梅州瘦咬肌多少钱一针梅州哪种流产更安全,梅州医院妇科医院,梅州做打胎合适的时间,梅州念珠菌阴道炎需要治疗吗,梅州处女膜修补术手术,梅州吸脂腹部手术多少钱,梅州产后乳房松驰下垂怎么办

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) — Lime is rolling its dockless scooters and bikes out of San Diego, a month after a hearing officer ruled the company could keep its operating permit.Lime announced Thursday they would not be renewing their permit to operate in San Diego but would monitor the opportunity to return in the future.“As part of our path to profitability, Lime has made the difficult decision to exit San Diego and focus our resources on markets that allow us to meet our ambitious goals for 2020," a statement from Lime said. "We’re grateful to our team members, riders, Juicers and communities who supported us throughout this journey. We appreciate the partnership we’ve enjoyed with San Diego and remain hopeful we can reintroduce Lime back into the community when the time is right."RELATED: City Council committee OKs changes to dockless scooter, bike lawThe company said it tried to work with city leaders on compliance and safety concerns, but was instead forced to defend its permit — which it did successfully. Lime added that the city's most recent regulations have led to a decrease in ridership and that the city has not been transparent when it comes to towing by city-contracted and private towing companies.In December, city council leaders voted to ban electric scooters from the city's boardwalks at Mission Beach, Pacific Beach, Mission Bay Park Bayside Walk, and La Jolla Shores. A month before, city leaders passed new regulations for e-scooters and bicycles, including a speed limit drop from 15 to 8 miles per hour on boardwalks, a ban on parking scooters in certain areas, and permitting fees.RELATED: San Diego scooter ridership drops off dramaticallyLime said it is also ending operations in Atlanta, Phoenix, and San Antonio as part of its "path to profitability."In September 2019, Uber also made the call to pull its dockless scooters and bikes out of San Diego. The company said at that time that, “we agree with local elected officials in San Diego who’ve said current micromobility regulations foster an unsustainable operating environment."Data released in October 2019 showed 222,076 people rode the dockless vehicles in the two week period ending Oct. 15, down from 441,830 rides from July 15 to July 30. 2243

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) — It’s a term we’ve heard a lot during the pandemic: emergency use authorization.From ventilators to diagnostic tests to experimental drugs like remdesivir, the Food and Drug Administration has issued at least 616 emergency use authorizations, or EUAs, since the pandemic began.“That’s such a powerful term: emergency use authorization,” said President Donald Trump on Aug. 23 when announcing an EUA for convalescent plasma.Top officials at the FDA are now floating the idea of using an EUA to speed up distribution of a vaccine against COVID-19, writing that it “may be appropriate” under certain circumstances. Critics contend it would be a dangerous move.The mechanism was put into law back in 2004, and EUAs have been used in several health emergencies since, including the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.An EUA allows the FDA to temporarily authorize a drug or device for use during an emergency under certain conditions. There must be no formally approved alternatives to the product, and the available evidence must suggest the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks.“Because in some emergencies, we just cannot wait for all the evidence needed for full FDA approval,” the agency says in a video explaining the rationale for an EUA.While EUAs are relatively common for diagnostic tests and experimental drugs, there has only been one EUA issued for a vaccine. In 2005, the FDA authorized a vaccine intended to protect U.S. soldiers from an anthrax chemical attack. It was the first time the FDA ever used the EUA process. In that case, the product, Anthrax Vaccine Absorbed, had been formally licensed in 1970 as safe and effective against anthrax on the skin, but was not formally approved to counteract inhaled anthrax.In a letter to pharmaceutical companies, the FDA said it “may be appropriate” to issue an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine “once studies have demonstrated the safety and effectiveness” of the product, but before other steps in the traditional submission process, like detailed information on how the vaccine was made and tested.“It is extremely rigorous,” Dr. Christian Ramers of Family Health Centers of San Diego said of the typical FDA approval process. “People have to submit thousands of pages of documents. They have to open their books, essentially, and show all of the detail on how these things have been tested.”An EUA could allow for the release of a vaccine before the election, something President Trump has suggested but other members of his administration have said is unlikely.The prospect of an EUA for a vaccine alarms consumer advocates like Dr. Sidney Wolfe of Public Citizen, who sent a letter to the agency urging it to avoid the expedited process.“The amount of information on how effective it is, the amount of information on how safe it is is less than would be required for full approval,” Wolfe said. “And full approval could arguably come in three or four months.”Wolfe thinks an EUA could backfire.“The loss of confidence by people will contribute to a much decreased willingness to be vaccinated,” he said, citing a survey during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic that showed people were reluctant to volunteer for inoculation if the vaccine only had emergency authorization.Critics say there’s already shaky public confidence after reports of political pressure from the president in the EUAs for convalescent plasma and for hydroxychloroquine.In the latter case, the FDA revoked the EUA for the anti-malaria drug June 15 after more studies showed it wasn’t effective and could have serious side effects.Dr. Ramers at Family Health Centers of San Diego says there is a big ethical difference between authorizing an experimental drug with limited data and authorizing a vaccine.Fundamentally, doctors give drugs to patients who are already sick, and they're more willing to try something untested in a last-ditch effort. “In somebody who has been through two or three or four rounds of [chemotherapy] and nothing has worked, the risks and benefits are tilted in a different way,” he said.“But a vaccine is a really special situation because we’re giving it to healthy people. We’re giving it to the general population before they become ill. So historically, the safety threshold for a vaccine has been way, way, way higher,” Ramers added. 4302

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) -- Investors say an Oceanside company that promised a green and environmentally friendly way for people to invest their money, instead left them with nothing.Team 10 has spoken to multiple people who said they invested with the Pacific Teak Reforestation Project, managed and developed by Pacific Management Group.On the company’s website, Ron Fleming is listed as PMG’s founder and chairman of the board. The website states the reforestation project “provides individuals, businesses, and institutions around the world with the opportunity to build their financial future, while saving one of the earth’s most precious and scarce natural habitats: the tropical rainforest.” The company said as the trees matured and grew larger, so did profits. The website stated that "in the time it takes teak trees to grow from seedlings to maturity--after only 15 full years of growth--[the] asset's value will likely increase as many as ten times based on historical price trends." Investors would then benefit from that profit.Mark Baker, who lives in Tucson, said he and Fleming grew up together and their mothers were best friends. In 2010, he invested ,000 of his retirement money into Pacific Teak.“That money to me was going to be part of my legacy to help my grandkids go to school,” Baker said.In 2014, he said he invested another 0,000. To this day, he said he has not received any return on that investment. “I’ve had to make a plan B for my retirement,” Baker said.Team 10 spoke to at least six people who invested with Pacific Teak. Their teak tree purchase agreements show the investors paid anywhere from nearly ,000 to nearly 0,000 for a teak tree project in Costa Rica.“It was a green investment... they were planting and they were redeveloping land that had been the victim of slash and burn techniques by the locals,” said Greg Robertson, another investor who currently lives in Rome, Italy.Robertson met Fleming on a flight in the late 1990s. “That developed into a friendship,” he said.He invested nearly ,000 in the project. “This was a very green project. It was long term,” he said. “It was all positives.”It was positive at first, but Robertson said it changed as time went on. “No monthly letters or annual business account letters... nothing. Zero,” Robertson said. “It was unusual.”Michael Tillman said he put in more than ,000 with Pacific Teak in early 2009. He has not received any money on his investment.“It’s just the stress of trying to figure out where I’m going to recoup this money to send my daughter to school,” Tillman said.Tillman said investors were given teak forecasters, which showed how much trees gained in value over the years. “So, I’m looking at the low end which is ,000... and I’m thinking, that’ll cover maybe a semester or two,” he said.Tilllman said he started to sense something was wrong a couple years ago when they stopped hearing from Fleming. Tillman got in contact with other investors, like Baker and Robertson, and discovered many people had not received any return on investment. “I’m already stressed out because for so long, I thought that it was taken care of,” Tillman said.Team 10 reached Fleming via email. He said he “resigned himself from executive position in Pacific Management Group the later part of 2013 due to health issues.” He also said that he left prior to Hurricane Otto in 2016, which he alleged caused catastrophic damage to the project.”The investors said they were not aware of Fleming’s retirement in 2013, as he never communicated that to them. The investors also said they were not informed of any hurricane damage until after they questioned Fleming for updates.“I was devastated. I never thought it was part of his character,” Baker said.A spokesperson with the Department of Business Oversight—which is now the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation—said Fleming was not supposed to operate in California. The DBO issued a desist and refrain order in 2016. It said Pacific Teak and Pacific Management Group did not have the proper permit to be in business. In addition, the state found the company “misrepresented that investors would receive substantial profits.” It also found the company was in violation of the Corporate Securities Law. The state said Fleming and the company “misrepresented to investors this investment opportunity was low- risk.” Fleming never responded to Team 10’s follow up questions, only writing that he was “super busy” with his youngest daughter getting married.Fleming’s attorney contacted Team 10, telling me the “matter is complex and there are many unfounded rumors, along with misstatements, that have been circulating.“The fact is that Mr. Fleming has done nothing unethical in connection with his association with Pacific Management from which he resigned in 2013. I would request that you and your employer be very careful in what you publish in this matter,” wrote attorney Dominic Amorosa.He added in a separate email: "I am not sure whether you can find any investor in the United States who believes that an investment must necessarily be successful notwithstanding any foreseeable or unforeseeable events." The investors are still in disbelief about the turn of events and hope they will able to recoup some of their money. “He didn’t care about us at all, just about himself,” Robertson said.“He messed up so many lives. So many lives,” Baker added.Investors said they reported Fleming to the FBI. A spokesperson said they could not confirm or deny any investigation, but will take appropriate action if it is warranted. 5616

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) - Members of Congress are responding to a Team 10 investigation that uncovered allegations the government is not providing adequate medical care to some U.S. citizens in its custody.Two recently filed lawsuits allege that dozens of individuals’ medical needs were deliberately ignored by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents, and Americans were forced to undergo life-threatening and torturous detox in temporary holding cells at the border.In a statement to 10News U.S. Congressman Bennie Thompson, Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security wrote, “The allegations made in these lawsuits are extremely troubling. Anyone in CBP custody who is in medical distress should receive urgent medical care if they require it. Across the board, it’s clear that CBP has work to do to ensure safe and humane conditions for all detainees.”San Diego area Congressman Scott Peters also responded saying, “Everyone in federal custody deserves access to basic care. Ignoring a detainee’s pleas for help runs counter to CBP’s own national policies, which say detainees are entitled to medical care if they report an illness or appear to need help. Officers at the border may be overwhelmed, but if CBP is going to detain people, they have a duty to provide proper medical care to the people in their custody.”10News also heard from ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties. A spokesperson wrote, "Unfortunately, horrible detention conditions at U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities, including inadequate medical care, is nothing new – though they are violations of the agency’s own internal standards for treatment of people in its custody. As a result of recent federal policy decisions, far more people are being unnecessarily held in CBP custody, for longer, under these deplorable conditions. These decisions are greatly exacerbating CBP’s longstanding failure to meet the basic humanitarian needs of the people it insists on detaining.”When asked for a comment on the allegation in the lawsuits a spokesperson for Customs and Border Protection said the agency cannot comment on matters that are currently under litigation. 2159

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) - Membership has its benefits in San Diego."The Big Exchange" offers members of more than 30 participating San Diego County museums free admission from May 1 -18.The program, put on by the San Diego Museum Council, is offered as a special thank you to members of San Diego's local institutions.RELATED: Family fun at Belmont ParkThis May, members can check out special exhibits including Art of the 20th Century at the San Diego Museum of Art, The Cerutti Mastodon Discovery at the Natural History Museum, and more around town.Each member can take advantage of free admission for up to four people per membership at any of the participating museums: 684