April 2-May 2 is the worst 30 day period for me. The reason is April 2, 2014 was the day my 53 year old wife found out that she had metastasized lung cancer. A large tumor had formed on the bottom of one lung, they found 4 tumors in her brain, another large one in her stomach and several more throughout her intestinal track. She rarely complained about physical problems and I knew something was wrong when she said she needed to go to the hospital ER. She died exactly 30 days later. I spent virtually every minute of that time with her. I went with her to radiation appointments. I stayed in the hospital with her because it seemed like every week I would have to take her in for something that required a 3 or 4 day stay. And the final trip to the ER was May 1st. An MRI showed that one of the tumors in her intestines had torn a hole in her bowel. The ER surgeon told us straight up that she was beyond any medical care that could help her and to use the next 24 hours to say goodbye to family and friends. And almost exactly 24 hours later, she was gone. I was devastated. 30.5 years of Happily Ever After turned into god fucking damn it all to hell! And when April 2 rolls around every year, I begin living those last 30 days of her life over again. I thought that after the third time in 2017 that I was about ready to let it go. I started really living again instead of just existing. But when April 2 came this year, I found that I was back in my memories. It was easier to deal with this time because of the way I had changed over the last year. I hung around with more friends and they helped distract me and one actually helped me turn May 2 into a celebration. And I love her for that. That's my story. Why did the speaker stay in the hospital? Pick the correct answer from the following options: - Because he wanted to see the surgeon - Because his wife was ill - not enough information - Because he had to go to his own radiation appointments
Because his wife was ill

(Question)
I am currently waiting for peer reviews of two books I've worked on: one sole-authored, one co-authored. We don't talk much about the experience of waiting for reviews, and it's not something that appears to have been researched. Yet it's something everyone doing academic work has to go through and it may be bad for our mental health. I'm finding it particularly difficult at the moment because a lot rides on these reviews. The sole-authored book, which is on a contentious topic, has already had one set of reviews. Reviewer 1 was utterly damning, saying "I couldn't find anything to praise". Luckily, Reviewers 2 and 3 were more measured, offering both praise and constructive criticism, and their input helped me to revise and strengthen the typescript. However, in the process, my editor and I realised that we needed further reviews from people with a particular kind of specialist knowledge. My editor approached around ten potential reviewers, but only one agreed to do the job. So I'm gibbering what if that person agrees with Reviewer 1? The co-authored book is in a contentious format. My co-authors and I decided that I would be the person to liaise with publishers, as I have form in this process. The last time I liaised with academic publishers for a co-authored book was in the early 2000s, and I'd forgotten how heavily responsible it makes me feel. Fortunately, I've found a publisher that is interested and has sent the book out for reviews, to two professional academics and two students. This is great and terrifying but at least there are four reviewers. Even so, what if they all think it's rubbish? In many ways I love the peer review system. I welcome feedback on my writing, and I'm not at all averse to constructive criticism. I am by no means arrogant enough to think I can write a good book without input from others. Yet peer review, as a process, is fraught with uncertainty. Comments may not be constructive, or may not come at all. They may be positive, or negative, or in between, or a mixture. What did the narrator write Pick the correct answer from the following options: - A book - not enough information - A review - A story
(Answer)
A book

I never have feed a baby something that they shouldn't have but I know of an instance where someone did A neighbor of Mine was babysitting for her granddaugther. The mother had placed a water bottle filled with VODKA in the refrigerator. The grandmother used that VODKA to fill the bottle with the powder added. At some point after the baby wouldn't drink the bottle (because of the taste I imagine) but had drank some the Grandmother realized it was Vodka instead of WATER. She gave the baby Powdered Charcoal and the baby vomited the milk mix up. The baby was Ok and no harm done. She was lucky to have the powdered charcoal around. It is hard to find now in the stores. When I was a child (50's-60) it was common for All medicine chests to be supplied with Charcoal. I still keep some of that in My medicine chest. I live in a rural area. It would take me 45 minutes to get to a Medical facility. An ambulance takes 14 minutes to get to my house and 45 minutes to get to a hospital. Now I can say that I have feed babies things that are not recommended at their age. For example, If a baby is not getting full feeling off of just formula, I would make rice cereal and feed the baby that. Some babies are just to big to be satisfied on just milk. Rice is a good filler and does No harm. (like I would not use wheat cereal) I also would give a baby warm tea when they had a stomach ache. Tea of course has caffeine in it. That would not be considered kosher. I also feed My grand daughters sweet tea. They love it. it is better than many sugary corn syrup infested drinks other chose for their children. I use 3/4 cup of sugar for every 2 gallons, so it is NOT much sugar. What happened when the grandmother gave the baby powdered charcoal? Pick the correct answer from the following options: - not enough information - The baby threw up. - The baby got better. - The baby vomited.
The baby vomited.