哈密包皮过长环切手术费哈密什么包茎需要割,哈密一般怀孕多久就可以查出来,哈密比较好的看妇科,哈密割包皮要休息多长时间,哈密取环要在什么时候取,哈密25岁还能做包皮手术吗,哈密包皮手术前后得花多少钱

The U.S. regulators who will decide the fate of COVID-19 vaccines are taking an unusual step: Asking outside scientists if their standards are high enough.The Food and Drug Administration may have to decide by year’s end whether to allow use of the first vaccines against the virus. Thursday, a federal advisory committee pulls back the curtain on that decision process, debating whether the guidelines FDA has set for vaccine developers are rigorous enough.“We will not cut corners, and we will only use science and data to make that determination,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn pledged at a meeting of the Milken Institute Wednesday.Exactly how much data his agency needs to be sure a vaccine is safe and effective is a key question for the advisers. An even bigger one: If the FDA allows emergency use of a vaccine before final testing is finished, will that destroy chances of ever learning just how well that shot -- and maybe competitors still being studied -- really work?“We can’t lose sight of the fact that it is in our societal interest to see these trials to completion,” said Dr. Luciana Borio, a former FDA acting chief scientist who will be watching the advisers’ debate.Plus, multiple vaccines are being studied -- shots made with different technologies that each have pros and cons.“The first vaccine is not necessarily the best vaccine,” cautioned Dr. M. Miles Braun, a former FDA scientist now with Georgetown University School of Medicine. If the trials aren’t allowed to finish, it may be difficult or impossible to ever know for sure.It’s a critical moment in FDA’s 114-year history. The government has spent billions to race a vaccine through a research process that usually takes years, and FDA faces unprecedented pressure from the Trump administration, fueling public skepticism that politics could overrule science.Interest is so high, FDA is airing the meeting on YouTube. Here are some key issues the committee will discuss:HOW MUCH EVIDENCE IS NEEDED?FDA is requiring manufacturers to do studies of at least 30,000 people to prove if a vaccine protects and how safe it is. Those studies must include adequate numbers of people at highest risk from COVID-19 -- older adults, minorities and anyone with underlying health problems.FDA has made clear that any vaccine must be at least 50% effective. And while the studies are designed to run for two years, companies may get enough evidence the shots are protective -- in at least some people -- to stop the trials early and seek what’s called an “emergency use authorization” for wider vaccinations.Despite White House objections, the FDA told vaccine makers earlier this month not to seek that speedier review until they’ve tracked at least half their trial participants for two months. With other vaccines, that’s about the amount of time when major side effects crop up.That’s not long enough, said the head of the non-profit ECRI Institute, which reviews medical technology for hospitals and insurers. In comments submitted to the advisory committee, ECRI’s Dr. Marcus Schabacker said FDA should require six months of follow-up.“Doing any less would simply risk too much, and the consequences may be severe,” he wrote. “A weak vaccine that loses public trust could poison the well for epidemic control for many years.”WOULD EMERGENCY USE DERAIL FULL ANSWERS ABOUT VACCINES?Normally when a study ends because of evidence that a vaccine is working, the participants who got dummy shots are offered the real thing.But if FDA allows emergency use of a COVID-19 vaccine, that’s not the same as having full proof the shot works, Borio cautioned.And if the participants in the placebo group are immediately offered the real shot, researchers may not be able to get answers about all the high-risk groups in the study — or tell how long the vaccine’s protection lasts, a process expected to take many more months.But Pfizer Inc., which with Germany’s BioNTech is developing one of the leading candidates, told FDA that if it’s granted emergency use authorization, it “would have an ethical obligation” to alert study participants who got a placebo and allow them vaccine access. The company wants FDA to look into “other scientifically and statistically sound methods” to determine long-term safety and effectiveness.Pfizer’s stance is likely to face pushback. The Infectious Diseases Society of America states that FDA’s panelists “should insist” that vaccine developers “present a compelling case” for how they will complete their trials if FDA grants early authorization of their vaccine.Clearing a vaccine based on premature or faulty data “could cause more harm” by “further eroding public confidence in all vaccines,” the group said.It’s an unprecedented dilemma. The FDA has previously allowed emergency use of only one vaccine, a decades-old shot that in 2005 was authorized to prevent anthrax poisoning.This time around, multiple COVID-19 vaccines are in the pipeline. Pfizer competitor Johnson & Johnson cautioned that early FDA clearance of one vaccine could “jeopardize integrity” of other ongoing trials if patients decide to drop out to seek the first cleared shot instead.The company asked regulators to explain what options are available to ensure completion of all ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials.WHAT ABOUT LONG-TERM SAFETY MONITORING?Even a study of 30,000 people cannot spot a side effect that only strikes 1 in 100,000. So the government is planning extra scrutiny of every COVID-19 vaccine to hit the market.At first there will be limited doses given to just certain high-risk people -- and those early recipients are to get text messages daily for the first week after vaccination, and then weekly out to six weeks, asking how they’re feeling.FDA also will be checking databases of electronic health records and insurance claims, looking for any red flags.“There’s a kind of tracking that has to take place here on a massive basis that hasn’t taken place before,” said Dr. Jesse Goodman of Georgetown University, a former director of the FDA’s vaccine and biologics center.___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. 6274

The rise in telemedicine could lead to more problems for people who need to keep an eye on their heart health.A study published by JAMA showed televisits accounted for 35% of primary care cases from April to June. Office-based visits declined by half.The study found blood pressure tests also declined by 50% and cholesterol checks went down by 37%.A doctor with the American Heart Association says that could be the result of the uncertainty surrounding the start of the pandemic.“They were doing the COVID tests in the same place as normal labs, so people were hesitant to go, and when you think of cholesterol panel, its fasting, which means a lot of lab places were getting top heavy with people in the mornings,” said Dr. Reshmaal Gomes, a volunteer with the American Heart Association.Gomes says labs now separate COVID-19 tests from other lab work. She says home lab testing has become more efficient and many insurance companies now pay for it.She says telehealth has also proved to be important for those recovering from heart attacks and strokes.“They have shown that telehealth rehab after a stroke is working and working for patients who would not have been able to make those three or four visits to the physical therapist,” said Gomes.Gomes says people who had blood pressure and cholesterol checks done in between doctor visits reduced their likelihood of a heart related emergency by 50%. 1412

The White House is again rejecting calls for a national mask-wearing mandate.White House chief of staff Mark Meadows says in an appearance on “Fox and Friends” Monday morning that the president sees the issue as a “state-to-state” matter.He says that, “certainly a national mandate is not in order” and that “we’re allowing our local governors and our local mayors to weigh in on that.”New Jersey’s Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy has said he’d like to see a national strategy on the coronavirus, including a mask requirement. He says his state is seeing “small spikes in reinfection” from residents coming back from Florida, South Carolina and other virus hotspots, and the U.S. is “as strong as our weakest link right now.”Vice President Mike Pence has also rejected the idea of a national mandate, saying that’s up to governors and local health officials. 862

The Trump administration will no longer seek to automatically release pregnant immigrants from detention -- a move in line with the overall efforts by the administration to hold far more immigrants in custody than its predecessors.The change in policy was sent by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement to Congress on Thursday morning and obtained by CNN.According to the new directive, immigration officers will no longer default to trying to release pregnant women who fall into immigration custody, either because they are undocumented or otherwise subject to deportation. The Obama administration policy urged officers to presume a pregnant woman could be released except for extreme circumstances.But a FAQ sent with the directive makes clear that ICE is not going to detain all pregnant immigrants. The policy will require a case-by-case evaluation, the FAQ explains, and will keep in custody "only those whose detention is necessary to effectuate removal, as well as those deemed a flight risk or danger to the community."ICE will also lean towards releasing pregnant women if they are in their third trimester, and will also make an effort for detention facilities to provide services to pregnant women and parents.The move follows controversial efforts by the Department of Health and Human Services to keep unaccompanied minor immigrants in custody rather than releasing them to obtain abortions, a policy that has been the subject of intense litigation.The-CNN-Wire 1482

The United States Army has announced the Guillen family is entitled to receive a variety of Army benefits after Spc. Vanessa Guillen's death was determined to be "in the line of duty."Army officials say the Guillen family was briefed on Tuesday, October 20 on the results of the line of duty investigation into Spc. Guillen's death.The investigation concluded that her death was in the line of duty. This determination allows the Guillen family to receive Army benefits due to Spc. Guillen's service.The Army says these benefits typically include compensation to immediately help the family with expenses, a funeral with full military honors, the Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance, and final pay and allowances.A line of duty determination is conducted for all soldier deaths.Officials say the III Corps leadership remains in contact with the Guillen family to keep them informed of the additional actions being taken at Fort Hood, and what policies are being revised to ensure Army culture continues to put people first and honors Spc. Guillen's life.This story was first reported by Sydney Isenberg at KXXV in Waco, Texas. 1135