成都专治静脉曲张静脉曲张的医院成都治鲜红斑痣去哪个医院,成都治疗下肢动脉硬化哪家医院,成都哪里治疗雷诺氏综合症好,成都治疗婴儿血管瘤好的医院在哪,成都治疗小腿静脉曲张费用是多少,成都医院治疗雷诺氏症价钱,成都下肢动脉硬化哪个医院治得好

The White House announced Friday that President Donald Trump intends to appoint Mehmet Oz, better known as Dr. Oz, to his council on sport, fitness and nutrition.Oz is well-known as a host of an eponymous television show on health and medical issues and, before that, for appearances on "The Oprah Winfey Show." But he has become a lightning rod for controversy for featuring what critics say is unscientific advice on his show.In 2015, a group of doctors criticized him harshly, saying he manifested "an egregious lack of integrity" in his TV and promotional work and called his faculty position at Columbia University unacceptable.Oz defended himself in a written statement at the time, saying, "I bring the public information that will help them on their path to be their best selves. We provide multiple points of view, including mine which is offered without conflict of interest."The-CNN-Wire 906

The rumors are true - our entomologists located the first-ever #AsianGiantHornet nest in the U.S. late yesterday. Press conference at 2 p.m. pic.twitter.com/oXuE6urXff— WA St Dept of Agr (@WSDAgov) October 23, 2020 222

The Supreme Court appears deeply divided about whether it can address partisan gerrymandering and come up with a standard to decide when politicians go too far in using politics to draw congressional districts that benefit one party over another.Hearing a case on Wednesday challenging a district in Maryland, several of the justices suggested that the issue could be addressed by the courts, but grappled with how to devise a manageable standard to govern future legislative maps.How the court rules could dramatically impact future races, as Democrats try to win back the House amid widespread unhappiness at President Donald Trump. Recently a state court in Pennsylvania redrew congressional districts there, possibly serving to erase the Republicans' 12-6 district advantage.Wednesday's case was brought by a group of Republican voters in Maryland who say Democrats went too far in redrawing districts after the last census.At one point during their one hour of oral arguments, Justice Stephen Breyer wondered whether the court should take the two challenges it has already heard dealing with maps in Wisconsin and Maryland, and another case out of North Carolina and hold arguments again next fall.The suggestion could have interesting implications if Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has been considering retirement and could be a key vote in the case, were to step down at the end of this term.On the issue of partisan gerrymandering, Breyer acknowledged that there seemed like "a pretty clear violation of the Constitution in some form" but he worried that the court needed a "practical remedy" so that judges would not have to get involved in "dozens and dozens and dozens of very important political decisions."Justice Elena Kagan pointed to the case at hand and said that Democrats had gone "too far" and took a "safe" Republican district and made it into a "pretty safe one" for Democrats. She referenced a deposition that then Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley gave where he said his intent was to create a map "that all things being legal and equal, would nonetheless be more likely to elect more Democrats rather than less."Kagan asked a lawyer for Maryland, "How much more evidence of partisan intent could we need?"Breyer seemed to urge his more conservative colleagues to step in, for the first time, and devise a framework for how to address gerrymandering.Pointing to the particular facts in the case he said, "We will never have such a record again.""What do we do, just say goodbye... forget it," Breyer asked.The challengers say former Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley led the charge to redraw the lines to unseat long-time GOP incumbent Rep. Roscoe Bartlett. They argue that Democrats diluted the votes of Republicans in the district by moving them to another district that had a safe margin for Democrats.In 2010, Bartlett won his district with by 28 percentage points, but he lost after the new maps were drawn in 2012 by 21 percentage points.But Justice Samuel Alito seemed to be on the other side of the spectrum and said, "Hasn't this Court said time and again you can't take all consideration of partisan advantage out of redistricting?"Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose vote could be critical, did not tip his hand but indicated that the current map, no matter what happens in the court, would have to be used in the next cycle.While the Supreme Court has a standard limiting the overreliance on race in map drawing except under the most limited circumstances, it has never been successful in developing a test concerning political gerrymandering. If the justices do come up with a standard, it could reshape the political landscape.In court, Michael Kimberly, a lawyer for the challengers, said that the Democratic politicians violated the free speech rights of voters by retaliating against them based on their party registration and prior voting history.He said that government officials may not "single out" a voter based on the votes he cast before.Maryland Solicitor General Steven Sullivan defended the map and suggested that the courts should stay out of an issue that is "inherently political." He argued that if the challengers prevail in their First Amendment challenge, it will mean that any partisan motive by political players would constitutionally doom all district maps.Justice Neil Gorsuch, appearing to agree with Sullivan, noted that the maps had been approved by the legislature.The challengers suffered a setback in the lower court when a special three-judge panel of federal judges refused to issue a preliminary injunction.Last year, the Supreme Court heard a similar political gerrymandering case in Wisconsin.That case was a statewide challenge brought by Democratic challengers to Republican-drawn state legislative maps. Challengers rely on both the First Amendment charge and say the maps violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.It is unclear why the Supreme Court added the Maryland case to the docket after hearing arguments in the Wisconsin case. 5026

The United States is at the beginning of a second wave of significant job loss.“We are seeing a resurgence in layoffs that has been quite clearly indicated in the last couple of weeks,” said Daniel Alpert, an adjunct professor and senior fellow at Cornell University.Cornell University recently published a study showing about a third of the people who went back to work during the pandemic have now been laid off for a second time. Another 26 percent of workers have been warned by their employers that future furloughs and layoffs may soon come.“The problem is that you get an echo,” said Alpert. “So, if you have a resurgence in layoffs, a decrease in spending, that creates more contraction on the part of businesses, which creates more layoffs. The question is, when can you put a floor under this spiraling situation? It is a classic economic spiral.”The cycle--of job loss eventually leading to more job loss--is causing some to fear it could lead to a third wave of unemployment in a few months. Experts, like Alpert, believe the only way to stop the cycle would be a vaccine or for Congress to come together on another stimulus bill that props up households and businesses until a vaccine is released.“We are very concerned about the current rollercoaster effect on resumed layoffs, but longer term, we are really scared about seeing huge numbers, tens of millions of businesses vanish,” said Alpert.The more waves of unemployment we see, the higher likelihood of that. 1486

The United States is on pace to see its highest number of overdose deaths ever since record keeping began.Between October 2019 and October 2020, 74,000 overdose deaths were reported in the country, up from 68,000 during the same time period the previous year.In local municipalities, the numbers are even more staggering as many cities already surpassed their 2019 numbers through the first nine months of this year, and experts say the pandemic is only fueling the rise.The Associated Press analyzed preliminary overdose statistics in nine states across the country: Colorado, Kentucky, Texas, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Missouri, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Washington. All of the states showed marked increased in overdose numbers from 2019 to 2020.In Colorado, for example, overdose deaths increased by 28%. In Denver, specifically, that rise was being fueled by the opiate fentanyl, which has been trafficked more across the U.S. Mexico border during the pandemic due to its strength.According Denver’s Medical Examiner’s Office, fentanyl deaths increased tenfold between 2018 and 2020. In 2019, the city reported 56 overdoses from the drug. Through October of this year, that number has skyrocketed to 108.“Drug overdoses are exceeding every metric that we’ve seen for the last decade,” said Dr. Jim Caruso, who is the coroner for the City and County of Denver. “We have had fentanyl related deaths in individuals as young as nine years old. Kids are always tough and they’ve been tough my whole career because you’re looking at the most lost years of productive life.”Dr. Ken Leonard is the Director of the Research Institute on Addictions at the University of Buffalo and says since the start of the pandemic, overdose deaths have only increased at a faster rate, particularly among those with existing drug issues.According to the AP’s analysis, deaths in all nine states peaked in either April or May, just after the tightest stages of quarantine began.Dr. Leonard says the economic consequences of the pandemic forced many drug treatment centers to either furlough or cut employees to save money, affecting accessibility to treatment. He says the isolation from support networks during quarantine may have also played a role in the rise.“The pandemic and the isolation, for a lot of people the unemployment, it all creates a tremendous amount of stress,” said Leonard.Because it takes months to tabulate national overdose death numbers, the true extent of what is happening may not be known until next year, despite early indicators that we are already in the midst of an unprecedented drug epidemic taking place during this pandemic. 2656