伊宁人流一共的价格(伊宁霉菌性阴道炎治疗费用) (今日更新中)

Retailers pulled some name brand dog food from store shelves after a euthanasia drug was found in several products."I was a little surprised, but at the same time you hear all sorts of stuff about what is and what isn't in dog food," said Sam Porach, pet owner.The FDA started an investigation after a TV station tested several cans of Gravy Train dog food and found 60 percent contained pentobarbital, a drug used to euthanize animals, found in some products."It's a tranquilizing drug that is sometimes used by veterinarians in animal shelters to reduce anxiety in animals and ultimately put them to sleep," said Jackie Bowen, the executive director of Clean Label Project.The Clean Label Project is a non-profit aimed at educating people about toxins in products, including pet food."This industry needs to do a lot more testing and be a lot more critical of the ingredients used in its products," said Bowen.The J.M. Smucker Co. owns the brands in question including Gravy Train, Kibble 'N Bits, Skippy and Ol' Roy.  The company is investigating how pentobarbital got into the supply chain."One possible way is through contaminated ingredients," Bowen said.Between recalls and reading labels, pet owners are left trying to navigate what's really safe."Try to go all natural type yah know baked treats and stuff," pet owner Ryan Searle said."I feel like there's been a pretty big movement lately on knowing what's in your dogs' food and having higher quality foods," Porach said.Smucker's said the low level of the drug found in the food does not pose a threat to pets, but admit it's not acceptable. However, the study that triggered all this started because a woman believed the food killed her dog. The Clean Label?Project has information about pentobarbital in pet food and safe products on its website.  1849

Rudy Giuliani just contradicted the White House and the Justice Department on a very sensitive subject: The AT&T-Time Warner deal."The president denied the merger," Giuliani, a new member of President Trump's legal team, said in an interview with HuffPost on Friday.Giuliani was seemingly trying to defend the president against any suggestion that Michael Cohen improperly influenced the administration after the revelation that Cohen, Trump's longtime personal attorney, was paid large sums of money by AT&T and several other corporate clients."Whatever lobbying was done didn't reach the president," Giuliani said, repeating a claim he made to CNN's Dana Bash on Thursday.But then Giuliani went further, telling HuffPost's S.V. Date that "he did drain the swamp... The president denied the merger. They didn't get the result they wanted."In other words: If AT&T hired Cohen to win government approval of the deal, AT&T wasted its 0,000.But the assertion that "the president denied the merger" flies in the face of everything the government has previously said about the deal."If Giuliani didn't misspeak, this is major news," former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti tweeted Friday night. "It is highly unusual for the president to be involved in DOJ merger decisions."It is possible that Giuliani misspoke, or that he simply does not know what he's talking about. He was not working for Trump at the time the Justice Department was reviewing the deal. Since he began representing Trump, he has had to change the story he has been telling in public about Stormy Daniels and what Trump knew or didn't know and when about the payment Cohen made to her. And he may simply have meant "the president" as a stand-in for "the administration."But this is not the first time that there have been questions about whether politics and Trump influenced the DOJ's decision.On the day AT&T announced its bid to buy Time Warner, the parent company of CNN, then-candidate Trump said he opposed the deal. So when he took office, there were concerns within AT&T and Time Warner that he or his aides would try to block the deal.AT&T said earlier this week that it hired Cohen, in part, to gain "insights" about the Trump administration's thinking about the deal.Throughout 2017, career officials at the Justice Department's antitrust division conducted a standard review of the proposed deal.The DOJ traditionally operates with a lot of independence. But there were persistent questions about possible political interference, especially in light of the president's well-publicized disdain for both CNN and attorney general Jeff Sessions.Still, AT&T and Time Warner executives believed the deal would receive DOJ approval, much like Comcast's acquisition of NBCUniversal did nearly a decade ago. By October, they thought the thumbs-up was right around the corner.They were wrong. In November, the DOJ went to court to block the deal, alleging that the combination of the two companies would give AT&T too much power in the marketplace.That's when questions about Trump's hidden hand really got louder. Democratic lawmakers raised alarms. So did AT&T and Time Warner. Other critics pointed out Trump's complaints about Sessions and the DOJ. Trump had recently been quoted saying "I'm not supposed to be involved in the Justice Department," adding, "I'm not supposed to be doing the kinds of things I would LOVE to be doing, and I'm very frustrated by it."But White House aides like Kellyanne Conway insisted that the White House was not interfering.The DOJ's antitrust chief, Makan Delrahim, said the same thing. He denied being influenced by Trump.In an affidavit, Delrahim said "all of my decisions" about suing to block the deal "have been made on the merits, without regard to political considerations."Ahead of the trial, AT&T and Time Warner sought discovery on any relevant communications between the White House and the Justice Department. But a judge denied the request, and the companies dropped any argument that the case was motivated by politics.The Justice Department and AT&T had no immediate comment Friday night.The-CNN-Wire 4182

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A California utility blamed for igniting several wildfires caused by downed power lines that killed dozens and destroyed thousands of homes agreed Tuesday to pay billion in damages to local governments.Attorneys representing 14 local public entities announced the settlement with Pacific Gas & Electric to cover "taxpayer losses."More than half of the settlement is related to the 2018 fire in Northern California that killed 85 people and destroyed more than 13,000 homes. It included 0 million to the town of Paradise, which was mostly destroyed in the fire.The money also covers damage from a 2015 in Butte County and a series of 2017 fires in Northern California wine countryThe Texas-based Baron & Budd law firm announced the settlement on behalf of the 14 local governments."This money will help local government and taxpayers rebuild their communities after several years of devastating wildfires," Baron & Budd said in a news release. "The cities and counties will be in a better position to help their citizens rebuild and move forward."PG&E Corp. filed for bankruptcy earlier this year citing billions of dollars in expected losses, mostly from lawsuits filed by individual fire victims, businesses and insurance companies. A judge overseeing that case must approve the settlement announced Tuesday.PG&E spokesman Paul Doherty called the settlement "an important first step toward an orderly, fair and expeditious resolution of wildfire claims." 1515

RICHMOND, Va. — There has been a major drop in the number of people behind bars in the U.S. An analysis by The Marshall Project and The Associated Press found that between March and June, more than 100,000 people were released from state and federal prisons. That's a drop of 8%. By comparison, the Vera Institute of Justice found that for all of 2019, the state and federal prison population fell by 2.2%. As the U.S. struggles with the coronavirus, prison reform advocates are urging releases to halt its spread in correctional facilities. But their release, and how they behave when they’re out, is likely to affect the larger criminal justice reform movement. 671

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has thrown out California's ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines.The panel's majority ruled Friday that the law banning magazines holding more than 10 bullets violates the constitutional right to bear firearms. California Rifle & Pistol Association attorney Chuck Michel calls it a huge victory.The ruling has national implications because other states have similar restrictions.California Attorney General Xavier Becerra did not immediately say if he would ask for a full court review or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.He also did not say if the state would seek a delay to prevent a buying spree. 705

来源：资阳报