沈阳皮肤过敏检查多少钱沈阳看过敏源哪家医院比较好,沈阳脸上长痘痘哪家医院好,沈阳治疗腋臭哪家更正规,沈阳火车站治脱发多少钱,沈阳治痤疮费用多少钱啊,沈阳那家皮肤癣医院比较好,沈阳看皮肤科好点的医院

The parents of Payton Summons, who was declared brain-dead, have been granted more time to keep their 9-year-old on a ventilator at a Fort Worth, Texas, hospital.Lawyers for Payton's family filed a new request on Monday to extend a temporary restraining order that would keep her on the machine at Cook Children's Medical Center. The order has been extended until next Monday at 6 pm, according to Justin Moore, a lawyer for Payton's family.A previous temporary restraining order against Cook Children's Medical Center was scheduled to expire Monday afternoon after Judge Melody Wilkinson of the 17th District Court of Texas denied a request last week to extend it."The parents want to keep on fighting," Moore, told HLN's "Michaela" on Thursday."It's probably the hardest case I've ever had to deal with in my young career," he said. "Just to see this particular situation where parents are just fighting tooth and nail and they're not gaining an inch at all, it's just heartbreaking."Payton has been on the ventilator at Cook Children's Medical Center since late September, after she went into cardiac arrest due to a large tumor in her chest.Last month, she was staying overnight with her grandmother when she suddenly woke up, "screamed for her grandmother to help her and said that she couldn't breathe ... then she collapsed," Payton's mother, Tiffany Hofstetter, told CNN affiliate KTVT in September.Payton was transported to the hospital, and doctors established a heartbeat but put her on a ventilator because she was no longer breathing.She was confirmed brain-dead after a test determined that she did not have brain activity."Brain death, by definition, is irreversible," CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta said in 2014."In the United States and most places, it is legally synonymous with death -- the same as if your heart stops," he said. "But brain death means a total loss of brain activity."Under Texas law, a person is considered dead when they have suffered an irreversible loss of all brain function, the hospital said in a statement in September, according to KTVT."Per our protocol and national pediatric medical standards, a second brain death exam was scheduled to take place by a different physician within 12 hours of the first to complete the legal process of declaring Payton deceased," the hospital said."In addition to dealing with the sudden blow of her cardiac arrest and devastating brain injury, Payton's family is also coping with the news that the arrest was caused by the growth of a very large tumor in her chest that is shutting off her circulatory system."The hospital held off on performing the second brain death examination because Payton's family filed that temporary restraining order against the facility. It was filed in order to keep her on the ventilator until they found another hospital that could take their daughter. The family's co-counsel Paul Stafford said last week that the family contacted about 25 other facilities, but there were no takers."Unfortunately, after 25 out of 28 facilities that were contacted, we had no takers. We have two maybes, and those were preconditioned on certain things which may be life-threatening to Payton if performed," he said.Kim Brown, a spokeswoman for the hospital, said in a statement this month, "Cook Children's has been informed that we no longer have the ability to speak to media about Payton Summons. Although the family previously signed a consent form authorizing the release of information protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), we have been notified by the family's lawyer that the family has revoked their consent for us to speak about Payton's condition."Unfortunately, this means that we are no longer able to provide detailed, factual information regarding this case. We're disappointed that the family has revoked their authorization because we believe that accurate information facilitates fair, balanced and informed reporting." 4031

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 photos from doctors came quickly and in succession: blood-stained operating rooms, blood-covered scrubs and shoes, bullets piercing body parts and organs.The pictures on Twitter were an emotional response to a smackdown by the powerful gun industry lobby, which took issue with the American College of Physicians' call late last month for tighter gun control laws. The recommendations included bans on "assault weapons," large capacity magazines and 3D-printed firearms."Someone should tell self-important anti-gun doctors to stay in their lane. Half of the articles in Annals of Internal Medicine are pushing for gun control. Most upsetting, however, the medical community seems to have consulted NO ONE but themselves," the National Rifle Association tweeted.Physicians across the United States seized on the phrasing, taking to Twitter with 22,000 comments and the hashtags #thisismylane and #thisisourlane, posting photos of their encounters with gun violence and offering their own personal stories of treating such wounds.The debate gained new urgency this week with the shooting death of an emergency room doctor outside the hospital where she worked, as physicians argue shootings are a public health crisis that they must play a key role in trying to stem. Dr. Tamara O'Neal was killed Monday outside a hospital in Chicago in what police say was a dispute with her ex-fiance. The shooter and two other people — a responding police officer and a resident in the hospital's pharmacy — also died."It just shows that not only is this is in our lane, but this happens to us," said Dr. Joseph Sakran, a trauma surgeon at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore who as a 17-year-old was shot in the throat by a stray bullet fired during a dispute at a high school football game.Sakran created a Twitter account @ThisIsOurLane which in just two weeks has attracted nearly 15,000 followers. They include Dr. Peter Masiakos, a pediatric trauma surgeon in Boston, who wrote "The Quiet Room" just hours after the mass shooting at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, about breaking the news that a loved one has died."We need to start talking about this as a public health issue. Politics aside, we have a problem that no other country has, and we shouldn't," Masiakos said.About 35,000 people each year are killed by guns in the United States, and about two-thirds are suicides. That's about 670 people per week and among the largest number of civilian gun deaths in the world.The world's highest rate of gun deaths is in El Salvador with a rate of 72.5 per 100,00; the rate in the U.S. is 3.1 per 100,000. Among all European countries, the rate never breaks 1 gun death per 100,000, according to Small Arms Survey, a Switzerland-based research organization that examines firearms and violence."These are not just statistics. These are people, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters that are being killed," Sakran said. "The worst part of my job is having to go out and talk to these families and to tell them that their loved one is never coming home."It's not the first time that medical professionals have taken on powerful industries: auto companies over seat belts, Big Tobacco over cigarettes and toys that posed choking hazards. It's also not the first time that the gun lobby has pushed back against the medical community or researchers it considers to be biased. In the 1990s, Congress barred the Centers for Disease Control from conducting research that advocated or pushed for gun control; while it didn't ban research from being conducted, it did have a chilling effect.More recently, the NRA backed legislation in Florida — eventually overturned in court — that would have barred doctors from asking patients about guns in the home.Dr. Stephanie Bonne, a trauma surgeon in New Jersey, was in the hospital when she saw the dispute playing out on Twitter."I was reading this, and I was like 'Stay in my lane', are you kidding me? Gun violence is something I deal with every day. We're mopping it up in the hospital every day," she said. "My second sort of reaction is maybe people ought to see what this lane is really all about."Bonne works at a Level I trauma center — the top-level hospital for treating the most serious cases. Her hospital sees about 600 gunshot wounds each year, and she described the toll that unfolds: medically, psychologically and financially."It's always tragic and it's always preventable," Bonne said.Dr. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in the San Francisco Bay area, examines the dead. She took to Twitter to push back at the gun lobby, posting: "Do you have any idea how many bullets I pull out of corpses weekly? This isn't just my lane. It's my (expletive) highway.""The chutzpah, the gall is what really got to me," Melinek told The Associated Press. "The NRA seems to think they've cornered the market on expertise when it comes to guns. And that's not correct."She's conducted about 300 autopsies involving gunshot wounds, about half of those suicides. She's seen the damage from bullets and believes more and better research would help prevent gun violence.Would GPS tracking on firearms or high-tech trigger locks make firearms safer, for example?Dr. Arthur Przebinda, director of the gun rights advocacy group Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, said the pushback from physicians is largely driven by more liberal forces within medical academia and based on ignorance about firearms.He described it as old, tired debate that shows a knee-jerk bias against firearms. Rather than stripping away constitutional rights, physicians should focus on finding ways to study the underlying causes of violence, he noted."These virtue-signaling physicians would be in their lane if they pursued better surgical techniques, better postoperative treatments. They are in the wrong profession if they want to cure society's ills," Przebinda said. "If that was their life's calling, they should have pursued a career path in psychology, criminology or the clergy."___This story has been amended to correct the first name of Dr. Judy Melinek. 6087

The massacre of 26 worshipers at a rural Texas church is the latest in a grisly series of mass shootings across America in recent years.With each tragedy, we hear arguments about gun violence, mental health, how much firearms should be regulated and what’s driving the prevalence of mass shootings. PolitiFact has worked for years to research these topics to help explain talking points used by all sides of the debate.Here are some answers to some questions you may have.How do we define mass shootings?There is no widely accepted definition of mass shootings. People use either broad or restrictive definitions of mass shootings to reinforce their stance on gun control.Researchers at the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service defined "mass shooting" as "a multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms, within one event, and in one or more locations in close proximity" in a 2015 report. They counted 317 mass shootings from 1999-2013.The report also used the term "mass public shooting" for a multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms, within one event, in at least one or more public locations, such as a workplace, school or house of worship. There were 66 attacks that met that definition during that 15-year period.After the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting, Congress defined "mass killings" as three or more homicides in a single incident. The definition was intended to clarify when the U.S. Attorney General could assist state and local authorities in investigations of violent acts and shootings in places of public use.The Gun Violence Archive tracks gun deaths using media, law enforcement, government and commercial sources. Its data is based on a broader criteria: at least four people injured or killed in one location, not including the suspect. Criminologists previously told?PolitiFact that this group’s tally includes gang shootings and home invasion robberies.When is a mass shooting in the United States considered terrorism?A mass shooting needs to meet several criteria in order to be legally labeled as domestic terrorism. That definition applies to acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of U.S. or state criminal laws, which occur primarily within U.S. territorial jurisdiction and appear to be intended to: 2388

The publisher of an online news website says two of the site's reporters were arrested while covering protests of a grand jury's decision not to indict officers in the fatal shooting of Breonna Taylor. Daily Caller publisher Neil Patel says the two reporters were peacefully doing their jobs in Louisville, Kentucky, on Wednesday night when they were detained. Police on Thursday confirmed that Shelby Talcott was charged with failure to disperse and unlawful assembly and Jorge Ventura was charged with failure to disperse and violation of curfew. No further details were released by authorities.Talcott confirmed Thursday evening that she had been released, and that "it was a scary experience to be arrested for doing my job."Protesters poured into the streets around the country Wednesday to protest the Kentucky jury's decision. 841