中山便血疾病中山痔疮病怎么治疗,中山肛门边长疙瘩,中山上厕所大便流血怎么办,中山因大便干燥肛门出血,中山为什么拉大便出血呢,中山痔疮疼消不下去怎么办,中山哪家外痔手术医院好

With a coronavirus vaccine still months off, companies are rushing to test what may be the next best thing: drugs that deliver antibodies to fight the virus right away, without having to train the immune system to make them.Antibodies are proteins the body makes when an infection occurs; they attach to a virus and help it be eliminated. Vaccines work by tricking the body into thinking there’s an infection so it makes antibodies and remembers how to do that if the real bug turns up.But it can take a month or two after vaccination or infection for the most effective antibodies to form. The experimental drugs shortcut that process by giving concentrated versions of specific ones that worked best against the coronavirus in lab and animal tests.“A vaccine takes time to work, to force the development of antibodies. But when you give an antibody, you get immediate protection,” said University of North Carolina virologist Dr. Myron Cohen. “If we can generate them in large concentrations, in big vats in an antibody factory ... we can kind of bypass the immune system.”These drugs are believed to last for a month or more and could give quick, temporary immunity to people at high risk of infection, such as health workers and housemates of someone with COVID-19. If they proved effective and if a vaccine doesn’t materialize or protect as hoped, the drugs might eventually be considered for wider use, perhaps for teachers or other groups.They’re also being tested as treatments, to help the immune system and prevent severe symptoms or death.“The hope there is to target people who are in the first week of their illness and that we can treat them with the antibody and prevent them from getting sick,” said Dr. Marshall Lyon, an infectious disease specialist helping to test one such drug at Emory University in Atlanta.Having such a tool “would be a really momentous thing in our fight against COVID,” Cohen said.Vaccines are seen as a key to controlling the virus, which has been confirmed to have infected more than 20 million people worldwide and killed more than 738,000. Several companies are racing to develop vaccines, but the results of the large final tests needed to evaluate them are months away.The antibody drugs are “very promising” and, in contrast, could be available “fairly soon,” said Dr. Janet Woodcock, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration official who is leading government efforts to speed COVID-19 therapies. Key studies are underway and some answers should come by early fall.One company, Eli Lilly, has already started manufacturing its antibody drug, betting that studies now underway will give positive results.“Our goal is to get something out as soon as possible” and to have hundreds of thousands of doses ready by fall, said Lilly’s chief scientific officer, Dr. Daniel Skovronsky.Another company that developed an antibody drug cocktail against Ebola — Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. — now is testing one for coronavirus.“The success with our Ebola program gives us some confidence that we can potentially do this again,” said Christos Kyratsous, a Regeneron microbiologist who helped lead that work.Regeneron’s drug uses two antibodies to enhance chances the drug will work even if the virus evolves to evade action by one.Lilly is testing two different, single-antibody drugs — one with the Canadian company AbCellera and another with a Chinese company, Junshi Biosciences. In July, Junshi said no safety concerns emerged in 40 healthy people who tried it and that larger studies were getting underway.Others working on antibody drugs include Amgen and Adaptive Biotechnologies. The Singapore biotech company Tychan Pte Ltd. also is testing an antibody drug and has similar products in development for Zika virus and yellow fever.“I’m cautiously optimistic” about the drugs, said the nation’s top infectious diseases expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci. “I’m heartened by the experience that we had with Ebola,” where the drugs proved effective.What could go wrong?— The antibodies may not reach all of the places in the body where they need to act, such as deep in the lungs. All the antibody drugs are given through an IV and must make their way through the bloodstream to wherever they’re needed.— The virus might mutate to avoid the antibody — the reason Regeneron is testing a two-antibody combo that binds to the virus in different places to help prevent its escape.Skovronsky said Lilly stuck with one antibody because manufacturing capacity would essentially be cut in half to make two, and “you will have less doses available.” If a single antibody works, “we can treat twice as many people,” he said.— The antibodies might not last long enough. If they fade within a month, it’s still OK for treatment since COVID-19 illness usually resolves in that time. But for prevention, it may not be practical to give infusions more often than every month or two.A San Francisco company, Vir Biotechnology Inc., says it has engineered antibodies to last longer than they usually do to avoid this problem. GlaxoSmithKline has invested 0 million in Vir to test them.Giving a higher dose also may help. If half of antibodies disappear after a month, “if you give twice as much, you will have two months’ protection,” Lilly’s Skovronsky said.— The big fear: Antibodies may do the opposite of what’s hoped and actually enhance the virus’s ability to get into cells or stimulate the immune system in a way that makes people sicker. It’s a theoretical concern that hasn’t been seen in testing so far, but large, definitive experiments are needed to prove safety.“As best as we can tell, the antibodies are helpful,” Lyon said.___Marilynn Marchione can be followed on Twitter: @MMarchioneAP___The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. 5919

With a swipe of a pen Monday, Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant signed into law a bill that prevents women from getting abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. His state, effective immediately, now holds the distinction of having the earliest abortion ban in the nation."As I have repeatedly said, I want Mississippi to be the safest place in America for an unborn child," Bryant tweeted this month in anticipation of the bill's passage. Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves echoed that sentiment Monday, tweeting "It's a great day in Mississippi" along with a picture of the signing.Also known as the Gestational Age Act, Mississippi's new law makes exceptions only for medical emergencies or cases in which there's a "severe fetal abnormality." There are no exceptions for incidents of rape or incest.The law also puts physicians on notice. Doctors who perform abortions after 15 weeks will be required to submit reports detailing the circumstances. If they knowingly violate the law, their medical licenses will be suspended or revoked in Mississippi. If they falsify records, they will face civil penalties or be forced to pay fines of up to 0.The measure is just one in a string of efforts to diminish access to abortions in Mississippi, critics say."Abortion is a safe medical procedure and it is a critical part of the broad spectrum of reproductive health care that a woman may use in her lifetime," said Felicia Brown-Williams, Mississippi state director for Planned Parenthood Southeast Advocates, in a statement. "This ban is not only unconstitutional -- it endangers women's health care across our state. If legislators truly cared about women's health, they would be focused on ways to improve access to health care for women, not restrict it."Access to abortions in Mississippi was already highly restrictive.It is among a small handful of states that has one remaining clinic: in this case, Jackson Women's Health Organization. Although Mississippi is among the states with a 20-week ban, up until the enactment of this latest bill, the cutoff time for abortions at the Jackson clinic was 16 weeks. And since hospitals won't perform abortions, the resulting one-week change brought on by this new law is "arbitrary," based on "capricious whim" and a way to "feed political meat" to a political base, said Dr. Willie Parker, board chairman of Physicians for Reproductive Health.Mississippi is the only state in the country that requires physicians who perform abortions to be board-certified or board-eligible obstetrician-gynecologists, a fact that's being challenged in court as unconstitutional by the Center for Reproductive Rights. Parker, an OB/GYN, explained that he could be trained in a plastic surgical procedure and be free to perform that procedure in Mississippi, even though he's not a board-certified plastic surgeon. But a family physician, a surgeon or an internist trained to perform abortions isn't given the same leeway.Mississippi also requires in-person counseling and a 24-hour waiting period before receiving an abortion, which means women must make repeat trips to the facility -- a fact that's especially burdensome for those living outside Jackson. Health plans under the Affordable Care Act, insurance policies for public employees and public funding for abortions can be applied only in cases of rape, incest, fetal impairment or when a life is endangered, according to the Guttmacher Institute.About 2,000 women a year in Mississippi receive abortions, Parker said. The vast majority, 88%, receive them in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. So by 15 weeks, he estimates, 200 women in Mississippi who should have access to an abortion no longer will.For women living in poverty who need time to gather resources to pay for an abortion and for those outside Jackson who need to find ways to cover additional expenses associated with travel, House Bill 1510 will close the door to a procedure that's been a legal right for women since the passage of Roe v. Wade in 1973.Proponents of the bill, like Mississippi State Rep. Dan Eubanks, argue that this law will do what's best for women."Beyond the obvious debate of trying to save the lives of innocent babies, there is the often less discussed issues that relates to the health of the mother who receives an abortion," Eubanks wrote in an email. "When did looking out for the life, health and overall wellbeing of a child or its mother start getting labeled as extreme in this country?"Eubanks says that the longer a woman carries a child in her womb, "the greater the potential she will suffer from psychological, emotional, and physical damages as an outcome," though that contention is generally disputed by those who advocate for safe access to abortions.The new Mississippi law is expected to be challenged in court.The Center for Reproductive Rights points out that similar efforts in other states -- Arizona, North Dakota and Arkansas -- were shot down on constitutional grounds. And the advocacy group expects that this bill to ban "pre-viability abortion" will similarly be stopped."Mississippi politicians' flagrant assault on reproductive rights will not go unchallenged," said Lourdes Rivera, senior vice president of US programs at the Center for Reproductive Rights, in a written statement. "This bill is dangerous and unconstitutional. The Center is prepared to answer any attempt to undermine 40 years of Supreme Court precedent with the full force of the law." 5500

When Bob Prebola saw a young white man riding a bike and putting up posters in his neighborhood, he and his wife took a close look and thought somebody was being racist. The picture is of a man, who appears to be Black, with his nose distorted to look larger or turned up.Prebola took down the posters near his house in Livonia, Michigan, and told 7 Action News, "the picture to me is highly offensive. People can make their own determination.”The wording on the posters says "searching for a missing friend, please contact", but the phone number goes to a cable TV customer service line. 596

While it's true that premiums for the popular silver Obamacare plan could shoot higher for 2018, most enrollees will actually end up paying less for coverage next year.In fact, more consumers will be able to snag policies that will cost them nothing each month.How can that be?It's because premium subsidies are soaring too, making many plans on the exchanges more affordable.The Trump administration, however, is stressing how much premiums will rise, saying this is yet another sign that Obamacare is irreparably broken. They are downplaying the fact that the subsidies will cover most, if not all, of the cost.Obamacare advocates worry that consumers will be scared off by the news that premiums are skyrocketing for next year. They plan to highlight the fact that many people will be able to find lower-premium policies thanks to the subsidies.Even the Trump administration found that Obamacare plans will be more affordable next year. Some 80% of enrollees will be able to find a policy for a month or less -- up from 71% this year and the highest share so far."This year, more people than any previous year have access to a plan for or less," said Josh Peck, a former Obama administration official and co-founder of Get America Covered, which is promoting enrollment for 2018. "That's what we want everyone to know."Here's why this is happening:Many insurers jacked up the rates of their silver plans in part to make up for President Trump ending federal support for Obamacare's cost-sharing subsidies. These subsidies reduce deductibles and co-pays for lower-income enrollees.Premiums for the benchmark silver Obamacare plan will soar 37%, on average, for 2018, according to federal data released Monday.The premium subsidies are pegged to a benchmark silver plan in each market. So if that plan's rate rises, the value of the subsidy does too. More than eight in 10 Obamacare enrollees receive premium subsidies.Insurers, however, did not hike the price of bronze or gold plans nearly as much. The rate of the lowest-cost bronze plan is rising 17%, on average, while the cheapest gold plan is going up 19%, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.That means the more generous premium subsidies will cover more of the monthly cost of these plans, so consumers will pay less.A 40-year-old earning ,000 will pay 75% less, on average, for the cheapest bronze plan and 21% less for the lowest-cost gold plan, according to a new analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation. A 40-year-old earning ,000 will see a 28% drop in the price of the cheapest bronze plan, and an 8% decrease in the least expensive gold plan's premium.Bronze plans have lower premiums, but their deductibles are higher -- nearly ,900, on average, for an individual in 2018, according to a new report from Health Pocket, an online health insurance shopping tool. Meanwhile, gold plans have higher premiums, but their deductibles are only ,320 on average for a single enrollee next year.The cheapest gold plan will have lower premiums than the least-expensive silver plan in 459 counties next year once subsidies are factored in, Kaiser found. Silver plans will have an average deductible of just over ,000 next year.Many more consumers will be able to enroll in bronze plans and pay nothing each month. For instance, a 48-year-old consumer earning roughly ,000 can find a zero-premium policy in nearly 1,050 counties next year, up from 132 counties in 2017, according to an analysis by Oliver Wyman consulting group.Not everyone, however, will be so fortunate. Enrollees who don't qualify for premium subsidies -- those who earn more than ,000 as an individual or ,500 for a family of four in 2018 -- may be hit with the full premium hike. They may be better off buying bronze or gold plans or looking for individual coverage outside of the Obamacare exchanges.  3877

With just eight days until election day and despite attempts at parliamentary roadblocks by Democrats, Senate Republicans easily confirmed Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court on Monday.On Sunday afternoon, the Senate voted 51-48 to advance Barrett's confirmation, which opened a final 30 hours of Senate debate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell directed the Senate to work overnight to complete the process by Monday evening. According to CNN, President Donald Trump is expected to swear-in Barrett at a ceremony at the White House at 9 p.m.Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, was the only Republican Senator set to vote against Barrett's confirmation. The final tally was 52-48.Meanwhile, Democrats' repeated attempts to delay the process have proven futile. On Thursday, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee chose to boycott a vote that sent the vote to the Senate floor. And since Senate Republicans changed parliamentary rules to prevent the filibuster of Supreme Court nominees in 2017, Democrats have little recourse to further block Barrett's confirmation.The push to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stands in stark contrast to 2016, when Republicans chose not to hold confirmation hearings for President Barack Obama's nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia for more than six months prior to a presidential election, saying that the American people should decide who fills the vacancy.Barrett's confirmation would give conservative judges a 6-3 voting edge on the court, which could significantly shape policies and precedents for a generation. 1626