梅州得了慢性宫颈炎怎么治疗梅州双腔减压可视人流,梅州微管保宫人流价格,梅州做超导人流一共多少钱,梅州女子打胎大概价格,梅州初中女孩怀孕了,梅州如何有效治疗阴道炎,梅州20周做打胎的价格

The CDC says there's yet another illness that you need to be aware of; one that has serious outcomes as doctors warn of a possible outbreak of AFM, or Acute Flaccid Myelitis, which can cause paralysis in children.When Kinley was just 5 years old, what started as a stomach and headache turned into exhaustion. By the time her parents got her to the hospital, she was admitted into the ICU. By the next morning, she was on life support and paralyzed in all limbs.Now 11, hers is one of the 633 nationwide cases to date of AFM. Dr. Janell Routh, a pediatrician and AFM Team Leader for the CDC, says they've been tracking the neurologic condition since 2014.“Something changed in 2014, the epidemiology changed and we saw an increase in cases,” Routh said. “We confirmed 120 cases in 2014. We think that new epidemiology suggests that we have either a new cause for this condition or a cause that somehow changed to become more virulent.”By 2018, the number of cases had doubled. Which means 2020, the year that seems to be affected by everything, will see more cases. The CDC says the type of virus that causes AFM starts with a basic fever. Which then may go away and come back.“Most parents don’t necessarily think much about a fever and the sniffles- if parents do see limb weakness so their child complaining of pain maybe headache or back pain and weakness in one or more limbs that is a sign they need to seek medical care immediately,” Routh said.Routh says AFM progresses rapidly by attacking the gray matter of the spinal cord. Paralysis can set in in a matter of hours or days.“I remember one mother telling me that her child laid limply on her chest, couldn’t move. Those are signs that they really need to call their pediatrician or go the ER and get evaluated,” Routh said.As it's a relatively new syndrome, there's a lot we don't know. There's no lab test to diagnose it and there's no vaccine. 90% of the cases are in children under the age of 18 with the average age being 5. Some recover, some have long term complications like Kinley, who is now 11 and still on a ventilator. She's regained use of her right leg and foot and uses it for school work and painting.“I’ve definitely seen how this condition can affect children and their families, not just from a physical standpoint but from an emotional standpoint disrupting the lives of families,” Routh said.The CDC is now trying to track patients and outcomes, tracking the recovery of those who have been diagnosed and researching those who may be at risk. They do know that it seems to affect kids in late August and early September, and prevention is similar to what you'd do for other viruses like COVID-19. Hand washing, staying home if you're sick, and having good cough etiquette.“AFM is a medical emergency and so if parents do see signs of limb weakness in their children after a viral illness and in those late summer early fall months - call your pediatrician go to the emergency room,” Routh said.And she says, while there is so much focus on COVID-19, it's definitely not the only virus that is spreading. 3093

The first hearing in CNN and Jim Acosta's federal lawsuit against President Trump and several top White House aides lasted for two hours of tough questioning of both sides.At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Timothy J. Kelly said he would announce his decision Thursday afternoon.CNN and Acosta are alleging that the White House's suspension of his press pass violates the First and Fifth Amendments.The hearing started around 3:40 p.m., Kelly began by probing CNN's arguments for the better part of an hour. Then he turned to questioning a lawyer representing the government.Lawyers for the network and Acosta asked for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction that would restore his press pass right away, arguing that time is of the essence because his rights are violated every day his pass is suspended.Kelly opened the hearing by quizzing CNN attorney Theodore Boutrous on the network's First Amendment claim and asking how the President's history of attacks on CNN should be viewed in the context of the lawsuit.Boutrous rattled off examples of Trump's missives against CNN, including his claim that the network is an "enemy of the people."Kelly expressed skepticism that this proves the Acosta ban is "content-based discrimination," as CNN is alleging.Kelly said there is some evidence that Acosta's conduct -- not his content -- led the White House to suspend his press pass.But Boutrous disputed that and said there "never will there be more evidence of facial discrimination and animus against an individual reporter" than in this case.Kelly said "we've all seen the clip" of the White House press conference where Trump and Acosta had a combative exchange last week. Kelly said that Acosta "continued speaking after his time expired" and "wouldn't give up his microphone" -- points that the Trump administration made in its briefs earlier Wednesday.Under questioning from the judge, Boutrous cited Trump's words to Acosta from the press conference, and said, "'Rudeness' is really a code word for 'I don't like you being an aggressive reporter.'"Kelly peppered CNN's attorney with hypotheticals as he tried to determine what a lawful move by the White House, responding to Acosta's actions, would look like."Could they let him keep the pass but tell him he couldn't come to presidential press conferences?" Kelly asked.Boutrous contended that even a partial response like that would be a violation of Acosta's First Amendment rights.Boutrous called the White House's move to revoke Acosta's hard pass "the definition of arbitrariness and capriciousness.""What are the standards?" Boutrous asked. "Rudeness is not a standard. If it were no one could have gone to the press conference."Boutrous separately brought up evidence that hadn't been available when CNN filed its suit: A fundraising email that the Trump campaign sent Wednesday.The email touted the decision to revoke Acosta's credentials and attacked CNN for what it called its "liberal bias." Boutrous said that by grouping that all together in the same breath, the email made it clear that it was Acosta's coverage and not his conduct at a press conference that triggered the revocation of his press pass.Kelly asked CNN's lawyers to state the company's position regarding the original White House accusation that Acosta placed his hands a White House intern as she tried to grab his microphone away."It's absolutely false," Boutrous said.Boutrous also pointed out that Trump administration never mentioned that accusation against Acosta in the 28-page brief that Justice Department lawyers filed with the court earlier on Wednesday."They've abandoned that" claim, Boutrous said.In his first question in a back and forth with the government, Kelly asked Justice Department attorney James Burnham to clear up the government's shifting rationale for revoking Acosta's pass."Why don't you set me straight," Kelly said. "Let me know what was the reason and address this issue of whether the government's reason has changed over time.""There doesn't need to be a reason because there's no First Amendment protection and the President has broad discretion," Burnham said.Still, Burnham called the White House's stated reasonings "pretty consistent throughout," and walked through a series of statements that the administration has made — from Trump's first comments at the press conference to Sanders' tweets announcing the revocation to the official statement put out Tuesday after CNN filed its suit.Burnham said Sanders' claim that Acosta had inappropriately touched a White House intern was not a part of their legal argument."We're not relying on that here and I don't think the White House is relying on that here," Burnham said.Burnham said that it would be perfectly legal for the White House to revoke a journalist's credentials if it didn't agree with their reporting.He made the assertion under questioning from Kelly, who asked him to state the administration's position in this hypothetical situation.The judge asked if the White House could essentially tell any individual journalist, "we don't like your reporting, so we're pulling your hard pass." Burnham replied, "as a matter of law... yes."Pressed again by the judge on Sanders' claim that Acosta had inappropriately touched the intern, Burnham said "we don't have a position" on that."The one consistent explanation," Burnham said, "is disorder at the press conference."Burnham contended that revoking Acosta's hard pass was not "viewpoint discrimination" — part of a legal threshold for a First Amendment claim."A single journalist's attempt to monopolize a press conference is not a viewpoint and revoking a hard pass in response to that is not viewpoint discrimination," Burnham said.Kelly tried to press for details about how Acosta's pass came to be revoked, asking Burnham who made the actual decision.Burnham said he didn't have any information beyond what had been filed in court documents: that the revocation was first announced by Sanders on November 7 and then "ratified" by Trump the next day."Do you have any information to suggest that it was anyone other than Ms. Sanders that made the decision?" Kelly asked."No, not that I'm offering today. I'm not denying it but I don't know anything beyond what's been filed," Burnham said.Later, Burnham argued that revoking Acosta's press pass does not infringe on his First Amendment rights because he can still call White House staffers for interviews or "catch them on their way out" of the building."I think the harm to the network is very small," Burnham said."Their cameras are still in there," he added.Burnham said CNN had made an "odd First Amendment injury" claim and suggested that Acosta could do his job "just as effectively" watching the President's appearances piped into a studio on CNN."The President never has to speak to Mr. Acosta again," Burnham said. "The President never has to give an interview to Mr. Acosta. And the President never has to call on Mr. Acosta at a press conference.""To be in a room where he has no right to speak... this seems to me like an odd First Amendment injury that we're talking about," Burnham said.Boutrous, the CNN attorney, fired back on rebuttal."That's not how reporters break stories. It's simply a fundamental misconception of journalism," Boutrous said, adding how unscheduled gaggles and source meetings throughout the White House amounted to "invaluable access."In a legal filing by the Justice Department on Wednesday, the White House asserted that it has "broad discretion" to pick and choose which journalists are given a permanent pass to cover it.That position is a sharp break with decades of tradition. Historically both Republican and Democratic administrations have had a permissive approach to press access, providing credentials both to big news organizations like CNN and obscure and fringe outlets.Acosta's suspension -— which took effect one week ago — is an unprecedented step. Journalism advocates say it could have a chilling effect on news coverage.CNN and Acosta's lawsuit was filed on Tuesday morning, nearly one week after Acosta was banned.Before the hearing began, CNN's lawyers said the case hinges on Acosta and CNN's First Amendment rights; the shifting rationales behind the ban; and the administration's failure to follow the federal regulations that pertain to press passes, an alleged violation of Fifth Amendment rights. The lawsuit asserts that this ban is really about Trump's dislike of Acosta.The "reasonable inference from defendants' conduct is that they have revoked Acosta's credentials as a form of content- and viewpoint-based discrimination and in retaliation for plaintiffs' exercise of protected First Amendment activity," CNN's lawsuit alleges.In addition to the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that CNN is seeking at the hearing, CNN and Acosta are also seeking what's known as "permanent relief." The lawsuit asks the judge to determine that Trump's action was "unconstitutional, in violation of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." This could protect other reporters against similar actions in the future."If the press is not free to cover the news because its reporter is unjustly denied access, it is not free," former White House correspondent Sam Donaldson said in a declaration supporting CNN that was filed with the court on Tuesday. "And if denying access to a reporter an organization has chosen to represent it -- in effect asserting the president's right to take that choice away from a news organization and make it himself -- is permitted, then the press is not free."Ted Olson, a Republican heavyweight who successfully argued for George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore, is representing CNN, along with Boutrous — himself another prominent attorney — and the network's chief counsel, David Vigilante.Olson said Tuesday that while it was Acosta whose press pass was suspended this time, "this could happen to any journalist by any politician."He spoke forcefully against Trump's action. "The White House cannot get away with this," Olson said.Most of the country's major news organizations have sided with CNN through statements and plan to file friend-of-the-court briefs. 10291

The government of Puerto Rico has quietly admitted that the death toll from Hurricane Maria -- a subject of great controversy -- may be far higher than its official estimate of 64.In a report to Congress dated Wednesday, the US commonwealth's government says documents show that 1,427 more deaths occurred in the four months after the storm than "normal," compared with deaths that occurred the previous four years.The 1,427 figure also appeared in a draft of the report -- "Transformation and Innovation in the Wake of Devastation" -- which was published and opened for public comment July 9. The figure was first "revealed" by the Puerto Rico government, according to the final report, on June 13, one day after officials were forced by a judge to release death records that CNN and the Centro de Periodismo Investigativo in Puerto Rico had sued to make public.Officials stopped short of updating the official death toll for the September 20 storm."The official number is being reviewed as part of a study under way by George Washington University," the report says. Officials hired that university to review the toll after news reports, including those from CNN, called it into question.The George Washington University study "will have certainty" about the number of people the government believes died in Hurricane Maria and its aftermath, Pedro Cerame, a spokesman for the Puerto Rican government in Washington, told CNN. Officials initially said that report would be released in May. Now they expect it to publish this month."We understand that the number is higher," Carlos Mercader, executive director of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration, told CNN in an interview. "We didn't commission the study to prove there were 64 (deaths). We wanted a scientific and epidemiological study that would give us light, not only on the number -- we know the number is higher -- but the reasons why this happened."The 1,427 figure is "an estimate," Cerame said, and it may include deaths that weren't related to the storm.It's an estimate that follows many others like it.In November, CNN surveyed 112 funeral homes -- about half the total -- across the island, finding that funeral home directors and staff had identified at least 499 deaths they believed to be related to Hurricane Maria and its chaotic aftermath, which included months without power for many of the island's 3.3 million residents. In December, the New York Times estimated the "excess death" toll from the storm to be 1,052, based on comparisons with previous years.In May, a team that included researchers from Harvard University published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine estimating that 793 to 8,498 people died in Maria's wake, a range that some academics have criticized as overly broad. The study's midpoint estimate -- 4,645 deaths -- became a rallying cry for activists upset by what they see as a lack of accountability for the scale of the catastrophe by officials in Puerto Rico and the United States.The Harvard estimate was based on surveys of 3,299 households in Puerto Rico, in which residents were asked about deaths in their homes after Hurricane Maria.Mercader, the Puerto Rico official, criticized that study in an interview with CNN on Thursday. "We all know that's impossible, that that couldn't happen," he said of the estimate that 4,645 people may have died after Maria. "We have the data. You all know that is an exaggeration."Then last week, a research letter published in the medical journal JAMA estimated that between 1,006 and 1,272 people died in relation to the storm -- with a midpoint estimate of 1,139.An accurate death toll is important, according to officials and academics, because it can help Puerto Rico and other governments better prepare for future storms, which are expected to become worse in the era of climate change. The official count also matters a great deal to the families of the deceased. Not only are they eligible for certain federal aid if the deaths are officially counted, but some relatives of the dead simply want their loved ones to be remembered."They were not numbers; they were people," Lisa De Jesús, whose friend Reinaldo Ruiz Cintron died while working in hurricane cleanup, told CNN in June. "And the government thinks that just p

The coronavirus pandemic has had a significant impact on pets.More than 4 million dogs, cats and other animals in the U.S. could be living in poverty with owners in the next 6 months, according to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA).If the national unemployment rate stays around 10%, more than 24 million pets could be in poverty. That's a 21% increase compared to February, before the pandemic.Pet food and veterinary care can be expensive. The ASPCA says a lack of affordable vet care and limited access to spay and neuter service are reasons driving people to give up their pets.RedRover is helping people afford care. They're seeing a 24% increase in urgent care grant applications compared to last year. The average amount of money they give out is 0.“It’s a very small amount of money, but what we've found is it really is that stopgap between helping them start service with start care with a veterinarian so you know just having a little bit to get going,” said Nicole Forsyth, President and CEO of RedRover.Your pet has to have a diagnosis before you can apply for a grant at RedRover.org. If you don't qualify, they'll help connect you with other resources.“When they talk to our case managers on the phone, the sense of relief and the sense also that it's OK for them to spend this money on their pets,” said Forsyth. “I think sometimes they're hearing messages from their friends and family like you know, ‘it's just an animal,’ you know, ‘why would you spend that kind of money.’ And so, having someone to talk to who understands.”The Humane Society has more resources on its website to find pet financial aid and discounted vet care close by. 1702

The collective mourning of a community shaken by a brazen act of violence in a synagogue will continue Tuesday as funerals are held for three of the victims of what the Anti-Defamation League said was the deadliest attack against Jews in US history.On Monday night, blue light washed over the night sky as buildings across Pittsburgh were illuminated in tribute to the 11 worshippers killed Saturday when a gunman stormed the Tree of Life synagogue there.The close-knit community of Squirrel Hill, where the shootings took place, will first bid farewell to brothers Cecil and David Rosenthal and Dr. Jerry Rabinowitz, according to CNN affiliate WTAE.The funerals coincide with a visit from President Donald Trump, who will travel to Pittsburgh Tuesday despite a request from the city's mayor to hold off on visiting.  830