吉林医院哪家治前列腺炎好(吉林市治疗男科多少钱) (今日更新中)

Every day, 20 veterans reportedly take their lives due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Now, a party drug is proving to be a promising, yet controversial, alternative therapy to treat PTSD and depression.For 11 years, Patrick, a former airman, suffered from PTSD. He said he got to a point where he felt he tried everything.   "I stayed home all the time,” he says. “I didn't get out the depression, the anxiety and the thoughts of suicide, every day."   Patrick says he found a glimmer of hope three months ago, when Veterans Affair signed off on an alternative treatment called ketamine therapy. Doctors administer a very low dose of ketamine, popularly known as “Special K.”    "Basically, it's an infusion through an IV," Patrick explains.   Some users say it feels like you're experiencing an alternative reality, but it's the immediate results after treatment that has patients seeing life through a different lens.    "I feel like someone turned on the light in the dark room,” Patrick says. “That now, I can see. Now, I can really proceed with my day."  The opioid crisis has created a cause for concern for abuse of ketamine. However, Dr. Steven Levine, the CEO of Actify Neurotherapies where Patrick goes, says this treatment is different than prescription medication.    "Most importantly, if the medicine is restricted to a controlled medical setting and people don't have it at home just to take it whenever, they feel like it that makes all the difference," Dr. Levine says.  Ketamine therapy might not be for every veteran living with PTSD, but for Patrick, it gave him his life back."I’m just thankful this program is out there and that it works for me," he says.   1778

ENCINITAS, Calif. (KGTV) -- A young woman says she chased an intruder from her Encinitas home. When she began the chase, she had no idea he was armed with a knife. Just before midnight Tuesday, Maria Medvedev was reading a book in her home in the Village Park neighborhood. She was startled by the sound of the side gate opening. Then, she saw and heard a shadowy figure race out of her yard.Medvedev took off after him and found him hiding behind a truck in the street. She says he tried to convince her he was a neighbor, then took out of a knife and approached her."He flashed it and that's when I started screaming, 'Someone call the police. Someone call 9-1-1!'" she said.  706

Federal judge Timothy J. Kelly sided with CNN on Friday, ordering the White House to reinstate chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta's press pass.The ruling was an initial victory for CNN in its lawsuit against President Trump and several top aides.The lawsuit alleges that CNN and Acosta's First and Fifth Amendment rights are being violated by the suspension of Acosta's press pass.Kelly did not rule on the underlying case on Friday. But he granted CNN's request for a temporary restraining order.This result means that Acosta will have his access to the White House restored for at least a short period of time. The judge said while explaining his decision that he believes that CNN and Acosta are likely to prevail in the case overall.Kelly made his ruling on the basis of CNN and Acosta's Fifth Amendment claims, saying the White House did not provide Acosta with the due process required to legally revoke his press pass.He left open the possibility, however, that the White House could seek to revoke it again if it provided that due process, emphasizing the "very limited" nature of his ruling and saying he was not making a judgment on the First Amendment claims that CNN and Acosta have made.Kelly was appointed to the bench by Trump last year, and confirmed with bipartisan support in the Senate.CNN has also asked for "permanent relief," meaning a declaration from the judge that Trump's revocation of Acosta's press pass was unconstitutional. This legal conclusion could protect other reporters from retaliation by the administration."The revocation of Acosta's credentials is only the beginning," CNN's lawsuit alleged, pointing out that Trump has threatened to strip others' press passes too.That is one of the reasons why most of the country's major news organizations have backed CNN's lawsuit, turning this into an important test of press freedom.But the judge will rule on all of that later. Further hearings are likely to take place in the next few weeks, according to CNN's lawyers.The White House took the unprecedented step of suspending Acosta's access after he had a combative exchange with Trump at last week's post-midterms press conference. CNN privately sought a resolution for several days before filing suit on Tuesday.The defendants include Trump, press secretary Sarah Sanders, and chief of staff John Kelly.Kelly heard oral arguments from both sides on Wednesday afternoon.Kelly, a Trump appointee who has been on the federal bench just more than a year now, was very inquisitive at Wednesday's hearing, asking tough questions of both sides, drilling particularly deep into some of CNN's arguments.Then he said he would issue a ruling Thursday afternoon. He later postponed it until Friday morning, leaving both sides wondering about the reason for the delay.In public, the White House continued to argue that Acosta deserves to be blacklisted because he was too aggressive at the press conference.Speaking with Robert Costa at a Washington Post Live event on Thursday, White House communications official Mercedes Schlapp said press conferences have a "certain decorum," and suggested that Acosta violated that. "In that particular incident, we weren't going to tolerate the bad behavior of this one reporter," she said. Schlapp repeated the "bad behavior" claim several times.When Costa asked if the White House is considering yanking other press passes. Schlapp said "I'm not going to get into any internal deliberations that are happening."In court on Wednesday, Justice Department lawyer James Burnham argued that the Trump White House has the legal right to kick out any reporter at any time for any reason -- a position that is a dramatic break from decades of tradition.While responding to a hypothetical from Kelly, Burnham said that it would be perfectly legal for the White House to revoke a journalist's press pass if it didn't agree with their reporting. "As a matter of law... yes," he said.The White House Correspondents' Association -- which represents reporters from scores of different outlets -- said the government's stance is "wrong" and "dangerous.""Simply stated," the association's lawyers wrote in a brief on Thursday, "if the President were to have the absolute discretion to strip a correspondent of a hard pass, the chilling effect would be severe and the First Amendment protections afforded journalists to gather and report news on the activities on the President would be largely eviscerated."The-CNN-Wire 4484

EVERY DAY HERO-A male accidently cut himself w/a chainsaw. Luckily Mail Carrier Mr. Garcia heard the family's screams & sprung into action using his belt as a tourniquet 2 stop the bleeding on the man's arm. Man has good prognosis due 2 Mr. Garcia's actions. pic.twitter.com/mzO7AzY9No— LASD Norwalk Station (@NorwalkLASD) October 9, 2020 351

Federal investigators are pushing for measures that would require tech companies to grant them access to encrypted data in criminal cases, according to a New York Times report.The FBI and Justice Department have reportedly enlisted the help of security experts, arguing they could find ways to technically and legally bypass a device's safety features without compromising its security.For years, the federal government and the tech industry have sparred over encryption in criminal cases.Federal agencies have said they are facing a "going dark" problem -- "eroding investigators' ability to carry out wiretap orders and search warrants," writes the Times -- because they cannot bypass devices' security measures. Investigators have argued that modern encryption technologies, as well as the rise of privacy and cyber security concerns, have hampered or completed undermined some criminal investigations.Communication service providers and other tech companies fear government-mandated access would would weaken necessary consumer protections.That issue came to a head in 2015 following the San Bernardino terror attack. Looking for evidence in the shooter's phone, the FBI demanded that Apple help unlock it. Apple CEO Tim Cook refused to comply, arguing the order would create a backdoor into their devices. 1323

来源：资阳报