梅州怀孕做无痛人流费用(梅州滴虫阴道炎有那些症状) (今日更新中)

Experts agree that binge or heavy drinking while pregnant is alarmingly dangerous for a fetus, and advise against it -- but what about light drinking during pregnancy?It turns out that there's not much research on just how little a pregnant woman could drink without harming her unborn baby, according to a paper published in the journal BMJ Open on Monday.In the United States, doctors have long warned that drinking any alcohol while pregnant can come with serious medical risks, such as the possibility of miscarriage, stillbirth, or physical and behavioral problems in the baby, known as fetal alcohol spectrum disorders.Last year, a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that women should avoid drinking completely if they are not using birth control and there is any chance they might be pregnant.Guidelines in the United Kingdom also say that if you are pregnant or think you could become pregnant, the safest approach is not to drink alcohol at all.On Friday, the National Health Service Greater Glasgow and Clyde launched a "No alcohol, no alcohol harm" campaign aimed at pregnant women about the risk of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. There have been "mixed messages" around drinking while pregnant and the campaign aims to "put the issue to bed once and for all," according to the NHS.But the new paper calls for more research on the effects of light drinking on pregnancy in order to better understand potential risks and to find answers to the questions many mothers-to-be might have.For instance, "women often ask about 'safe' levels of drinking during pregnancy -- 'but one glass is OK, isn't it?'" Loubaba Mamluk, senior research associate in epidemiology at the University of Bristol in the UK and lead author of the paper, said in an email. "The distinction between light drinking and abstinence is indeed the point of most tension and confusion for health professionals and pregnant women.""We were surprised that this very important topic was not researched as widely as expected," she said.About one in 10 pregnant women in the United States, age 18 to 44, report that they've had at least one alcoholic beverage in the past 30 days while pregnant, according to the CDC. 2272

Facebook has removed a network of suspected Russian-linked accounts and pages involved in organizing political events in the United States. The network is the most extensive effort to interfere in American politics that Facebook has found and made public ahead of November's midterm elections.The move comes as part of Facebook's efforts to prevent a repeat of 2016, when accounts connected to a Kremlin-linked troll group posing as Americans ran rampant on its platform.In briefings on Capitol Hill, Facebook has told lawmakers that it suspects a Russian group is behind more than 30 pages advocating US political stances, according to a congressional source briefed on the matter. One page promoted a "No Unite the Right 2" march -- a counter demonstration to a planned "Unite the Right" event to coincide with the one-year anniversary of the march in Charlottesville in which a woman was killed. There was also an effort to amplify the "Abolish ICE" message pushed by liberals, the source said.Publicly, Facebook is saying it does not know for sure who was behind the network, but is saying it has "found evidence of some connections between these accounts" and accounts that had been run by Russian trolls in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. The company also said it had reported the network to law enforcement and to Congress.Asked by CNN to respond to the reports, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said, "I hope the materials will be officially presented to the Russian side."Facebook said the "Resisters" page, which organized the "No Unite the Right 2" event, recruited real activists who "unwittingly helped build interest in" the event" and posted information about transportation, materials, and locations so people could get to the protests."Facebook said it has contacted the real activists.Nathaniel Gleicher, head of cybersecurity policy at Facebook, said in a post that the company was still investigating where the pages were run from but that, "Some of the activity is consistent with what we saw from the IRA before and after the 2016 elections." (The IRA is the Internet Research Agency, a Kremlin-linked troll group that has been indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller's office on charges related to an alleged conspiracy to defraud the United States.)He cautioned, "But there are differences, too. For example, while IP addresses are easy to spoof, the IRA accounts we disabled last year sometimes used Russian IP addresses. We haven't seen those here.""It's clear that whoever set up these accounts went to much greater lengths to obscure their true identities than the Russian-based Internet Research Agency (IRA) has in the past. We believe this could be partly due to changes we've made over the last year to make this kind of abuse much harder. But security is not something that's ever done," the company said in a statement released Tuesday afternoon," Facebook said in a statement Tuesday.The removed pages had more than 290,000 followers, the company said. The most followed Facebook pages were "Aztlan Warriors," "Black Elevation," "Mindful Being," and "Resisters."The company said the pages ran 150 ads for a total of approximately ,000. The ads were paid for in US and Canadian dollars, the company added. In 2016, the Internet Research Agency had purchased ads targeting Americans using rubles.Next week's event was not the only event the pages created. The pages created about 30 events since May 2017 and "The largest had approximately 4,700 accounts interested in attending, and 1,400 users said that they would attend," Facebook said.Facebook has sought guidance from U.S. intelligence agencies in its attempt to prevent a repeat of 2016, when its platform was used to meddle in U.S. politics and society. 3793

Experts say language barriers, living situations, and access to healthcare are among the reasons Latinas make up most COVID-19 cases among pregnant women.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention collected information from 11,000 pregnant women who tested positive for the virus. Of those women, 4,500 were Latina.Tri-State data mirrors national statistics. Dr. Amy Rule, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, said at one point, 59% of mothers who were positive for COVID-19 identified as Hispanic or Latina.“Latina mothers only make up about three to four percent of our moms giving birth in the Greater Cincinnati area, so the disparity is quite dramatic,” Rule said.Alfonso Cornejo, president of Cincinnati’s Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, said the numbers are not surprising.“Hispanics are probably the only group growing in the state of Ohio, and our population is younger, and we have more kids per family,” Cornejo said.Latinas account for most of the COVID-19 cases among pregnant women for varied reasons, including occupation, Rule said.“Many of them are essential workers and don’t always have everything they need, whether that be PPE or sick leave,” Rule said. “They’re more likely to use public transportation.”Cornejo said living situations could also be a contributing factor.“They live in apartments where they are in close contact with their older brother, the spouse, you have four people in two rooms or three rooms and that also contributes to this,” Cornejo said. “The same thing with the African American group.”This week, the number of pregnant African American mothers with COVID-19 has risen to 31%, while the number of pregnant Latinas with the virus dropped from 59% to 42%, according to Rule.Although the number has lowered recently, the University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati Children’s, and the Latino Health Collaborative are launching a hospital and community-based survey on the issue.“We want to understand more about the knowledge community members have of COVID-19 and prevention of COVID-19 and barriers they might experience in being able to practice prevention behaviors like masking or social distancing and also accessing care,” Rule said.WCPO's Paola Suro first reported this story. 2290

Fall foliage has officially started here in the United States, and Roadtrippers has created a gorgeous map to show where and when to see the autumn colors.Leaves are changing in Vermont, and other areas will begin seeing the same soon. 248

Even during this time of strong political divisiveness, lawmakers agree there should be changes to Section 230. Congressional committees have subpoenaed the CEOs and heads of major tech companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google multiple times to answer questions about possible bias, eliminating competition, allowing misinformation to flourish, etc., all trying to get to the heart of what should be done about Section 230.So, what is it?Section 230 refers to a section of just 26 words within the 1996 Communications Decency Act.It reads: “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”This particular section makes it so internet companies are generally exempt from liability for the material users post on their networks.Which means, if a news website article makes false malicious statements about a person, that person can sue the publication for libel. However, if that article is posted on social media and spread to hundreds of thousands of people, the person can only sue the individual who posted the article and cannot hold the social media company responsible for spreading the article.The wording of Section 230 also allows internet companies, and more specifically social platforms, to moderate their content by removing or censoring posts that are obscene, violent or otherwise violate that specific platform’s terms of service and standards, so long as the social platform is acting in “Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content.This has allowed online social platforms to grow and thrive, offering a space for users to share their thoughts and opinions, without the fear that those thoughts and opinions will get the platform in trouble. The wording for Section 230 came from established case law, including a Supreme Court ruling in the middle part of the 20th Century, which held that bookstore owners cannot be held liable for selling books containing what some might consider obscene content. The Supreme Court said it would create a “chilling effect” if someone was held responsible for someone else’s content.“Today it protects both from liability for user posts as well as liability for any clams for moderating content,” said Jeff Kosseff, who wrote a book about Section 230 and how it created the internet as it is today.President Donald Trump in May signed an executive order that would clarify the scope of the immunity internet companies receive under Section 230.“Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse,” the order reads.One of the issues raised in the executive order is the question of when does a social platform become a so-called “publisher” by making editorial decisions about the content on the platform. Those decisions include controlling the content allowed on the platform, what gets censored, and creating algorithms that spread certain content further or faster.Content publishers are held to different rules and responsibilities by the Federal Communications Commission. News publishers can be held liable for the content they share on their platform, either in print or online.The president’s executive order came after Twitter started adding a fact-check warning to his tweets that contain false or misleading information. The executive order does not allow the president to change the law, but rather encourages his administration to take a look at Section 230.Lawmakers on both sides have concerns about how social platforms are abusing the protection they receive under Section 230, and have held several committee meetings.Many experts agree Section 230 cannot just be removed.If social platforms are suddenly held responsible for the content on their sites, there could be a whole new level of moderation and censorship as they clamp down on anything remotely controversial and unproven - possibly including some of the president’s own posts.Instead, lawmakers are investigating what changes, if any, could be made to Section 230 to offer clarity for both users and internet companies, as well as set boundaries for potential liability. 4178

来源：资阳报