Denver Becomes First City In U.S. To Decriminalize Psychedelic Mushrooms

Denver has approved the grassroots ordinance 301 to decriminalize psilocybin mushrooms (aka psychedelic mushrooms).

It looked like the initiative would be a failed effort but it narrowly passed. It with 50.56% voting in favor of decriminalization.

Psilocybin mushrooms won’t be legal in Denver, but once the ordinance goes into effect the city will not be criminally prosecuting or arresting adults for possession, as long as they are 21 or more years old. The ballot also allows for growing the mushrooms for personal use. The initiative is expected to take effect sometime next year.

Recommended: How To Heal Your Gut 

What happened in Denver may be the start of a much larger movement, which seeks safe access to psilocybin for its purported medicinal value. Supporters point to research, suggesting psilocybin is not addictive and causes few ER visits compared to other illegal drugs. Ongoing medical research shows it could be a groundbreaking medicine for treatment-resistant depression and to help curb nicotine addiction.

NPR

Republican congressman Jeff Shipley, in Iowa, has proposed to legalize the medicinal use of psilocybin mushrooms, MDMA, and ibogaine. Oregon and California also have campaigns legalize psilocybin mushrooms for the 2020 elections.

Recommended: Holistic Guide to Healing the Endocrine System and Balancing Our Hormones

Psilocybin mushrooms classified under federal law as a Schedule 1 drug. NPR reports that DEA officials in Denver say they will still prosecute for psilocybin possession and trafficking.




New York Declares Measles Emergency – Now Requiring Vaccinations or $1,000 Fine

In parts of Brooklyn’s Williamsburg section, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio declared a public health emergency Tuesday following a measles outbreak. The outbreak is reportedly affecting the Orthodox Jewish community. The media and public officials say the outbreak is due to a growing movement against vaccinations.

Last week, the city ordered religious schools and day care programs in the affected communities to exclude unvaccinated students or risk being shut down.

The City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene is expected to check vaccination records of people who may have been in contact with infected patients. The mayor said the city would issue violations with potential fines of $1,000 for those who don’t get vaccinated.

The order applies to anyone who is working, living, or going to school in the ZIP codes of the neighborhood of the outbreak. The order requires unvaccinated people of the areas to get the vaccine. The order also applies to children more than six months old.

The city can’t legally force anyone to get vaccinated but officials say they can impose the $1,000 fine for those who choose not to vaccinate.

If people will simply cooperate quickly, nobody will have to pay a fine.”

Mayor Bill de Blasio

Dr. Oxiris Barbot is the commissioner of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. She blames the outbreak on “a small group of anti-vaxxers” in the targeted neighborhoods. The commissioner is empowered by law to issue such orders in cases when they might be necessary to protect against a serious public health threat.

They have been spreading dangerous misinformation based on fake science. We stand with the majority of people in this community who have worked hard to protect their children and those at risk.”

Health Commissioner Oxiris Barbot

This is the epicenter of a measles outbreak that is very, very troubling and must be dealt with immediately. The measles vaccine works. It is safe, it is effective, it is time-tested.”

Mayor Bill de Blasio

News reports say that the measles virus was introduced into the community by a person who contracted the disease in Israel, which is said to also be dealing with a measles outbreak.

There are two measles-containing vaccines used in the United States. We have the MMRII by Merek which is a live virus combination measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. We also have the ProQuad option also produced and distributed by Merck, which is a live virus combination measles-mumps-rubella-varicella (MMR-V) vaccine. Both products are produced and distributed by Merck.

Merek says both vaccines are safe to be given to children of age one year or older, but the New York order includes children six months or older to be vaccinated.

The World Health Organization says more than 110,000 people, mostly children, died of measles worldwide in 2017. The last recorded death in the United States from measles was in 2015.

We cannot find vaccine damage statistics at this time. Septics say they are grossly underreported, but the damage and death statistics are not made public. According to the CDC, from 2006 to 2017 more than 3.4 billion doses of vaccines were distributed in the U.S.  Of the petitions filed within 2006 to 2017, 6,253 petitions were adjudicated by the vaccine Courts, with 4,291 compensated.

Related:

From the National Vaccine Information Center: Can Measles Vaccine Cause Injury & Death?

Serious complications reported by Merck in the ProQuad(MMR-V) product insert during vaccine post-marketing surveillance include6:

  • measles;
  • atypical measles;
  • vaccine strain varicella;
  • varicella-like rash;
  • herpes zoster;
  • herpes simplex;
  • pneumonia and respiratory infection;
  • pneumonitis;
  • bronchitis;
  • epididymitis;
  • cellulitis;
  • skin infection;
  • subacute sclerosing panencephalitis;
  • aseptic meningitis;
  • thrombocytopenia;
  • aplastic anemia (anemia due to the bone marrow’s inability to produce platelets, red and white blood cells);
  • lymphadenitis (inflammation of the lymph nodes);
  • anaphylaxis including related symptoms of peripheral, angioneurotic and facial edema;
  • agitation;
  • ocular palsies;
  • necrotizing retinitis (inflammation of the eye);
  • nerve deafness;
  • optic and retrobulbar neuritis (inflammation of the optic nerve);
  • Bell’s palsy (sudden but temporary weakness of one half of the face);
  • cerebrovascular accident (stroke);
  • acute disseminated encephalomyelitis;
  • measles inclusion body encephalitis;
  • transverse myelitis;
  • encephalopathy;
  • Guillain-Barré syndrome;
  • syncope (fainting);
  • tremor;
  • dizziness;
  • paraesthesia;
  • febrile seizure;
  • afebrile seizures or convulsions;
  • polyneuropathy (dysfunction of numerous peripheral nerves of the body);
  • Stevens-Johnson syndrome;
  • Henoch-Schönlein purpura;
  • acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy;
  • erythema multiforme;
  • panniculitis;
  • arthritis;
  • death

Serious complications reported by Merck in the MMRII product insert during vaccine post-marketing surveillance include9:

  • brain inflammation (encephalitis) and encephalopathy (chronic brain dysfunction);
  • panniculitis (inflammation of the fat layer under the skin);
  • atypical measles;
  • syncope (sudden loss of consciousness, fainting);
  • vasculitis (inflammation of the blood vessels);
  • pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas);
  • diabetes mellitus;
  • thrombocytopenia  purpura (blood disorder);
  • Henoch-Schönlein purpura (inflammation and bleeding in the small blood vessels);
  • acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy (rare vasculitis of the skin’s small vessels occurring in infants);
  • leukocytosis (high white blood cell count);
  • anaphylaxis (shock);
  • bronchial spasms;
  • pneumonia;
  • pneumonitis(inflammation of the lung tissues);
  • arthritis and arthralgia (joint pain);
  • myalgia (muscle pain);
  • polyneuritis (inflammation of several nerves simultaneously);
  • measles inclusion body encephalitis (a disease affecting the brain of immunocompromised persons);
  • subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (a fatal progressive brain disorder caused by exposure to the measles virus);
  • Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) (a disease where the body’s immune system attacks the nerves);
  • acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) (brief widespread inflammation of the nerve’s protective covering);
  • transverse myelitis (inflammation of the spinal cord);
  • aseptic meningitis;
  • erythema multiforme (skin disorder from an allergic reaction or infection);
  • urticarial rash (hives, itching from an allergic reaction);
  • measles-like rash;
  • Stevens-Johnson syndrome (severe reaction causing the skin and mucous membranes to blister, die, and shed);
  • nerve deafness (hearing loss from damage to the inner ear);
  • otitis media (ear infection);
  • retinitis (inflammation of the retina of the eye);
  • optic neuritis (inflammation of the optic nerve);
  • conjunctivitis (pink eye);
  • ocular palsies (dysfunction of the ocular nerve);
  • epididymitis (inflammation of the epididymis);
  • paresthesia (burning or prickling of the skin);
  • death.



An Examination of Genome-Wide Association Studies Finds a European Bias

If you’re a person of European ancestry from the United States, United Kingdom, or Iceland, congratulations! A recent study review published in Communications Biology examined 3,369 genome-wide association studies (GWAS) conducted from 2005 to 2018 and found that more than 80 percent of the people studied had a European background, and 72 percent of discoveries were made from studies examining individuals from those three countries. Seventy-six percent of the world’s 7 billion people live in Asia and Africa, populations underexamined in genome studies. This lack of diversity limits the potential for discoveries and decreases the effectiveness of genetically targeted treatments. As the authors of this review conclude,

A central finding was that our results once again emphasized the potential for a cycle of disadvantage for underrepresented communities and despite continued efforts, infusing diversity into genomics remains challenging.”

So what are genome-wide association studies?

Where the Data Comes From

Why do genome studies lack diversity? This is due in large part to where the data is coming from. Many of these genome-wide studies rely on genetic material obtained from testing sites like 23andme. Those results are heavily skewed. Less than three years ago, researchers from Stanford estimated as many as 90 percent of the research into the genetics of disease was based on people of European descent. Services like this also explain why Iceland, a country with less than 350,000 people, figures prominently into genetic research. The Icelandic company, deCODE Genetics, has been cataloging genetic information for more than 20 years, and nearly a third of the population has had at least part of their genome sequenced.

Other Influences

Funding also plays a role in genome study results. Of the more than 3,000 studies examined in this review, 85 percent of the funding acknowledgments referenced grants and other agencies in the U.S. Another 14 percent are based in the United Kingdom. This means the rest of the world is responsible for funding one percent of available genome-wide studies. Both the U.S. and the U.K. are predominantly composed of people with European ancestry (61 and 87 percent, respectively). 

Another explanation for the overrepresentation of European ancestry in genome-wide studies is the people releasing them. Of the ten most connected and influential authors of genome studies, 9 are based in Europe. Three work for deCODE genetics in Iceland. Another three work for Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands, though that number would have been 4 prior to 2016. The only non-European author (based at Harvard University in the U.S.) also used to work at Erasmus. The work of these European men (and woman) is highly influential. Their articles and studies have been cumulatively cited over 200,000 times, and all of these scientists have strong European ties.

Echo Chambers

Genome-wide association studies are still a relatively new area of study (the first successful study was in 2002). These studies use a majority of data from those with European ancestry, receive funds from agencies in countries with a majority of European ancestry, and are authored by white, mostly European scientists. It creates an echo chamber. That can limit, and in some cases, even hinder discovery.

The Oxford researchers responsible for this study call for more diversity, both ethnically and geographically.

GWAS that utilize data from diverse populations will provide more accurately targeted therapeutic treatments to more of the world’s population, extend insights into the architecture of traits and uncover rare variants with significant effect sizes, which replicate across ancestries.”

Sources:



GMO Labeling Explained – What You Need to Know About These Confounding, Loophole-Laden Rules

It has been two years since the U.S. Department of Agriculture passed the regulations mandating the labeling of genetically mandated ingredients. The finalized regulations that have recently been released leave much to be desired. Just Label It, a prominent organization devoted to mandatory GMO labeling, released a statement expressing their disappointment.

Specifically, we are deeply disappointed that the final rule does not clearly require the disclosure of all genetically engineered ingredients, including highly refined sugars and oils, and new GMO techniques like CRISPR and RNAi. The rule fails to require that foods be disclosed using terms that consumers understand like ‘genetically engineered’ or ‘GMO.’ And it leaves consumers in the dark if they live in rural places with poor cell service or don’t have smart phones.”

Related: Gluten Intolerance, Wheat Allergies, and Celiac Disease – It’s More Complicated Than You Think

Labeling Options

Companies have until 2022 to implement these regulations. There are a few GMO labeling options.

Companies can use clear wording to state the presence of genetically modified ingredients on their packaging. Instead of “G.M.O.’’ and “genetically engineered,” they can say “bioengineered” or “BE.”

Companies can use an electronic digital link like a QR code that consumers can read with a cell phone app that will inform the consumer of the ingredients. Such a link must be accompanied by the statement “Scan here for more food information,” or equivalent language.

The amended Act requires that the use of an electronic or digital link to disclose BE food must be accompanied by the statement, ‘Scan here for more food information’ or equivalent language’ – deemed too hard for shoppers. Regulated entities that choose this option are required to include a statement on the package that instructs consumers on how to receive a text message.”

Companies can use a friendly-looking symbol (and the symbol can also be black and white):

Additionally, a phone number or a web address to get more information are options for smaller manufacturers or for small packages.

There is also the “text message” option:

The NPRM proposed text message as an additional disclosure option if the Secretary were to determine that shoppers would not have sufficient access to digital or electronic disclosure. Food manufacturers and retailers that commented on this option were generally supportive of this option. Thus, AMS is adopting the text message option in § 66.108. Regulated entities that choose this option are required to include a statement on the package that instructs consumers on how to receive a text message.

Related: How to Avoid GMOs in 2018 – And Everything Else You Should Know About Genetic Engineering

There are companies like Campbell’s, Mars, Danone, Kellogg’s, Coca-Cola, and Unilever that will be labeling GMOs, regardless of the lax new regulations. Many international corporations, especially those that do business in Europe, already provide those labels. But there are many corporations that haven’t made that same commitment.

Confusing Regulations With Loopholes

The new labeling system seems designed to frustrate all but the most bureaucratic-loving individuals. Companies have to sort through a myriad of expensive and time-consuming labeling conditions. Consumers aren’t offered a simple way to identify GMO ingredients. Some ingredients won’t even be labeled, including high fructose corn syrup, refined sugar beets, certain oils (like canola), and other refined products.

According to the labeling guidelines:

Thus, based on the available scientific evidence, refined beet and cane sugar, high fructose corn syrup, degummed refined vegetable oils, and various other refined ingredients are unlikely to require BE food disclosure because the conditions of processing serve effectively to degrade or eliminate the DNA that was initially present in the raw agricultural commodity.”

While that may be true from a scientific standpoint, it only makes the new regulations problematic in the eyes of consumers. When corn is an ingredient it’s almost always a GMO, and informed shoppers will know that. How much faith will they have in non-organic products containing corn that are not marked BE? This also ignores the possibility of customers choosing non-GMO products for environmental reasons. The refined product may not have any engineered DNA left in the final product but the corn (or beets) will still have been grown with the increased pesticides and other environmentally harmful practices associated with genetically modified crops.

And there are other exclusions.

Incidental additives will not require labeling.

Such an item will only trigger disclosure when it is used as an ingredient that is included on the ingredient list, not when used as an incidental additive.”

To-Go foods are exempt.

Salads, soups, and other ready-to-eat items prepared by grocery stores are exempt from the disclosure requirements.”

Meat and dairy from animals fed GMOs are exempt.

The amended Act prohibits a food derived from an animal from being considered a bioengineered food solely because the animal consumed feed produced from, containing, or consisting of a bioengineered substance.”

Companies will be allowed to use the same equipment on GMO and non-GMO crops.

Gene-edited foods like CRISPR will be exempt.

Businesses with annual sales are less than $2.5m are also exempt.

Related: How To Heal Your Gut

Foods like cheese or yogurt that are made with bioengineered yeasts or rennet are not exempt.

Nothing New

Sixty-four countries worldwide have managed to implement GMO labeling. But the new GMO labeling for the U.S. does the opposite of what it should do. These regulations are not convenient or clear. If anything they’ll probably make grocery shopping even harder for many people.

Sources:



Wildfires, Air Pollution, and the Fire Retardant’s Toll On the Ecosystem

The wildfires in California have dominated the headlines lately. The devastation has been serious, but it’s easy to forget about the what this means for the health of those both caught in the fires and trying to live their lives normally in spite of the high levels of air pollution they’re currently dealing with. Those in California are being exposed to hazardous air conditions, and air pollution can cause serious health issues. Additionally, a new study from the University of Texas has found that poor air quality has reduced global life expectancy by 2 years. The severity of these wildfires is another sign of how close we are to this kind of climate event becoming our new normal, leaving us fighting environmental and medical battles on multiple fronts.

Quality of Life

Life won’t return to normal for CA residents for a while. During the peak of the smoke and air pollution from the fires, the air quality index (AQI) in areas of CA was registering as high as a 313. For some context, good quality registers from 0 to 50. Numbers are down from their peak, but parts of Northern CA are still dealing with air unhealthy for sensitive groups. Vulnerable populations include children, the elderly, those with heart or lung conditions, and pregnant women.

Air pollution can have a serious impact on health. A recent study from the University of Texas examined air pollution data from the Global Burden of Disease Study in an effort to understand the consequences of atmospheric particulates. Joshua Apte is an assistant professor in the Cockrell School’s Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering and in the Dell Medical School’s Department of Population Health.

The fact that fine particle air pollution is a major global killer is already well known…And we all care about how long we live. Here, we were able to systematically identify how air pollution also substantially shortens lives around the world. What we found is that air pollution has a very large effect on survival – on average about a year globally.”

The Great Outdoors

2018 is the most destructive wildfire season recorded in California, with over 1.6 million acres burned and 2.9 million dollars in damage costs. The previous holder of that title was 2017, and that isn’t a new trend. All of the conditions needed for an intense fire season are there: dry conditions due to little rain, the hottest summer on record, warm winds that regularly exceed 50 miles an hour, and plenty of fuel for the fire to consume. Those conditions are also creating an increasingly longer wildfire season. According to Scott McLean, deputy chief of communications for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, that trend will likely continue.

It’s progressively been getting longer. We don’t even call it a season anymore, to be frank with you. We’re seeing wildfires every week of each year right now…We’ve basically taken the season aspect out of the equation.”

The Red Stuff

There are also environmental concerns with the way we fight forest fires, namely Phos-chek, the weapon of choice for modern firefighters. Previously owned by Monsanto (the product is now produced by Israel Chemicals Ltd.), Phos-chek is frequently seen streaming out of planes like a crimson waterfall. Although the formula is kept secret, the fire retardant is composed primarily of fertilizers like ammonium phosphate combined with clay or guar thickeners designed to keep the solution from dispersing in the air. Phos-chek use in the state of CA has multiplied rapidly over the last few years, going from 9 million gallons sprayed in 2014 to 19 million gallons used in 2016. That trend promises to continue, as more than a million gallons of the chemical were used on the Mendocino Complex fire this year.

There wasn’t a serious look at the environmental impact of Phos-chek until a Montana judge ordered a thorough examination of the product in 2014. Previous attempts by the U.S. Forest Service to determine the environmental impact of the fire retardant have proclaimed it safe, despite marine plant and animal deaths recorded after the use of the chemical. In 2002, fire retardant chemicals dropped in the Fall River in Oregon killed 22,000 fish in one day. Now, reports maintain that Phos-chek does no harm if it’s used correctly and well away from bodies of water, which are highly susceptible to phosphate pollution.

The Feedback Loop

Proponents of Phos-chek and other phosphate-based fire retardants mention that the chemicals perform a service beyond fire containment – fertilization. But how does that actually work? Phosphorus is an essential nutrient for plant growth, but too much of it is detrimental to plant health. Excess phosphorus, which remains in the soil for 3 to 5 years, causes plants to develop yellowing leaves due to an inability to properly absorb nutrients like iron, manganese, and zinc. It also harms root funghi, interfering with a plant’s ability to absorb water.

Firefighting organizations are dumping 19 million pounds of this phosphate-based fertilizers a year, and that’s also harming native plants. According to Andy Stahl, executive director of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics,

Phosphate fertilizer, e.g., Phos-Chek, can have adverse effects on plants adapted to nutritionally poor soil by increasing competition from invasive species better suited to growing in the newly-fertilized soil. For this reason, the U.S. Forest Service bars aerial fire retardant from being used in critical habitat of many threatened or endangered plants.”

In many ways, we keep telling the same story. We eliminate the natural systems that keep our bodies and environment healthy. We look for the most likely cause and often accept the first plausible explanation.  It’s not that simple and the longer we think it is, the likelihood of actually addressing climate change drastically decreases.

Sources:



Atrazine Found in Water Supply of 30 Million Americans

Glyphosate isn’t the only harmful herbicide in the water supply. An investigation from the Environmental Working Group (EWG) found that atrazine, a Syngenta product used on corn, sugarcane, and lawns, is in the tap water of over 30 million people in the U.S. 76 millions pounds of atrazine were sprayed in 2014, making it the second most commonly used herbicide (after glyphosate) in the United States. Several studies have identified the chemical as an endocrine disruptor, and it has also been linked to cancer and birth defects. The new EWG study is only a snapshot of how hard it is to avoid atrazine.

EWG’s Tap Water Database, which aggregates water testing data from utilities nationwide, shows that nearly 30 million Americans in 28 states have some level of atrazine in their tap water. Environmental Protection Agency data for 2017 show late-spring and early-summer spikes of atrazine in drinking water commonly are three to seven times higher than the federal legal limit, but these exceedances are not reported to people in the affected communities…”

Related: Foods Most Likely to Contain Glyphosate

Previous Litigation and Discovery

Syngenta is aware of the problems with atrazine and water contamination. In 2012, Syngenta was sued by 23 cities and towns in the Midwest. These municipalities alleged that Syngenta knew about but didn’t inform their communities about atrazine and its potential for groundwater contamination. Syngenta settled that class-action suit for 105 million dollars, enough to properly filter the atrazine from the towns water sources. The company did not admit any fault and maintains that atrazine is safe.

Related: Why Romaine Lettuce and Spinach Keep Trying To Kill Us, and What We Can Do About It

Even if that is the case, many areas where the herbicide is used (the most commonly treated crop is corn) are still drinking far more than the Environmental Protection Agency’s recommended maximum amount of 3.4 parts per billion of atrazine in surface water. Atrazine doesn’t break down readily in water. According to the chemical’s toxicological profile issued by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,

Atrazine tends to persist in surface and groundwater, with a moderate tendency to bind to sediments. Slow or no biodegradation occurs in surface water or groundwater environments, respectively…Depending on the availability of sunlight, oxygen, microorganisms, and plants, the half-life of atrazine in water tends to be longer than 6 months; in some cases, no degradation of atrazine has been observed in aquatic systems.”

There are some serious issues linked to atrazine and many questions surround its health and environmental implications.

Municipalities in states like Nebraska and Wisconsin shut down wells during peak atrazine season, typically in the spring. Multiple studies have linked it to disrupted growth, behavior, immune function, and gonadal development in fish and amphibians. A study from the University of Kentucky found a high likelihood of a connection between atrazine exposure and premature births. The Centers for Disease Control lists congestion of heart, lungs, and kidneys, low blood pressure, muscle spasms, weight loss, and damage to adrenal glands as potential side effects of atrazine exposure above the maximum contaminant level for short periods of time. Use of the herbicide was banned in the European Union in 2004.

Related: What’s the Best Water for Detoxifying and For Drinking?

Atrazine Needs to Be Examined

Atrazine, while effective at killing, weeds, has not been definitively proven to be safe for the environment or public health. Syngenta has thrown millions at the EPA and succeeded in having it declared otherwise. Yet the company was unable to prove the same thing to the European Union in 2004.

This news makes me sad for the farmers. To make a profit on the nutritionally-deficient crops they grow, they spray them in large quantities of harmful chemicals that then leach into their water supply. Make a living to live what kind of life?

Sources:



Research Indicates Abortion Depression is a Myth

A recent Danish study suggests that women who have had an abortion are no more likely to develop depression than women who don’t. The data on 396,397 women born in Denmark between 1980 and 1994 includes 30,834 women who had an abortion and 85,592 who gave birth.

Women who had an abortion were more likely to take antidepressants, but these women were already showing increased use of antidepressants before their pregnancy. In other words, women who had an abortion are not significantly more likely to go on antidepressants, but in this group of women, those who are on antidepressants were more likely to get an abortion.

Women who had an abortion were 54 percent more likely to take antidepressants in the year after the procedure than women who didn’t have abortions but were tracked for the same one-year period, the study found. But their increased use of antidepressants was already evident in the year before the abortions, when these women were 46 percent more likely to take antidepressants than their counterparts who didn’t have abortions.” – Reuters

Past research has also been unable to show a correlation between abortions and mental health problems, but abortion opponents have still been using depression and other mental disorders as a reason to avoid abortions.

“Our study shows that there was an association between abortion and antidepressant use – but because the risk of antidepressant use was the same in the year before and after the abortion and goes down as more time from the abortion passes, it cannot be that abortion is causing depression or antidepressant use.” -Julia Steinberg, lead researcher

Steinberg also said that other factors like mental illness and being at a social disadvantage are associated with both having an abortion and with suffering from depression. Check out the Reuters article, Abortion not tied to increased risk of depression for more information.

Related: Sugar Leads to Depression – World’s First Trial Proves Gut and Brain are Linked (Protocol Included)

Another study found that those who are denied abortions are more likely to suffer from mental health issues. Check out the video for more on that: