How anti-vaccine figures abuse data to trick you
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
The anti-vaccine movement is nearly as old as vaccines themselves. For as long as humans have sought to harness our immune system’s incredible ability to recognize and fight infectious invaders, critics and conspiracy theorists have opposed these efforts.
Anti-vaccine tactics have advanced since the early days of protesting “unnatural” smallpox inoculation, and the rampant abuse of scientific data may be the most effective strategy yet.
Here’s how vaccine opponents misuse data to deceive people, plus how you can avoid being manipulated.
Misappropriating raw and unverified safety data
Perhaps the oldest and most well-established anti-vaccine tactic is the abuse of data from the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration maintain VAERS as a tool for researchers to detect early warning signs of potential vaccine side effects.
Anyone can submit a VAERS report about any symptom experienced at any point after vaccination. That does not mean that these symptoms are vaccine side effects.
VAERS was not designed to determine if a specific vaccine caused a specific adverse event. But for decades, vaccine opponents have misinterpreted, misrepresented, and manipulated VAERS data to convince people that vaccines are dangerous.
Anyone relying on VAERS to draw conclusions about vaccine safety is probably trying to trick you. It isn’t possible to determine from VAERS data alone if a vaccine caused a specific health condition.
VAERS isn’t the only federal data that vaccine opponents abuse. Originally created for COVID-19 vaccines, V-safe is a vaccine safety monitoring system that allows users to report—via text message surveys—how they feel and any health issues they experience up to a year after vaccination. Anti-vaccine groups have misrepresented data in the system, which tracks all health experiences, whether or not they are vaccine-related.
The U.S. Department of Defense’s Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) has also become a target of anti-vaccine misinformation. Vaccine opponents have falsely claimed that DMED data reveals massive spikes in strokes, heart attacks, HIV, cancer, and blood clots among military service members since the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. The spike was due to an updated policy that corrected underreporting in the previous years
Misrepresenting legitimate studies
A common tactic vaccine opponents use is misrepresenting data from legitimate sources such as national health databases and peer-reviewed studies. For example, COVID-19 vaccines have repeatedly been blamed for rising cancer and heart attack rates, based on data that predates the pandemic by decades.
A prime example of this strategy is a preliminary FDA study that detected a slight increase in stroke risk in older adults after a high-dose flu vaccine alone or in combination with the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine. The study found no “increased risk of stroke following administration of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccines.”
Yet vaccine opponents used the study to falsely claim that COVID-19 vaccines were uniquely harmful, despite the data indicating that the increased risk was almost certainly driven by the high-dose flu vaccine. The final peer-reviewed study confirmed that there was no elevated stroke risk following COVID-19 vaccination. But the false narrative that COVID-19 vaccines cause strokes persists.
Similarly, the largest COVID-19 vaccine safety study to date confirmed the extreme rarity of a few previously identified risks. For weeks, vaccine opponents overstated these rare risks and falsely claimed that the study proves that COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe.
Citing preprint and retracted studies
When a study has been retracted, it is no longer considered a credible source. A study’s retraction doesn’t deter vaccine opponents from promoting it—it may even be an incentive because retracted papers can be held up as examples of the medical establishment censoring so-called “truthtellers.” For example, anti-vaccine groups still herald Andrew Wakefield nearly 15 years after his study falsely linking the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine to autism was retracted for data fraud.
The COVID-19 pandemic brought the lasting impact of retracted studies into sharp focus. The rush to understand a novel disease that was infecting millions brought a wave of scientific publications, some more legitimate than others.
Over time, the weaker studies were reassessed and retracted, but their damage lingers. A 2023 study found that retracted and withdrawn COVID-19 studies were cited significantly more frequently than valid published COVID-19 studies in the same journals.
In one example, a widely cited abstract that found that ivermectin—an antiparasitic drug proven to not treat COVID-19—dramatically reduced mortality in COVID-19 patients exemplifies this phenomenon. The abstract, which was never peer reviewed, was retracted at the request of its authors, who felt the study’s evidence was weak and was being misrepresented.
Despite this, the study—along with the many other retracted ivermectin studies—remains a touchstone for proponents of the drug that has shown no effectiveness against COVID-19.
In a more recent example, a group of COVID-19 vaccine opponents uploaded a paper to The Lancet’s preprint server, a repository for papers that have not yet been peer reviewed or published by the prestigious journal. The paper claimed to have analyzed 325 deaths after COVID-19 vaccination, finding COVID-19 vaccines were linked to 74 percent of the deaths.
The paper was promptly removed because its conclusions were unsupported, leading vaccine opponents to cry censorship.
Applying animal research to humans
Animals are vital to medical research, allowing scientists to better understand diseases that affect humans and develop and screen potential treatments before they are tested in humans. Animal research is a starting point that should never be generalized to humans, but vaccine opponents do just that.
Several animal studies are frequently cited to support the claim that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are dangerous during pregnancy. These studies found that pregnant rats had adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines. The results are unsurprising given that they were injected with doses equal to or many times larger than the dose given to humans rather than a dose that is proportional to the animal’s size.
Similarly, a German study on rat heart cells found abnormalities after exposure to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Vaccine opponents falsely insinuated that this study proves COVID-19 vaccines cause heart damage in humans and was so universally misrepresented that the study’s author felt compelled to dispute the claims.
The author noted that the study used vaccine doses significantly higher than those administered to humans and was conducted in cultured rat cells, a dramatically different environment than a functioning human heart.
How to avoid being misled
The internet has empowered vaccine opponents to spread false information with an efficiency and expediency that was previously impossible. Anti-vaccine narratives have advanced rapidly due to the rampant exploitation of valid sources and the promotion of unvetted, non-credible sources.
You can avoid being tricked by using multiple trusted sources to verify claims that you encounter online. Some examples of credible sources are reputable public health entities like the CDC and World Health Organization, personal health care providers, and peer-reviewed research from experts in fields relevant to COVID-19 and the pandemic.
Read more about anti-vaccine tactics:
- How vaccine opponents spread misinformation
- How misinformation tricks our brains
- How vaccine opponents use kids to spread misinformation
This article first appeared on Public Good News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
Constipation increases your risk of a heart attack, new study finds – and not just on the toilet
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
If you Google the terms “constipation” and “heart attack” it’s not long before the name Elvis Presley crops up. Elvis had a longstanding history of chronic constipation and it’s believed he was straining very hard to poo, which then led to a fatal heart attack.
We don’t know what really happened to the so-called King of Rock “n” Roll back in 1977. There were likely several contributing factors to his death, and this theory is one of many.
But after this famous case researchers took a strong interest in the link between constipation and the risk of a heart attack.
This includes a recent study led by Australian researchers involving data from thousands of people.
Elvis Presley was said to have died of a heart attack while straining on the toilet. But is that true? Kraft74/Shutterstock Are constipation and heart attacks linked?
Large population studies show constipation is linked to an increased risk of heart attacks.
For example, an Australian study involved more than 540,000 people over 60 in hospital for a range of conditions. It found constipated patients had a higher risk of high blood pressure, heart attacks and strokes compared to non-constipated patients of the same age.
A Danish study of more than 900,000 people from hospitals and hospital outpatient clinics also found that people who were constipated had an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes.
It was unclear, however, if this relationship between constipation and an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes would hold true for healthy people outside hospital.
These Australian and Danish studies also did not factor in the effects of drugs used to treat high blood pressure (hypertension), which can make you constipated.
Researchers have studied thousands of people to see if there’s a link between constipation and heart attacks. fongbeerredhot/Shutterstock How about this new study?
The recent international study led by Monash University researchers found a connection between constipation and an increased risk of heart attacks, strokes and heart failure in a general population.
The researchers analysed data from the UK Biobank, a database of health-related information from about half a million people in the United Kingdom.
The researchers identified more than 23,000 cases of constipation and accounted for the effect of drugs to treat high blood pressure, which can lead to constipation.
People with constipation (identified through medical records or via a questionnaire) were twice as likely to have a heart attack, stroke or heart failure as those without constipation.
The researchers found a strong link between high blood pressure and constipation. Individuals with hypertension who were also constipated had a 34% increased risk of a major heart event compared to those with just hypertension.
The study only looked at the data from people of European ancestry. However, there is good reason to believe the link between constipation and heart attacks applies to other populations.
A Japanese study looked at more than 45,000 men and women in the general population. It found people passing a bowel motion once every two to three days had a higher risk of dying from heart disease compared with ones who passed at least one bowel motion a day.
How might constipation cause a heart attack?
Chronic constipation can lead to straining when passing a stool. This can result in laboured breathing and can lead to a rise in blood pressure.
In one Japanese study including ten elderly people, blood pressure was high just before passing a bowel motion and continued to rise during the bowel motion. This increase in blood pressure lasted for an hour afterwards, a pattern not seen in younger Japanese people.
One theory is that older people have stiffer blood vessels due to atherosclerosis (thickening or hardening of the arteries caused by a build-up of plaque) and other age-related changes. So their high blood pressure can persist for some time after straining. But the blood pressure of younger people returns quickly to normal as they have more elastic blood vessels.
As blood pressure rises, the risk of heart disease increases. The risk of developing heart disease doubles when systolic blood pressure (the top number in your blood pressure reading) rises permanently by 20 mmHg (millimetres of mercury, a standard measure of blood pressure).
The systolic blood pressure rise with straining in passing a stool has been reported to be as high as 70 mmHg. This rise is only temporary but with persistent straining in chronic constipation this could lead to an increased risk of heart attacks.
High blood pressure from straining on the toilet can last after pooing, especially in older people. Andrey_Popov/Shutterstock Some people with chronic constipation may have an impaired function of their vagus nerve, which controls various bodily functions, including digestion, heart rate and breathing.
This impaired function can result in abnormalities of heart rate and over-activation of the flight-fight response. This can, in turn, lead to elevated blood pressure.
Another intriguing avenue of research examines the imbalance in gut bacteria in people with constipation.
This imbalance, known as dysbiosis, can result in microbes and other substances leaking through the gut barrier into the bloodstream and triggering an immune response. This, in turn, can lead to low-grade inflammation in the blood circulation and arteries becoming stiffer, increasing the risk of a heart attack.
This latest study also explored genetic links between constipation and heart disease. The researchers found shared genetic factors that underlie both constipation and heart disease.
What can we do about this?
Constipation affects around 19% of the global population aged 60 and older. So there is a substantial portion of the population at an increased risk of heart disease due to their bowel health.
Managing chronic constipation through dietary changes (particularly increased dietary fibre), increased physical activity, ensuring adequate hydration and using medications, if necessary, are all important ways to help improve bowel function and reduce the risk of heart disease.
Vincent Ho, Associate Professor and clinical academic gastroenterologist, Western Sydney University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
Water Water Everywhere, But Which Is Best To Drink?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Well Well Well…
In Tuesday’s newsletter, we asked you for your (health-related) opinion on drinking water—with the understanding that this may vary from place to place. We got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses:
- About 65% said “Filtered is best”
- About 20% said “From the mains is best”
- About 8% said “Bottled is best”
- About 3% said “Distilled is best”
- About 3% said “Some other source is best”
Of those who said “some other source is best”, one clarified that their preferred source was well water.
So what does the science say?
Fluoridated water is bad for you: True or False?
False, assuming a normal level of consumption. Rather than take up more space today though, we’ll link to what we previously wrote on this topic:
You may be wondering: but what if my level of consumption is higher than normal?
Let’s quickly look at some stats:
- The maximum permitted safety level varies from place to place, but is (for example) 2mg/l in the US, 1.5mg/l in Canada & the UK.
- The minimum recommended amount also varies from place to place, but is (for example) 0.7mg/l in Canada and the US, and 1mg/l in the UK.
It doesn’t take grabbing a calculator to realize that if you drink twice as much water as someone else, then depending on where you are, water fluoridated to the minimum may give you more than the recommended maximum.
However… Those safety margins are set so much lower than the actual toxicity levels of fluoride, that it doesn’t make a difference.
For example: your writer here takes a medication that has the side effect of causing dryness of the mouth, and consequently she drinks at least 3l of water per day in a climate that could not be described as hot (except perhaps for about 2 weeks of the year). She weighs 72kg (that’s about 158 pounds), and the toxicity of fluoride (for ill symptoms, not death) is 0.2mg/kg. So, she’d need 14.4mg of fluoride, which even if the water fluoridation here were 2mg/l (it’s not; it’s lower here, but let’s go with the highest figure to make a point), would require drinking more than 7l of water faster than the body can process it.
For more about the numbers, check out:
Acute Fluoride Poisoning from a Public Water System
Bottled water is the best: True or False?
False, if we consider “best” to be “healthiest”, which in turn we consider to be “most nutrients, with highest safety”.
Bottled water generally does have higher levels of minerals than most local mains supply water does. That’s good!
But you know what else is generally has? Microplastics and nanoplastics. That’s bad!
We don’t like to be alarmist in tone; it’s not what we’re about here, but the stats on bottled water are simply not good; see:
We Are Such Stuff As Bottles Are Made Of
You may be wondering: “but what about bottled water that comes in glass bottles?”
Indeed, water that comes in glass bottles can be expected to have lower levels of plastic than water that comes in plastic bottles, for obvious reasons.
However, we invite you to consider how likely you believe it to be that the water wasn’t stored in plastic while being processed, shipped and stored, before being portioned into its final store-ready glass bottles for end-consumer use.
Distilled water is the best: True or False?
False, generally, with caveats:
Distilled water is surely the safest water anywhere, because you know that you’ve removed any nasties.
However, it’s also devoid of nutrients, because you also removed any minerals it contained. Indeed, if you use a still, you’ll be accustomed to the build-up of these minerals (generally simplified and referenced as “limescale”, but it’s a whole collection of minerals).
Furthermore, that loss of nutrients can be more than just a “something good is missing”, because having removed certain ions, that water could now potentially strip minerals from your teeth. In practice, however, you’d probably have to swill it excessively to cause this damage.
Nevertheless, if you have the misfortune of living somewhere like Flint, Michigan, then a water still may be a fair necessity of life. In other places, it can simply be useful to have in case of emergency, of course.
Here’s an example product on Amazon if you’d like to invest in a water still for such cases.
PS: distilled water is also tasteless, and is generally considered bad, tastewise, for making tea and coffee. So we really don’t recommend distilling your water unless you have a good reason to do so.
Filtered water is the best: True or False?
True for most people in most places.
Let’s put it this way: it can’t logically be worse than whatever source of water you put into it…
Provided you change the filter regularly, of course.
Otherwise, after overusing a filter, at best it won’t be working, and at worst it’ll be adding in bacteria that have multiplied in the filter over however long you left it there.
You may be wondering: can water filters remove microplastics, and can they remove minerals?
The answer in both cases is: sometimes.
- For microplastics it depends on the filter size and the microplastic size (see our previous article for details on that).
- For minerals, it depends on the filter type. Check out:
The H2O Chronicles | 5 Water Filters That Remove Minerals
One other thing to think about: while most water filtration jugs are made of PFAS-free BPA-free plastics for obvious reasons, for greater peace of mind, you might consider investing in a glass filtration jug, like this one ← this is just one example product on Amazon; by all means shop around and find one you like
Take care!
Share This Post
Good (Or Bad) Health Starts With Your Blood
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Blood Should Be Only Slightly Thicker Than Water
This is Dr. Casey Means, a physician, lecturer (mostly at Stanford), and CMO of a metabolic health company, Levels, as well as being Associate Editor of the International Journal of Diabetes Reversal and Prevention, where she serves alongside such names as Dr. Colin Campbell, Dr. Joel Fuhrman, Dr. Michael Greger, Dr. William Li, Dr. Dean Ornish, and you get the idea: it’s a star-studded cast.
What does she want us to know?
The big blood problem:
❝We’re spending 3.8 trillion dollars a year on healthcare costs in the U.S., and the reality is that people are getting sicker, fatter, and more depressed.
Over 50% of Americans have pre-diabetes or type 2 diabetes; it’s insane, that number should be close to zero.❞
~ Dr. Casey Means
Indeed, pre-diabetes and especially type 2 diabetes should be very avoidable in any wealthy nation.
Unfortunately, the kind of diet that avoids it tends to rely on having at least 2/3 of the following:
- Money
- Time
- Knowledge
For example:
- if you have money and time, you can buy lots of fresh ingredients without undue worry, and take the time to carefully prep and cook them
- if you have money and knowledge you can have someone else shop and cook for you, or at least get meal kits delivered
- if you have time and knowledge, you can actually eat very healthily on a shoestring budget
If you have all three, then the world’s your oyster mushroom steak sautéed in extra virgin olive oil with garlic and cracked black pepper served on a bed of Swiss chard and lashed with Balsamic vinegar.
However, many Americans aren’t in the happy position of having at least 2/3, and a not-insignificant portion of the population don’t even have 1/3.
As an aside: there is a food scientist and chef who’s made it her mission to educate people about food that’s cheap, easy, and healthy:
…but today is about Dr. Means, so, what does she suggest?
Know
thyselfthy blood sugarsDr. Means argues (reasonably; this is well-backed up by general scientific consensus) that much of human disease stems from the diabetes and pre-diabetes that she mentioned above, and so we should focus on that most of all.
Our blood sugar levels being unhealthy will swiftly lead to other metabolic disorders:
Heart disease and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease are perhaps first in line, but waiting in the wings are inflammation-mediated autoimmune disorders, and even dementia, because neuroinflammation is at least as bad as inflammation anywhere else, arguably worse, and our brain can only be as healthy as the blood that feeds it and takes things that shouldn’t be there away.
Indeed,
❝Alzheimer’s dementia is now being called type 3 diabetes because it’s so related to blood sugar❞
~ Dr. Casey Means
…which sounds like a bold claim, but it’s true, even if the name is not “official” yet, it’s well-established in professional circulation:
❝We conclude that the term “type 3 diabetes” accurately reflects the fact that AD represents a form of diabetes that selectively involves the brain and has molecular and biochemical features that overlap with both T1DM and T2DM❞
~ Dr. Suzanne M. de la Monte & Dr. Jack Wands
Read in full: Alzheimer’s Disease Is Type 3 Diabetes–Evidence Reviewed ← this is from the very respectable Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology.
What to do about it
Dr. Means suggests we avoid the “glucose roller-coaster” that most Americans are on, meaning dramatic sugar spikes, or to put it in sciencese: high glycemic variability.
This leads to inflammation, oxidative stress, glycation (where sugar sticks to proteins and DNA), and metabolic dysfunction. Then there’s the flipside: reactive hypoglycemia, a result of a rapid drop in blood sugar after a spike, can cause anxiety, fatigue, weakness/trembling, brain fog, and of course cravings. And so the cycle repeats.
But it doesn’t have to!
By taking it upon ourselves to learn about what causes our blood sugars to rise suddenly or gently, we can manage our diet and other lifestyle factors accordingly.
And yes, it’s not just about diet, Dr. Means tells us. While added sugar and refined carbohydrates or indeed the main drivers of glycemic variability, our sleep, movement, stress management, and even toxin exposure play important parts too.
One way to do this, that Dr. Means recommends, is with a continuous glucose monitor:
Track Your Blood Sugars For Better Personalized Health
Another way is to just apply principles that work for almost everyone:
10 Ways To Balance Blood Sugars
Want to know more from Dr. Means?
You might like her book:
Good Energy – by Dr. Casey Means
…which goes into this in far more detail than we have room to today.
Enjoy!
Share This Post
Wanna read more?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
You’ve Got Questions? We’ve Got Answers!
Q: Tips for reading more and managing time for it?
A: We talked about this a little bit in yesterday’s edition, so you may have seen that, but aside from that:
- If you don’t already have one, consider getting a Kindle or similar e-reader. They’re very convenient, and also very light and ergonomic—no more wrist strain as can occur with physical books. No more eye-strain, either!
- Consider making reading a specific part of your daily routine. A chapter before bed can be a nice wind-down, for instance! What’s important is it’s a part of your day that’ll always, or at least almost always, allow you to do a little reading.
- If you drive, walk, run, or similar each day, a lot of people find that’s a great time to listen to an audiobook. Please be safe, though!
- If your lifestyle permits such, a “reading retreat” can be a wonderful vacation! Even if you only “retreat” to your bedroom, the point is that it’s a weekend (or more!) that you block off from all other commitments, and curl up with the book(s) of your choice.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
When A Period Is Very Late (Post-Menopause)
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Knowledge Is
PowerSafety, Post-Menopause TooNote: this article will be most relevant for a subset of our subscribership, but it’s a very large subset, so we’re going to go ahead and address the reader as “you”.
If, for example, you are a man and this doesn’t apply to you, we hope it will interest you anyway (we imagine there are women in your life).
PS: the appendicitis check near the end, works for anyone with an appendix
We’ve talked before about things that come with (and continue after) menopause:
- What You Should Have Been Told About The Menopause Beforehand
- What Menopause Does To The Heart
- Alzheimer’s Sex Differences May Not Be What They Appear
But what’s going on if certain menstrual symptoms reappear post-menopause (e.g. after more than a year with no menstruation)?
Bleeding
You should not, of course, be experiencing vaginal bleeding post-menopause. You may have seen “PSA” style posts floating around social media warning that this is a sign of cancer. And, it can be!
But it’s probably not.
Endometrial cancer (the kind that causes such bleeding) affects 2–3% of women, and of those reporting post-menopausal bleeding, the cause is endometrial cancer only 9% of those times.
So in other words, it’s not to be ignored, but for 9 people out of 10 it won’t be cancer:
Read more: Harvard Health | Postmenopausal bleeding: Don’t worry—but do call your doctor
Other more likely causes are uterine fibroids or polyps. These are unpleasant but benign, and can be corrected with surgery if necessary.
The most common cause, however is endometrial and/or vaginal atrophy resulting in tears and bleeding.
Tip: Menopausal HRT will often correct this.
Read more: The significance of “atrophic endometrium” in women with postmenopausal bleeding
(“atrophic endometrium” and “endometrial atrophy” are the same thing)
In summary: no need to panic, but do get it checked out at your earliest convenience. This is not one where we should go “oh that’s weird” and ignore.
Cramps
If you are on menopausal HRT, there is a good chance that these are just period cramps. They may feel different than they did before, because you didn’t ovulate and thus you’re not shedding a uterine lining now, but your body is going to do its best to follow the instructions given by the hormones anyway (hormones are just chemical messengers, after all).
If it is just this, then they will probably settle down to a monthly cycle and become quite predictable.
Tip: if it’s the above, then normal advice for period cramps will go here. We recommend ginger! It’s been found to be as effective as Novafen (a combination drug of acetaminophen (Tylenol), caffeine, and ibuprofen), in the task of relieving menstrual pain:
See: Effect of Ginger and Novafen on menstrual pain: A cross-over trial
It could also be endometriosis. Normally this affects those of childbearing age, but once again, exogenous hormones (as in menopausal HRT) can fool the body into doing it.
If you are not on menopausal HRT (or sometimes even if you are), uterine fibroids (as discussed previously) are once again a fair candidate, and endometriosis is also still possible, though less likely.
Special last note
Important self-check: if you are experiencing a sharp pain in that general area and are worrying if it is appendicitis (also a possibility), then pressing on the appropriately named McBurney’s point is a first-line test for appendicitis. If, after pressing, it hurts a lot more upon removal of pressure (rather than upon application of pressure), this is considered a likely sign of appendicitis. Get thee to a hospital, quickly.
And if it doesn’t? Still get it checked out at your earliest convenience, of course (better safe than sorry), but you might make an appointment instead of calling an ambulance.
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
Jasmine McDonald’s Ballet Stretching Routine
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Why Jasmine’s Video is Useful
Jasmine McDonald is not only a professional ballerina, but is also a certified personal trainer, so when it comes to keeping her body strong and flexible, she’s a wealth of knowledge. Her video (below) is a great example of this.
In case you’re interested in learning more, she currently (privately) tutors over 30 people on a day-to-day basis. You can contact her here!
Other Stretches?
If you think that Jasmine’s stretches may be out of your league, we recommend checking out our other articles on stretching, including:
- 11 Minutes to Pain-Free Hips
- How to Permanently Loosen a Tight Psoas
- Stretching Scientifically
- Stretching & Mobility
- Stretching to Stay Young
Otherwise, let loose on these dancer stretches and exercises:
How did you find that video? If you’ve discovered any great videos yourself that you’d like to share with fellow 10almonds readers, then please do email them to us!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
