WHO Update: Zika virus

REUTERS / MA QIANG / SOUTHERN METROPOLIS DAILY

Male Aedes albopictus mosquitoes are seen in this picture. Zika virus is among the viruses spead by the species.

Key facts

• Zika virus disease is caused by a virus transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes.
• People with Zika virus disease usually have symptoms that can include mild fever, skin rashes, conjunctivitis, muscle and joint pain, malaise or headache. These symptoms normally last for 2-7 days.
• There is no specific treatment or vaccine currently available.
• The best form of prevention is protection against mosquito bites.
• The virus is known to circulate in Africa, the Americas, Asia and the Pacific.

Introduction

Zika virus is an emerging mosquito-borne virus that was first identified in Uganda in 1947 in rhesus monkeys through a monitoring network of sylvatic yellow fever. It was subsequently identified in humans in 1952 in Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania. Outbreaks of Zika virus disease have been recorded in Africa, the Americas, Asia and the Pacific.

• Genre: Flavivirus
• Vector: Aedes mosquitoes (which usually bite during the morning and late afternoon/evening hours)
• Reservoir: Unknown

Signs and Symptoms

The incubation period (the time from exposure to symptoms) of Zika virus disease is not clear, but is likely to be a few days. The symptoms are similar to other arbovirus infections such as dengue, and include fever, skin rashes, conjunctivitis, muscle and joint pain, malaise, and headache. These symptoms are usually mild and last for 2-7 days.

Potential complications of Zika virus disease

During large outbreaks in French Polynesia and Brazil in 2013 and 2015 respectively, national health authorities reported potential neurological and auto-immune complications of Zika virus disease. Recently in Brazil, local health authorities have observed an increase in Guillain-Barré syndrome which coincided with Zika virus infections in the general public, as well as an increase in babies born with microcephaly in northeast Brazil. Agencies investigating the Zika outbreaks are finding an increasing body of evidence about the link between Zika virus and microcephaly. However, more investigation is needed to better understand the relationship between microcephaly in babies and the Zika virus. Other potential causes are also being investigated.

Transmission

Zika virus is transmitted to people through the bite of an infected mosquito from theAedes genus, mainly Aedes aegypti in tropical regions. This is the same mosquito that transmits dengue, chikungunya and yellow fever. However, sexual transmission of Zika virus has been described in 2 cases, and the presence of the Zika virus in semen in 1 additional case.

Zika virus disease outbreaks were reported for the first time from the Pacific in 2007 and 2013 (Yap and French Polynesia, respectively), and in 2015 from the Americas (Brazil and Colombia) and Africa (Cabo Verde). In addition, more than 13 countries in the Americas have reported sporadic Zika virus infections indicating rapid geographic expansion of Zika virus.

Diagnosis

Infection with Zika virus may be suspected based on symptoms and recent history (e.g. residence or travel to an area where Zika virus is known to be present). Zika virus diagnosis can only be confirmed by laboratory testing for the presence of Zika virus RNA in the blood or other body fluids, such as urine or saliva.

In this Dec. 23, 2015 photo, 10-year-old Elison nurses his 2-month-old brother Jose Wesley at their house in Poco Fundo, Pernambuco state, Brazil. Suspicion of the link between microcephaly and the Zika virus arose after officials recorded 17 cases of central nervous system malformations among fetuses and newborns after a Zika outbreak began last year in French Polynesia, according to the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control. (AP Photo/Felipe Dana)

Prevention

Mosquitoes and their breeding sites pose a significant risk factor for Zika virus infection. Prevention and control relies on reducing mosquitoes through source reduction (removal and modification of breeding sites) and reducing contact between mosquitoes and people.

This can be done by using insect repellent regularly; wearing clothes (preferably light-coloured) that cover as much of the body as possible; using physical barriers such as window screens, closed doors and windows; and if needed, additional personal protection, such as sleeping under mosquito nets during the day. It is extremely important to empty, clean or cover containers regularly that can store water, such as buckets, drums, pots etc. Other mosquito breeding sites should be cleaned or removed including flower pots, used tyres and roof gutters. Communities must support the efforts of the local government to reduce the density of mosquitoes in their locality.

Repellents should contain DEET (N, N-diethyl-3-methylbenzamide), IR3535 (3-[N-acetyl-N-butyl]-aminopropionic acid ethyl ester) or icaridin (1-piperidinecarboxylic acid, 2-(2-hydroxyethyl)-1-methylpropylester). Product label instructions should be strictly followed. Special attention and help should be given to those who may not be able to protect themselves adequately, such as young children, the sick or elderly.

During outbreaks, health authorities may advise that spraying of insecticides be carried out. Insecticides recommended by the WHO Pesticide Evaluation Scheme may also be used as larvicides to treat relatively large water containers.

Travellers should take the basic precautions described above to protect themselves from mosquito bites.

Treatment

Zika virus disease is usually relatively mild and requires no specific treatment. People sick with Zika virus should get plenty of rest, drink enough fluids, and treat pain and fever with common medicines. If symptoms worsen, they should seek medical care and advice. There is currently no vaccine available.

WHO response

WHO is supporting countries to control Zika virus disease through:

• Define and prioritize research into Zika virus disease by convening experts and partners.
• Enhance surveillance of Zika virus and potential complications.
• Strengthen capacity in risk communication to help countries meet their commitments under the International Health Regulations.
• Provide training on clinical management, diagnosis and vector control including through a number of WHO Collaborating Centres.
• Strengthen the capacity of laboratories to detect the virus.
• Support health authorities to implement vector control strategies aimed at reducing Aedes mosquito populations such as providing larvicide to treat standing water sites that cannot be treated in other ways, such as cleaning, emptying, and covering them.
• Prepare recommendations for clinical care and follow-up of people with Zika virus, in collaboration with experts and other health agencies

Source(s): WHO 

Talcum Powder Lawsuits

Photo by: Drugwatch

For years, medical professionals knew that talcum powder was dangerous for babies and children to breathe. Now women claim in lawsuits that the fine-powder products gave them ovarian cancer. They’re taking action against Johnson & Johnson, the pharmaceutical giant and talcum powder distributor.

Talcum Powder and Ovarian Cancer

Pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson finds itself the subject of two class-action lawsuits filed in 2014, both of which claim the company is responsible for giving women ovarian cancer through its high-selling talcum powder products, Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower.

The class-action filings came one year after South Dakota resident Deane Berg won her legal claim that J&J was negligent because it did not warn her during three decades of Baby Powder use could put her at greater risk for developing ovarian cancer. Berg was diagnosed with that type of cancer in 2006.

Together, the litigation’s point to increased scrutiny on how responsible J&J is for not warning consumers – primarily women – about the dangers of its talc-based powders.

Talcum Powder Studies

Women and Talcum Powder

Over many decades, women applied talc-based powders to dusted their private parts with talcum powders or sprinkled them on undergarments and sanitary pads to keep the groin area cool and comfortable and discourage the development of vaginal odors. Additionally, the reproductive tracts of many women were exposed to talcum powder via diaphragms sprinkled with the product or condoms that were coated with it.

Published Medical Studies

Although there is some conflicting research, most published medical studies indicate that talc-based powders, when used by women long term to keep moisture, odor and chafing under control around their vagina, are associated with ovarian cancer.

California Class Action

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies is a subsidiary of J&J those researches, markets, distributes and sells consumer products aimed at mothers and babies. That includes Johnson’s Baby Powder.

Stockton, Calif., resident Mona Estrada filed a class action in the Eastern District of California in April 14, charging Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., with:

Charges against Johnson & Johnson:

·         - Violating consumers’ legal remedies

·         - Violating the Unfair Competition law and business and professions code

·         - Negligence

·         - Breach of implied warranty

Mona Estrada's Claim

Estrada claims “Johnson’s Baby Powder is not safe” and that studies document that women who used talc-based powders on their genital area have a 33-percent increased risk of developing ovarian cancer than women who did not use the products. J&J knew the risks of its powder products that have talc as an ingredient and yet took no action to warn consumers like her of the dangers of using them as an odor stopper or to help with sweat or moisture.

Extended Use Cases

Estrada used Baby Powder from about 1950 to 2013 but does not have ovarian cancer. According to her law firm, her claim was filed on behalf of her and other women.

Citing Research

She cited research conducted as early as 1961 that showed the harmful effects of talcum powder. She also cited a lengthy list of other studies that linked talc to ovarian cancer.

Illinois Class Action

A month after Estrada’s filing, Illinois resident Barbara Mihalich also filed a class-action claim against J&J and Johnson Consumer Companies. Her lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of Illinois. Milalich claims that the defendants violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act and profited unjustly from its talcum powder products.

Her claim said she brought the legal action for herself and on behalf of “other similarly situated Illinois consumers” that bought Baby Powder.

Like Estrada, Mihalich was not diagnosed with ovarian cancer and does not claim any physical harm from the powder products.

Berg v. Johnson & Johnson

Deane Berg, a South Dakota woman, used Johnson’s Baby Powder and its Shower to Shower powder as a feminine hygiene product and to ease chafing virtually daily from 1975 to 2007, according to her lawsuit. In late 2006, a pelvic exam showed clotting blood in her ovaries, and more tests led to a diagnosis of ovarian cancer.

In her claim against J&J, she said that talc – a key ingredient in Johnson’s Baby Powder and in Shower to Shower – caused her cancer. She said J&J should have put a warning about the association of talc and ovarian cancer on the products, both of which women use to control odor and moisture in their vaginal areas.

In Berg’s case, cancerous tissues were removed from her body and examined by three doctors that found talc particles embedded in those tissues and concluded that talcum powder was the cause of her cancer. One of those doctors, Daniel Cramer of Harvard University, has studied the issue of talcum powder and ovarian cancer for three decades. In court testimony, he stated that talcum powder was likely a contributing factor in 10,000 cases of ovarian cancer annually.

Berg won her claim that the pharmaceutical company was negligent not to warn consumers about its talcum powder product dangers. Her victory, however, was a partial and Pyric one. The court sided ruled that J&J that it was not part of a conspiracy, and the jury decided the drug company did not have liability. The jury also awarded no financial damages in the case. Berg’s appeal for damages was denied by Judge Karen E. Schreier.

No Label Warnings by Manufacturers

Despite the mounting evidence of serious health affects with genital use of talcum powder, major manufacturers of talcum powder products do not warn consumers of the potential dangers.

Lawyers across the country are reviewing potential cases of those who feel they were injured by talcum powder, an indication that manufacturers of these products can expect to see a lot more lawsuits filed against them.

Related article: Jury Awards $72 Million In Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cancer Lawsuit

Source(s): Drugwatch

Jury Awards $72 Million In Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cancer Lawsuit

In the first of what looks to be many verdicts and/or settlements involving allegations that Johnson & Johnson ignored a possible link between cancer and its talcum-based products, a jury in Missouri has ordered the company to pay a total of $72 million to the family of a woman who died from ovarian cancer.

In 2014, an Alabama woman named Jacqueline Fox was one of dozens of women with ovarian cancer who sued Johnson & Johnson, alleging that the healthcare products giant deliberately turned a blind eye to scientific evidence showing a possible link between the use of talcum powder in the female genital area and an increased risk for ovarian cancer.

The complaint cites studies going back to 1971 that suggest this link exists. According to the lawsuit, after a 1982 study on the issue found a 92% increased risk in ovarian cancer with women who used talc-based products around their genitals, the researcher behind that study directly advised a J&J doctor to place a warning label on their products.

A decade later, following the release of other studies claiming a link between talcum powder use and increased cancer risk, J&J helped to form the Talc Interested Party Task Force.

“The stated purpose of the TIPTF was to pool financial resources of these companies in an effort to collectively defend talc use at all costs and to prevent regulation of any type over this industry,” reads the complaint. “The TIPTF hired scientists to perform biased research regarding the safety of talc, members of the TIPTF edited scientific reports of the scientists hired by this group prior the submission of these scientific reports to governmental agencies, members of the TIPTF knowingly released false information about the safety of talc to the consuming public, and used political and economic influence on regulatory bodies regarding talc.”

While J&J and others continued to defend the use of talcum powder in feminine hygiene products, the condom industry halted the mineral’s use in the mid-1990s amid the growing concerns about its link to ovarian cancer risk.

About a decade ago, the World Health Organization’s International Association for the Research of Cancer declared that “There is limited evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of perineal use of talc-based body powder,” meaning that “a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer for which a causal interpretation is considered by the Working Group to be credible.”

Around this same time, at least one talc supplier began including warnings on the product it supplied to J&J. The plaintiffs contend that this alone should have given J&J reason to be aware of the potential cancer risk link.

Last night, the state-court jury found J&J liable for failure to warn, negligence, and conspiracy, resulting in $10 million in damages. The company was also found liable in the wrongful death of Ms. Fox, who passed away in 2015, leading to a total of $62 million in punitive damages.

This is just one of around 1,200 cases currently being pursued against J&J in courts in Missouri and New Jersey.

In response to the verdict, a J&J rep tells Reuters that “We have no higher responsibility than the health and safety of consumers, and we are disappointed with the outcome of the trial. We sympathize with the plaintiff’s family but firmly believe the safety of cosmetic talc is supported by decades of scientific evidence.”

Johnson’s Baby Powder still contains talc, though the company now makes versions of the product that use corn starch instead.

Related Article: Talcum Powder Lawsuits

Source(s): Link

Elizabeth Warren Urges Feds To Support Research On Medical Marijuana's Benefits

Credit: Associated Press

The federal government has a "responsibility" to facilitate sensible research into marijuana's medical benefits, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and seven other senators urged in a letter issued last week to multiple federal drug and health officials.

"While the federal government has emphasized research on the potential harms associated with the use of marijuana, there is still very limited research on the potential health benefits of marijuana -- despite the fact that millions of Americans are now eligible by state law to use the drug for medical purposes," the letter reads. 

The senators praised the White House's recent lift of what was a mandatory bureaucratic review process, long criticized by researchers and lawmakers alike, that had stifled scientific research into the plant. But, they also encouraged the federal drug and health agencies to do more.

For patients in states with active medical marijuana programs, the senators recommend the agencies use their existing tools to collect national data, conduct surveillance and perform clinical trials. 

"It is time for the federal government to pick up those tools and use them," the letter reads. 

The senators also implored the agencies to collaborate and support "independent scientists" by eliminating needless federal barriers that stifle research into the plant.

To date, 23 states have legalized marijuana for medical purposes. Nearly 20 others have legalized the limited medical use of CBD, or cannabidiol, a compound found in the cannabis plant that doesn't produce the euphoric sensation associated with the drug but has shown medical promise. Still, the federal government continues to ban the plant. 

Under the Controlled Substances Act, the U.S. has five categories for drugs and drug ingredients. Schedule I is reserved for drugs that the DEA considers to have the highest potential for abuse and no medical value. Marijuana has been classified as Schedule I for decades, alongside other substances like heroin and LSD.

Critics of federal policy say that the classification is due in part to a lack of cannabis science in the United States, stemming from a federal stranglehold on marijuana research. There's only one federally legal marijuana garden in the U.S., at the University of Mississippi. The National Institute on Drug Abuse oversees the operation, and it's the only source of marijuana for federally sanctioned studies on the drug.

Federal authorities have long been accused of funding marijuana research that focuses on thepotential negative effects of the substance. The DEA has also been accused of not acting quickly enough when petitioned to reschedule marijuana, and for obstructing science around the drug.

Warren was joined by Democratic Sens. Jeffrey Merkley (Ore.), Ron Wyden (Ore.), Barbara Mikulski (Md.), Edward Markey (Mass.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Cory Booker (N.J.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.) -- about half of whom are cosponsors of a sweeping bill introduced earlier this year designed to drastically reduce the federal government's ability to crack down on state-legal medical marijuana programs while also encouraging more research into the substance.

The letter, dated July 9, was addressed to the heads of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Drug Enforcement Administration. Officials from the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and National Institute on Drug Abuse were also copied on the letter.

Officials from the Department of Health and Human Services, the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Drug Enforcement Administration did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Source: The Huffington Post

US torture doctors could face charges after report alleges post-9/11 'collusion'

 The American Psychological Association asked a former US attorney to investigate ‘collusion with the Bush administration to promote, support or facilitate’ torture. Illustration: The Guardian

The largest association of psychologists in the United States is on the brink of a crisis, the Guardian has learned, after an independent review revealed that medical professionals lied and covered up their extensive involvement in post-9/11 torture. The revelation, puncturing years of denials, has already led to at least one leadership firing and creates the potential for loss of licenses and even prosecutions.

For more than a decade, the American Psychological Association (APA) has maintained that a strict code of ethics prohibits its more than 130,000 members to aid in the torture of detainees while simultaneously permitting involvement in military and intelligence interrogations. The group has rejected media reporting on psychologists’ complicity in torture; suppressed internal dissent from anti-torture doctors; cleared members of wrongdoing; and portrayed itself as a consistent ally against abuse.

Now, a voluminous independent review conducted by a former assistant US attorney, David Hoffman, undermines the APA’s denials in full – and vindicates the dissenters.

Sources with knowledge of the report and its consequences, who requested anonymity to discuss the findings before public release, expected a wave of firings and resignations across the leadership of an organization that Hoffman finds used its extensive institutional links to the CIA and US military to facilitate abusive interrogations.

Several officials are likely to be sacked. Already out, a past APA president confirmed to the Guardian, is Stephen Behnke, the APA’s ethics chief and a leading figure in recasting its ethics guidelines in a manner conducive to interrogations that, from the start, relied heavily on psychologists to design and implement techniques like waterboarding.

But the reckoning with psychologists’ institutional complicity in torture may not stop there.

Read more at The Guardian

Medicare Outlines End-Of-Life Planning Proposal That Will Make Sarah Palin's Head Explode

WASHINGTON -- Physicians would be paid to discuss end-of-life options with Medicare patients who want their wishes spelled out in advance under a regulation proposed by the federal government Wednesday.

Medical societies and seniors' groups like the AARP have long supported so-called advance care planning as a way for patients to consider whether they want intensive medical care in the event of a life-threatening illness near the close of their lives, and to make their preferences known to their loved ones in writing. But Medicare has never had a mechanism with which to pay doctors for this counseling, except during a physical exam when beneficiaries first enroll in the program.

“Today’s proposal supports individuals and families who wish to have the opportunity to discuss advance care planning with their physician and care team, as part of coordinated, patient- and family-centered care," Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Chief Medical Officer Patrick Conway said in a statement. "CMS looks forward to gathering public input on this proposal.”

An early version of the legislation that became the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama's health care reform law, would have established a way for Medicare to pay physicians who discuss end-of-life options with patients. The plan was derailed, however, when ex-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee, falsely labeled these voluntary counseling sessions as "death panels" that would cut off medical care to older Americans against their wills.

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil," Palin wrote in an August 2009 Facebook post.

For more from The Huffington Post, download our app for iOS or Android.

The "death panel" charge earned the dubious distinction of being named PolitiFact's "Lie of the Year" in 2009, but its power extended beyond the pressure that led Congress to remove the provision from the health care bill. The false claim penetrated the public consciousness, and polls have shown that large pluralities of Americans continue to believe the Affordable Care Act allows the federal government to cut off medical treatments for people deemed too sick. And that's despite the fact that the term "death panel" has been used to describe several other parts of the health care law, such as a commission charged with containing Medicare spending.

In May, 66 organizations representing medical providers and senior citizens, including the AMA and the AARP, wrote to Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell urging the federal government to establish a way to pay for advance care planning.

"Published, peer‐reviewed research shows that ACP [advance care planning] leads to better care, higher patient and family satisfaction, fewer unwanted hospitalizations, and lower rates of caregiver distress, depression and lost productivity," the organizations wrote. "ACP is particularly important for Medicare beneficiaries because many have multiple chronic illnesses, receive care at home from family and other caregivers, and their children and other family members are often involved in making medical decisions."

Sens. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) are the lead sponsors of a bill that would establish Medicare physician payments for end-of-life discussions between doctors and patients. The provisions that were excised from the health care reform legislation in 2009 were based on a bill also sponsored by Isakson.

The policy proposed Wednesday by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which would take effect next year, builds on recommendations made by the AMA to create billing codes under Medicare that physicians can use to charge for these counseling sessions. During the sessions, patients would get advice on a range of options, from minimal medical interventions to demanding that every treatment possible be offered near the end of life. Patients can choose whether or not to schedule end-of-life counseling.

The proposed regulation, whose main purpose is to establish all physician payment rates for 2016, now faces a public comment period that closes on Sept. 8.

Source: The Huffington Post

Pro-Lifers Harrass Women After Abortions

iStockphoto

Anti-abortion groups are now masquerading as post-abortion care services, and peddling medical lies about the procedure.

The abortion debate tends to focus on the time before a woman receives an abortion.

In the United States, there are over 3,500 crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs)—most of them “run by conservative Christians,” as The New York Times reports—that pressure pregnant women to either give birth or consider using an adoption agency. Anti-abortion billboards dot the Interstate with Bible quotes and factoids about fetal heartbeats. Similar ads appear in city centers, often with manipulative racial messaging targeted at pregnant African-American women.

But what happens after abortion? One might think that anti-abortion organizations would give up on women once they are no longer pregnant. Not so. Anti-abortion organizations bearing an uncanny resemblance to CPCs in their approach have a sizable but lesser-known presence in the world of post-abortion counseling and support.

Despite a lack of scientific evidence, organizations like The Stacy Zallie Foundation, Abortion Changes You, Project Rachel, and several others portray abortion itself as a serious threat to women’s mental health. These organizations often posture as neutral havens for post-abortion support while explicitly directing women to anti-abortion resources, including CPCs. They may not be as numerous as their CPC counterparts, but they can be just as misleading.

If post-abortion counseling hasn’t drawn much attention, that may be because it is often unnecessary. In 2008, an American Psychological Association (APA) Task Force reviewed the scientific literature on mental health and abortion and concluded, “[T]here is no credible evidence that a single elective abortion of an unwanted pregnancy in and of itself causes mental health problems for adult women.”

Although some studies do indicate that “some women” can experience grief, depression, and anxiety after an abortion, the Task Force further clarified that “reports of associations between abortion history and mental health problems” can be “misleading” if they do not take into account “other risk factors” like poverty, violence, and drug or alcohol use. The best predictor of mental health post-abortion, the report found, is mental health pre-abortion.

The Stacy Zallie Foundation, created by millionaire New Jersey grocer George Zallie and his late wife Linda, promises “non-judgmental post-abortion care” but between the organization’s alarmist tone and its ties to anti-abortion organizations, it’s difficult to take that claim seriously. The Zallies created the foundation in the mid-2000s because they were “convinced” that their daughter Stacy would be alive “had [she] been better informed about what she might expect following the abortion.”But that hasn’t stopped an array of post-abortion organizations, campaigns, and websites from presenting abortion as a pressing psychological danger.

Stacy committed suicide at age 21, a year after receiving an abortion—two incidents that Zallie told local press he “knows in [his] heart” were connected.

The front page of the foundation’s website promises that it “does not operate with religious, ethical, or political agendas in mind” and yet its list of resourcesincludes several CPCs in Pennsylvania, the same CPCs that form the frontline of the anti-abortion movement—some New York City CPCs even have the word “frontline” in their names.

These CPCs, which actually outnumber abortion providers in the U.S., are far from agenda-less.

When George Washington University Law School student Caitlin Bancroft went undercover to visit several Virginia CPCs, her counselors asked questions like “Would your parents be excited about a grandchild?” and told her that her birth control causes cancer. This all took place while she waited for the results of her free pregnancy test, one of CPCs’ most-advertised offerings. No matter what Bancroft said, the counselors always tried to steer her away from abortion.

Others have endured even more horrific experiences inside CPCs. Feminist writerJaclyn Munson had to watch a 25-minute film detailing the rare complications of abortion before receiving the results of her pregnancy test.

The Stacy Zallie Foundation’s alignment with anti-abortion groups doesn’t end with its endorsement of CPCs. Aside from theNational Suicide Prevention Lifeline, the only phone numbers listed at the top of its front page lead to OptionLine, a CPC referral service, and Concepts of Truth International, an organization that sells copies of the exploitative documentaryLife After Abortion, which features women recalling their abortions in graphic detail:

After a PR e-mail for the Stacy Zallie Foundation went out with a list of unsubstantiated claims about “post abortion depression”—such as “45 percent of women who have had an abortion report having suicidal feelings immediately following their procedure,” no citation provided— George Zallie did not immediately respond to requests for an interview.

If you enter your zip code in the top right corner of the Stacy Zallie Foundation website, you’ll be redirected to another anti-abortion campaign masquerading as a post-abortion support service: Abortion Changes You. The “Find Help” feature on the Abortion Changes You website primarily directs users to local CPCs.

In 2010, Abortion Changes You ran a subway ad campaign in New York City with messages like: “I thought life would be the way it was before. Abortion changes you.” At the time, founder Michaelene Fredenburg told The New York Times that she wanted Abortion Changes You to be a “safe space” for women “apart from the controversy and debate.”

But her ad campaign, as the Times reports, was paid for by Vitae, an anti-abortion media organization that conducts “extensive psychological and demographic research” to fine-tune its messages. Vitae’s portfolio includes ads for CPCs in Washington, DC and Los Angeles featuring black and Latina women, respectively.

A video for Abortion Changes You shows pictures of models with messages like “My wife gets depressed around the anniversary of our daughter’s abortion” over a mournful piano track. The music swells and shifts to a major key as screenshots of the website replace the sad stock photos:

Abortion Changes You fell quiet for some time after its subway ad campaign but, last year, Fredenburg recorded a video appearance for the National Vigil For Lifein Ireland, a rally protesting Ireland’s legalization of abortion. So much for staying away from “controversy and debate.”

The Stacy Zallie Foundation also lists Rachel’s Vineyard and Project Rachel as resources, both Roman Catholic organizations. The Project Rachel website makes grim reference to “vast literature on post-abortion response,” before citing studies that have already been discredited by the APA Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion due to methodological problems (PDF).

There are even more anti-abortion groups populating the post-abortion support space, especially online, where they outnumber more legitimate options in search results.

After Abortion offers a quiz to determine if you are suffering from Post Abortion Stress Syndrome, or PASS, which is not recognized by any reputable medical association, no matter how official its acronym makes it seem. Silent No More Awareness promises to “make the public aware of the devastation abortion brings to women and men.” If you search for “abortion after-care programs” through Silent No More, you will generally receive a list of Catholic dioceses and, of course, CPCs. The list goes on.

For the minority of women who do experience long-term psychological distress after abortion, there are options for support that do not redirect to anti-abortion religious groups and CPCs.

For one, Planned Parenthood offers emotional support to women post-abortion. In a statement to The Daily Beast, Dr. Vanessa Cullins, vice president of external medical affairs, said that Planned Parenthood recognizes that “women can experience a range of emotions after an abortion” including “anger or sadness,” although “most women feel relief.”

“It’s important to remember that serious, long-term emotional problems after an abortion are as uncommon after an abortion as they are after giving birth. At Planned Parenthood, we make sure that all women have support before, during, and after an abortion. Our health center staff provide compassionate, high-quality care to our patients, which includes emotional support and resources,” Cullins said.

Organizations like Backline and the Connect & Breathe after-abortion talkline are two more affirming options.

The non-profit Exhale is also available as an avowedly apolitical “pro-voice” resource that accepts all kinds of abortion experiences. Founded in the early 2000s by Aspen Baker, author of Pro-Voice: How to Keep Listening When the World Wants a Fight, Exhale operates a talkline that “respects and works within your belief system” to offer emotional support. Exhale accepts referrals from both Planned Parenthood and organizations like Abortion Changes You.

“Wanting to be a welcoming place for women from all backgrounds is difficult terrain to operate in, but our main goal is always to reach and serve as many women, and men, as possible,” Baker told The Daily Beast. “We are a resource for Christian, pro-life women as well as feminist pro-choice women, and people who are neither.”

The Stacy Zallie Foundation website currently lists Exhale as a partner but Baker was quick to clarify that “Exhale has no partnership with [them].”

As is the case with pre-abortion support, sources of legitimately non-judgmental post-abortion support may be harder to locate—with fewer physical and digital locations—but they do exist.

Source: The Daily Beast