梅州细菌性尿道炎的危害(梅州人流手术前要注意什么) (今日更新中)

Just signed an exclusive agreement at the Pentagon with Acting Secretary of the @USNavy to redevelop its NAVWAR facility — and create with it a transit hub that finally connects the trolley to @SanDiegoAirport! Huge milestone w/ @SANDAG built on San Diego’s proud Naval heritage pic.twitter.com/BS14PYFPHg— Kevin Faulconer (@Kevin_Faulconer) January 23, 2020 372

Just after The Associated Press and other news organizations declared that former Vice President Joe Biden beat President Donald Trump, fireworks erupted in Atlanta.In Maine, a band playing at a farmers’ market broke into the Battle Hymn of the Republic. A massive pro-Biden crowd gathered in the streets outside the White House.In New York City, some stopped their cars wherever they happened to be, got out and danced in the streets. Car horns and bells echoed through neighborhoods across Puerto Rico.In Kansas City, they swayed in a park to the song “Celebration” by Kool & the Gang. And for all that joy, there was equal parts anger and mistrust on the other side. 681

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Despite doctors and medical experts working to assure the community the COVID-19 vaccine is safe, there are some myths flying around. In an interview with KSHB, Dr. Matt Gratton, associate chief medical officer at Truman Medical Center, addressed some of the most common myths.MYTH: The COVID-19 vaccine has a microchip that will allow the government to track those who get it:"That is definitely not true, I mean I’m not really sure how I can prove that, but it's not true," Gratton said. "If it helps I got the vaccine yesterday, and so I would not let somebody plant a microchip into my body, I think that is something that the vast majority of Americans would find incredibly hard to believe."MYTH: The vaccine was rushed and therefore is not safe:"I think people should look at this a different way and say this is really a miracle of modern science being able to develop this vaccine as quickly as possible using literally the most modern up-to-date genetic techniques," Gratton said. Gratton said Americans should take comfort in knowing that thousands of scientists worked on the production of the vaccine to produce it quickly."It just goes to show you what human beings can do when they work together and follow science," Gratton said.Gratton said it's important to note that the approval process of the vaccine is a thorough one."The CDC is an organization made up of some of the smartest scientists and physicians in America, and American scientist and physicians are the smartest in the world," Gratton said. "When the CDC sets up a process to evaluate a vaccine and other technology I feel very confident trusting their judgment."Gratton said many of the people involved with the decision-making process at the CDC don't work for the government but are outside scientists and physicians who advise the CDC.MYTH: You don't need to get the vaccine if you've had COVID-19:Gratton said the CDC does recommend someone who has had COVID-19 to still get the vaccine, but there is some question about what the best timing is."Because the vaccine is fairly rare at the moment there’s just not that much of it to go around, there is the recommendation from some experts that you might want to wait for 90 days or so and let other people who have not had COVID get a vaccine," Gratton said. Gratton said this is the approach Truman Medical Center is taking with workers who have had COVID-19 in the last 90 days. Ultimately, he said everyone will get the vaccine at some point."There’s still some science to be worked on, but there is some evidence that perhaps the vaccine will give better immunity than natural COVID," Gratton said. "That’s not definitively determined, but I think everyone agrees at some point you should get the vaccine even if you have had COVID."MYTH: The vaccine will cause severe side effects:"Every vaccine has a potential to give people side effects, and this is no different than that," Gratton said.Gratton said there is some evidence that shows people may be more likely to develop symptoms after receiving the second injection. According to Gratton, the most common side effects are injection site symptoms such as pain, swelling or redness. Other minor symptoms may be headache, fatigue or body aches.Gratton said studies show only about 10-15% of people had minor symptoms such as a low-grade fever."The second shot it’s a little bit higher so more like 20 percent," Gratton said. "So it is true that people with the second shot typically feel, if they get any symptoms at all, a little bit worse than after the first shot, but the vast majority of people will be able to go about their business."As far as allergic reactions, Gratton said there have been several cases in England."That can happen with any vaccine so there is a recommendation that if you've had an allergic reaction, a serious allergic reaction, that you need to be more cautious about getting this one and be observed a little bit longer afterwards," Gratton said. Gratton said he feels confident that the people giving the vaccine will be able to treat allergic reactions if they do happen. "It’s very rare, in the actual study they based approving this vaccine on there were no serious allergic reactions," Gratton said. This story was originally published by Emma James at KSHB. 4313

Kathleen Hartnett White, President Trump’s top pick for a key White House post advising him on environmental and energy policies, gave a response Wednesday at a Senate nomination hearing that raises questions about the truthfulness of her testimony.At issue: White’s answer to a question from Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del., about her role in helping public water systems across Texas underreport the amount of radiation present in their drinking water. Last month, Trump tapped White, a former chair of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality who has a reputation for extreme opposition to federal environmental regulations, to lead the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality. In her nomination hearing before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Carper, the ranking member on the panel, stated, “When Ms. White served on the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the commission staff were told to underreport the levels of radiation in drinking water.”   Carper cited a 2011 investigative documentary from KHOU-TV in Houston that showed White openly acknowledged playing a role in a scandal where official state policy helped dozens of water systems in Texas avoid cleaning up radioactive contamination of drinking water that exceeded amounts allowed by the EPA.“She later defended these actions, telling the reporter that, quote, ‘We did not believe the science of health effects justified the EPA setting the standard where they did,’” Carper said.In responding to the Senate committee, White said, “I would never, ever tell staff to underreport health hazards. That’s the only statement I wanted to make.”  KHOU reported in 2011 that White, who also sat on the Texas Water Advisory Council, acknowledged that the decision to report lower test results, rather than the actual results, was a good one.“As memory serves me, that made incredibly good sense,” she told KHOU.White did not respond to a Scripps News request Wednesday evening for comment about her Senate testimony. White currently serves as the director of the Armstrong Center for Energy & Environment at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. White had said in 2011, in explaining her position, that she and the scientists with the Texas Radiation Advisory Board disagreed with the science that the EPA based its rules on.  She says the rules were too protective and would end up costing small communities tens of millions of dollars to comply.“We did not believe the science of health effects justified EPA setting the standard where they did,” White said. She added, “I have far more trust in the vigor of the science that TCEQ assess, than I do EPA.” But a state “white paper” obtained by KHOU revealed top scientists at the very agency White led had concluded health risks to Texans were all too real, saying,  “Over 200,000 Texans drink water from public water systems which are contaminated with relatively high levels of radium and other naturally occurring radioactive material.”The paper noted that 140 systems are impacted and concluded some of these systems contain levels of radioactive contaminants with a calculated cancer risk that would cause an extra cancer victim for every 400 people who were exposed to the drinking water over a long-term period, “posing a potentially serious health concern.”In a trove of state documents ordered released by the Texas attorney general for the 2011 investigation, White is shown as having attended a June 2004 meeting of the Texas Water Advisory Council, where TCEQ presented written testimony that stated, “Under existing TCEQ policy, calculation of the violation accounts for the reporting error of each radionuclide analysis. Maintaining this calculation procedure will eliminate approximately 35 violations.” The practice of underreporting test results continued, according to the KHOU report, until an EPA audit told them to stop in 2009.“To say Ms. White’s testimony yesterday was concerning is an understatement," Carper said on Thursday. "At best, her shocking points of view on threats to our public health are woefully ignorant."The senator also said he found "it extremely disconcerting that much of what she said yesterday contradicts her long public record on issues she would oversee at (the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality), including whether or not she deems it appropriate to take the lowest common denominator or skirt the science and the law when reviewing or implementing health standards and regulations.”A committee staff member said Carper will submit questions for the record that will ask White to elaborate on her testimony, including how she implemented laws and regulations at TCEQ.Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., also was critical of White's testimony. "Maybe Ms. White and her family only drink bottled water, but it's not hard to understand that radioactive material does not belong in our children’s drinking water," Duckworth said. "The fact that Ms. White went out of her way to conceal the threat of water contamination isn’t just shameful — it’s extremely dangerous. Those responsible for enforcing our nation’s environmental policies should always strive to protect the health and safety of the American people, and Ms. White has made it clear she is not up to the task."White's testimony has come under fire from watchdog groups, too. Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, a non-partisan group based in Washington, D.C., said, “Contrary to her Senate testimony yesterday, the TCEQ under Kathleen Hartnett White’s direction did in fact tell staff to underreport health hazards.” He added that “Kathleen Hartnett White was a disaster as chair of the TCEQ, and she would be a disaster as head of the federal Council on Environmental Quality.”The National Resources Defense Council’s John Walke, a former EPA attorney during the Clinton administration, also said White misled senators about the issue. “I’m aware of the TCEQ policy, with Kathleen Hartnett White’s blessing, that chose to round down the margin of error, rather than rounding up, which one could do equally,” Walke said. “I consider what TCEQ did, with Kathleen Hartnett White’s awareness and blessing, to be documented lying to the EPA and law-breaking.”The NRDC, which reports having 2 million members and is opposed to White’s nomination, is a leading environmental watchdog and litigation group based in Washington, D.C. “Any ordinary American should have concern about government officials casually lying to the federal government to avoid a compliance cost for cleaning up pollution like radiation in drinking water," Walke said. “We believe she is deeply and profoundly unfit for the job.”The KHOU-TV interview in 2011 was conducted by Mark Greenblatt, who was an investigative reporter at the station at the time. Greenblatt is now senior national investigative correspondent for Scripps News. You can follow him on Twitter @greenblattmark. 7110

Just three weeks before facing voters, Sen. Kamala Harris questioned Judge Amy Coney Barrett for 30 minutes during Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing on Tuesday.Harris, Joe Biden’s running mate and Democratic candidate for vice president, largely used her allotted time to point toward President Donald Trump’s campaign goal of eliminating the Affordable Care Act.Democrats, like Harris, have zeroed in on their belief that Barrett would vote to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, which was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Barack Obama nearly a decade ago.Just one week after the election, the Supreme Court will hear another GOP-led challenge to the law. In 2012, the Affordable Care Act was “saved” in a 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court as justices said that the law should stand as it levied a tax penalty for those without health care. In 2017, the individual mandate was struck down, meaning there is no longer a tax penalty component to Obamacare. Now the argument comes back to the Supreme Court, as Republicans claim the court's previous ruling is moot given there is no longer a tax penalty.Harris pointed to a previous op-ed pinned by Barrett when she was a law professor at Notre Dame to claim Barrett would rule against Obamacare. Barrett wrote that the Affordable Care Act should have been overturned in 2012."You've already opined the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. And that position satisfied the president's promise to only nominate judges who would tear down the Affordable Care Act,” Harris said.Barrett fired back, and added that she has made no commitment to the Trump administration on overturning the act.“Question would be figuring out whether Congress, assuming that the mandate is unconstitutional now, whether that consistent with your intent,” Barrett said.Harris then pressed Barrett on her views on Roe vs. Wade. Barrett said multiple times throughout the hearing that she would not offer an opinion on the 1970s-era ruling that largely has kept abortion legal throughout the US.“I would suggest that we not pretend that we don't know how this nominee views a woman's right to choose,” Harris said.Harris was questioned by Mike Pence at last week’s vice presidential debate on whether her and Biden would be supportive of expanding the Supreme Court. Harris avoided the question, and Biden had largely avoided the question until last night, stating he was not supportive of expanding the Supreme Court. 2487

来源：资阳报