancy here in the U.S. Yet Clinton is actually one of the younger candidates during this election.

Her top primary race competitor, Bernie Sanders, is 75 and Trump is 70. Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein is slightly younger, being 66, and Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson is the youngest, at a “youthful” 63.

This is quite the trend; Mitt Romney was 65 when he ran for the Republican Party’s presidential candidacy in 2012, and John McCain was 72 when he ran in 2008. President Barack Obama is actually the odd ball in the group, as he was only 47 when he won in 2008, succeeding George W. Bush, who was left office at 62.

The really interesting question is this: why, when the minimum age requirement for president is only 35, do we have candidates roughly double that age? It makes sense why the 35 minimum exists — I think most of us could agree one of the freshmen here on campus may be a tad inexperienced to be given control of hundreds of thermonuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles — but why are virtually all the candidates so old and often so frail?

Though an age maximum may not be necessary, would a more thorough investigation into the health of the candidates be so unreasonable? All that Trump or Clinton have produced are simple doctor’s notes that state they’re “healthy for the presidency” in a more verbose and propagandized fashion.

I think it’s time for a little more transparency from our presidential candidates.

Stephen D’Abreau is a columnist, contact him at [email protected].