Rachel Ramey

I've seen a recent trend of people wondering why they're so dehydrated/thirsty when they "drink plenty of water." Many of these people are probably drinking *too much* water. I know it's counter-intuitive to think you can be dehydrated because you drink too much water, but if you drink water in excess, you flush out your electrolytes and then you're out of balance and your body can't *hold onto* the water you're drinking. All of these things we've been hearing all our lives about how much water we're "supposed to" drink daily are entirely arbitrary -- made up out of thin air.

Blech. https://www.facebook.com/terri.ganey/posts/pfbid0jPhAm72Mb4n3PeyAdpfxHYwDnG1PtcDrvqkaWj9M5XRfjHtdcTXv8HgcHBDygwcbl

I keep seeing this in an ad. It's not desirable. While we want to get rid of pesticides and unnatural waxes, we do *not* want to "sterilize" our food. Exposure to bacteria from the soil our food is grown in is an important part of vibrant gut health.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/wellnessplaykit/wellness-play-kit

Many health-conscious people are probably drinking *too much* water. Contrary to popular belief, the standard "8 glasses a day" was never a research-based recommendation. While water *does* matter, too much water can throw off your electrolyte balance, leaving you feeling *less* hydrated. Under average life circumstances, water consumption should be *moderate*.

We're accustomed to thinking of smoking as purely recreational. And so we focus on the health *risks* of things like tobacco and marijuana. But did you know that for centuries, smoking herbs has been considered one more modality for using them medicinally, just like drinking a tea, taking a tincture, or applying a salve? In particular, respiratory-supportive herbs -- like mullein -- were smoked because that's a logical means of delivering the herbs to the lungs. https://botanicalstudies.net/herbalism/smoking-medicinal-lungs/ (image via Pixabay)

Someone recently posted in one of my communities about Jim West's book on prenatal ultrasound risk. Predictably, the response was mostly panic that acknowledgement of *any* degree of risk would result in people's eschewing all use of prenatal ultrasound in any and every circumstance -- and that routine prenatal ultrasound is essential because it saves lives all the time!!! But it doesn't really. Because most of what we assume it to be essential for, it's actually pretty inaccurate at. e.g. : "Ultrasound estimates of AFV [amniotic fluid volume] correlate poorly with direct measurements of amniotic fluid." "The use of percentiles rather than fixed cut-offs does not improve the accuracy of AFI [amniotic fluid index] in identification of low or high AFV." "...use of AFI results in overdiagnosis of oligohydramnios, leading to unnecessary interventions (eg, labor induction), which often contribute to increased morbidity without an improvement in perinatal outcomes." (Source: https://www.contemporaryobgyn.net/view/amniotic-fluid-volume-when-and-how-take-action) "Subjective estimates [of amniotic fluid volume] ranged from 65% to 70% correct..." The three sonographic measurements were similar in overall accuracy (59-67%). (Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9314106/) And yet literature aimed *at* medical professionals, or at the public, tells us that "The routine use of ultrasonography has created a safe, reliable, and repeatable method of measuring amniotic fluid volume (AFV)" -- even though the actual research indicates that it's *not* reliable. (Source: https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/405914-overview) "EFW [estimated fetal weight] was correct [within 10%] in 72.2% of patients with fetal biometry; 19.7% were underestimated [by more than 10%], and 8.1% were overestimated [by more than 10%]." "Overestimation was associated with an increased risk for delivery by caesarean section....The incidence of perineal tears of grade 3/4, shoulder dystocia, postnatal depression and neonatal acidosis did not differ between groups." "Antepartum ultrasound-derived EFW does not improve maternal and fetal outcome and is therefore not recommended." (Source: https://bmcpregnancychildbirth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12884-018-1772-7) The accepted error rate is 15% -- which is a pretty significant difference when you consider that most babies aren't more than 10-11 pounds. Even a 10% margin of error can easily be a full pound off. "The error rates of <15% <10% and <5% for GA of 37 to 40 weeks was seen as 86%, 68% and 38% respectively." (Source: https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Abstract/2020/05001/Accuracy_of_Estimated_Fetal_Weight_in_Third.54.aspx) In other words, at 37-40 weeks, 62% of ultrasounds were more than 5% off. 32% were at least 10% off. 14% were at least 15% off. Let's put that into real-life perspective: if they say you need to be induced because you're having a 10-lb baby, there's a 14% chance your baby is actually only 8.5 lbs. Ultrasound does pick up some abnormalities (some better than others), but these are rare enough in general that when balanced against all the inappropriate early intervention that happens as a consequence of false alarms, routine ultrasound doesn't statistically improve outcomes. One meta-analysis indicated that "routine ultrasound scanning does not improve the outcome of pregnancy in terms of an increased number of live births or of reduced perinatal morbidity." It *appeared* to improve outcomes by reducing perinatal mortality -- because many of the babies who otherwise would have died shortly after birth were instead murdered in utero, skewing the numbers. "Authors of over 100 studies that evaluated the use of ultrasonography in obstetrics claimed a benefit of routine scanning. Our meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials shows no evidence that routine ultrasound scanning in pregnancy improves the outcome." "The significant reduction of perinatal mortality in the screening group is due mainly to the contribution of the Helsinki trial...this reduction in the Helsinki trial was mostly the result of induced abortion of malformed fetuses..." (Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1678458/pdf/bmj00028-0017.pdf) *Targeted* screening when there are particular indications for it (together with a correct understanding of what an ultrasound can and cannot accurately predict) is probably a better risk/benefit balance than routine ultrasound screening by default.

"...maybe I will [fall]. That's okay, 'cause everyone falls..." Just get back up and keep taking those baby steps. All progress is progress. https://www.facebook.com/reel/884641285909986/?s=single_unit

https://woobox.com/htxpee/p3ok2d

$1/packet seeds at Halden Garden. They seem to specialize in flowers, but they also have some herbs. (I've seen veggie seeds in photos, but if you're looking for veggie seeds on the site you have to just scroll through all the seeds alphabetically -- there doesn't seem to be a section for them.) https://vrlps.co/71exxeb/cp (referral link)