沈阳 好的治疗皮炎医院(沈阳市治疗皮肤病 好医院) (今日更新中)

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest clinical research hospital in the country. It’s a government run medical research agency, and about 7,000 scientists work in its research laboratories looking for new ways to improve health and save lives.Next year, more than billion in taxpayer dollars will be spent here to find treatments and cures for the biggest health issues in the country, including heart disease, cancer and Alzheimer’s.Right now, there are about 1,600 research studies in progress.Dr. Larissa Korde is part of one of those studies, working to help find the latest breakthrough in breast cancer.She says the work done at NIH has a proven track record.“Women with her2 positive breast cancer now have numerous effective therapies and tend to live longer than they did before those drugs were evaluated and came to the market,” Dr. Korde explains. “And our research has been involved all along the way.”               With each new study, doctors continue to learn more and hope the next discovery will help save more lives.   1112

The polling industry has a lot on the line heading into Tuesday's midterm election.Critics blamed pollsters when voters were caught off guard by Donald Trump's election in 2016. Old cries of "don't believe the polls" became fevered shouts. And the president has encouraged distrust by calling certain polls "fake" and claiming they are used to "suppress" the vote.Although there is no evidence to suggest that is true, there is persistent and widespread suspicion about polling, according to, you guessed it, a McClatchy-Marist poll. And it exists on both sides, albeit in different forms."I think Democrats may have felt let down by the polls but don't think it was an intentional error. I think many Republicans believe the polling errors of 2016 were intentional," GOP pollster and co-founder of Echelon Insights Kristen Soltis Anderson told CNN.So can the industry regain trust?Since 2016 there's been a whole lot of self-reflection in the polling world. Pollsters have tweaked their techniques; pundits have become more cautious when talking about polls; and news outlets have conducted some fascinating experiments.On Tuesday, all the efforts are being put to the test."Some pollsters would disagree with this, but the way that the public generally views whether or not polling is accurate is whether or not it gets the results of the election right," CNN analyst Harry Enten said on "Reliable Sources.""I'm not necessarily sure that's fair," Enten said, "but I do think that there is more pressure on pollsters this year to get it right given the president's rhetoric and given what happened in 2016."Many, though not all, 2016 polls underestimated support for Trump. This effect was particularly pronounced at the state level, where there were embarrassing "misses," showing Hillary Clinton with safe leads in states Trump actually carried.Most national polls accurately showed Clinton winning the popular vote. But reporters and commentators made lots of mistakes in their interpretations of the polls. Readers and viewers did, too. Many people discounted the margin and other factors and made faulty assumptions that Trump would lose to Clinton.There were other problems, too. Predictive features on websites gained lots of traffic before the election but caused lots of consternation afterward. HuffPost's model infamously showed Clinton with a 98 percent chance of winning. "We blew it," the site admitted afterward.But just as importantly, HuffPost's Natalie Jackson tried to explain why.Other news outlets have also tried to be more transparent and remind voters of what polls cannot convey.In special elections since 2016, Democrats have repeatedly outperformed polls of their races.The top example was the Virginia governors' race. "Ralph Northam was favored by three points. He ended up winning by nine," Enten said.But past outcomes are not an indicator of future results."I think many pollsters and forecasters have tried to be much more intentional about explaining uncertainty and being humble about what data can and can't tell us," Anderson said. "Because I think there was a big sense that in 2016, there was more certainty conveyed than may have been justified by the available data."So political pros and reporters are communicating poll results differently this time. Time magazine's Molly Ball, who has a no-predictions rule for herself, said that even people who do make predictions are adding more caveats: There's "less of the, 'Well, the needle shows this' and more of, 'Here's what it doesn't show, here's what we should always remember can happen about probabilities.'"Early voting has been explosive in the midterms, indicating above-average enthusiasm among both Democrats and Republicans. Pollsters have to make assumptions about turnout when contacting "likely voters," and this is a difficult election to forecast.The 2018 electorate is "a universe that doesn't exist yet," Democratic pollster Margie Omero said. "I mean, people don't know whether they're going to vote, some people."They may tell a pollster that they're sure to vote, but never make it to the ballot box. Or they might change who they're voting for.Conversely, certain subsets of voters may have a big impact on the final results without really showing up in the pre-election polling. If pollsters assume relatively low youth turnout, but lots of young people vote for the first time, that could cause big surprises in certain races.The vast majority of people who are called by pollsters decline to participate, so the researchers have to make a huge number of phone calls, bend over backwards to reach a representative sample of people, and weight their results accordingly.Some polls are higher quality than others. Most news outlets tend to favor live interviewers, as opposed to computerized systems, and a mix of landline and cell phone calls. But some outlets are wading into web-based polling. CNN's polling standards preclude reporting on web polls.This fall The New York Times pulled back the curtain by conducting "live polling" and publishing the results in real time, call by call. Working with Siena College, the surveyors made 2,822,889 calls and completed 96 polls of House and Senate races."We wanted to demystify polling for people," said Nate Cohn of The Times' Upshot blog."From our point of view, it's almost a miracle how accurate polls usually are, given all the challenges," Cohn said in an interview with CNN.He emphasized that polls are "very fuzzy things." And the real-time polling showed this to the public. The researchers sought to interview about 500 people for each race that was examined.In Iowa's fourth congressional district, for example, 14,636 calls resulted in 423 interviews.The results showed the incumbent, far-right congressman Steve King, with 47% support, and his Democratic challenger J.D. Scholten with 42%.The Times characterized this as a "slight edge" for King, with lots of room for error. "The margin of sampling error on the overall lead is 10 points, roughly twice as large as the margin for a single candidate's vote share," the Times explained on its website.Cohn's final pre-election story noted that "even modest late shifts among undecided voters or a slightly unexpected turnout could significantly affect results."That's the kind of language that lots of polling experts are incorporating into their stories and live shots, especially in the wake of the 2016 election."With polling, you never actually get to the truth," Cohn said. "You inch towards it, and you think you end up within plus or minus 5 points of it at the end."As Enten put it, "polls are tools," not meant to be perfect. But that message needs to be reinforced through the news media. 6753

The original Oktoberfest can be traced back to the early 19th century in Munich, Germany.Since then, cities across the United States celebrate the festival of German heritage.WalletHub compared the 100 largest U.S. cities based on 23 indicators of Oktoberfest friendliness and fun, and chances are, you can find one of these celebrations near you.In San Diego County, two areas are ready to say "provst!" 412

The interest rate on the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage remained near record lows in June and is likely to stay there in July.The 30-year fixed averaged 3.33% APR in the first four weeks of June, a smidgen lower than the 3.37% average APR in May and 3.36% in April. June’s rate average was the lowest in the four-year history of NerdWallet’s daily rate survey.A mission to reduce ratesMortgage rates were remarkably anchored from April through June after the Federal Reserve intervened to stabilize rates and push them down.But the Fed’s intervention hasn’t been entirely successful: Although mortgage rates have been remarkably stable, they’re stuck at a higher-than-expected level. To put it more bluntly, rates should be lower.Since March, the central bank has bought billions of dollars’ worth of Treasurys and mortgage bonds “to sustain smooth market functioning, thereby fostering effective transmission of monetary policy to broader financial conditions,” as the Fed explained in a June 10 statement.Dissecting that short passage:The Fed is saying that its goal is to push interest rates, including mortgage rates, lower. That’s what “transmission of monetary policy to broader financial conditions” means.It’s trying to accomplish that goal by buying Treasurys and mortgage bonds to calm and stabilize those markets. Stabilizing markets is a method, not the goal.? MORE: How mortgage rates are determinedFed failed to make a bigger splashThe Fed has succeeded in calming the waters. That’s why there were ripples, not waves, in fixed mortgage rates from April through June. But it has only partially succeeded in its goal to push interest rates lower. For the Fed to declare victory in “fostering effective transmission of monetary policy to broader financial conditions,” mortgage rates would have to fall another half a percentage point or so.With its intervention, the Fed decreased Treasury yields and mortgage rates. But the results are unequal: Since January, the 10-year Treasury yield has fallen a little over one percentage point, while the 30-year mortgage has fallen about half a percentage point. Normally, the two would fall roughly the same amount.Rates slow to sync with TreasurysWhy haven’t mortgage rates fallen further? You might guess that lenders are keeping rates elevated to offset the risk of mortgages going into default during the COVID-19 recession. But mortgage rates tend to fall during recessions.? MORE: What COVID-19 means for mortgage ratesMaybe mortgage servicers, the companies that collect monthly payments and work with past-due borrowers, want to be paid for the increased risk they bear, and it’s translating to higher rates. Maybe an undetected economic force keeps a floor on mortgage rates, preventing the 30-year fixed from falling below 3% and lingering there.A more plausible theory is that mortgage rates will follow historical patterns and shamble lower until they’ve fallen roughly the same as Treasury yields. That’s the conclusion that Bill Emmons, economist for the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, makes in a paper titled “Why Haven’t Mortgage Rates Fallen Further?”Using history as a guide, Emmons writes, “we would expect a further decline in mortgage rates of perhaps 0.5 percentage points.” If he’s right, mortgage rates might drop in July.Don’t count on it, though. Not after these two months of stability; rates might continue to tread water.More From NerdWalletCompare current mortgage ratesHow much home can I afford?Buying or selling a home during the pandemicHolden Lewis is a writer at NerdWallet. Email: hlewis@nerdwallet.com. Twitter: @HoldenL. 3623

The NAACP has filed a lawsuit against Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, claiming that he is attempting to "disenfranchise voters of color" amid the coronavirus pandemic.The lawsuit, filed Thursday in Washington, D.C. District Court, asks the court to declare DeJoy's recent operational changes as "invalid" and against the law as well prevent DeJoy from implementing further policy changes that were announced on July 10."As the country faces an uphill battle against COVID-19 and systemic racism, we're witnessing a significant onslaught against our postal system at a time when prompt mail delivery matters more than ever, especially for voters of color," Derrick Johnson, the President and CEO of the NAACP, said in a statement. "This willful and blatant attempt to obstruct the mail system amidst a pandemic and on the precipice of a pivotal election is a direct threat to the people of this nation's right to vote in a fair and free election."On Tuesday, DeJoy said in a statement that the USPS would pause the implementation of the proposed operational changes until after the November election. However, it's unclear if the agency would restore any mail sorting equipment that had been taken offline between the July 10 policy changes and Tuesday's statement.President Donald Trump has been staunchly opposed to universal mail-in voting, claiming that such policies would result in widespread voter fraud despite ample evidence to the contrary. Earlier this month, Trump said that he was hesitant to approve more funding for the USPS in order to curb the expansion of mail-in voting. 1596

来源：资阳报