阜阳治疗皮肤科哪个医院(阜阳有哪些皮肤病医院比较好) (今日更新中)

The Kansas City Chiefs have earned a spot in Super Bowl 54 in two weeks, defeating the Tennessee Titans 35-24 on Sunday. The Chiefs are making their first Super Bowl appearance in over 50 years. The Chiefs last played for a Super Bowl following the 1969 season, defeating Minnesota.By defeating the Titans, the Chiefs earn this season's AFC title. Quarterback Patrick Mahomes, the third-year quarterback from Texas Tech, completed 23 of 35 passes with three touchdowns. He also carried the ball seven times for 54 yards and a touchdown. Andy Reid, who is No. 7 on the all-time wins list, will coach in his second Super Bowl, and his first since winning the Super Bowl 15 years ago.Kansas City will play the winner of the NFC title game being played between Green Bay and San Francisco Sunday evening. The Chiefs rallied after trailing by scores of 10-0 and 17-7 in the first half. The Chiefs closed out the first half with back to back touchdowns to take a 21-17 lead at halftime. After a scoreless third quarter, the Chiefs once again scored back to back touchdowns in the fourth quarter to put the game out of reach with a 35-17 lead. Tennessee scored with a touchdown with 4:18 left, but the touchdown came too late for the Titans to mount a comeback. 1267

The #FIFA president just walked in along with President @EmmanuelMacron and #EqualPay is chanted in unison in the stadium. pic.twitter.com/9HW4058tNo— Bénédicte Demarle (@BDemarle) July 7, 2019 205

The catastrophic fire at the Notre Dame Cathedral could have been caused by a burning cigarette or an electrical malfunction, French prosecutors said Wednesday.A preliminary investigation into the April fire, which devastated large parts of the 850-year-old church, found no signs that the blaze was started deliberately, Paris prosecutor Remy Heitz said in a statement.Investigators carried out a hundred witness hearings during the preliminary investigation, which concluded on Wednesday, Heitz said.Prosecutors are now looking into the possibility of negligence and said they were opening a judicial investigation."If certain failings -- which may explain the scale of the fire -- have been brought to light, the investigations carried out to this date have not been able to determine the causes of the fire," Heitz said.Heitz said the judicial investigation would be carried out "on the grounds of involuntary damage by fire due to a manifestly deliberate breach of a duty of care or safety imposed by law or regulation, which occurred under conditions likely to expose persons to bodily harm." 1110

The American Medical Association on Tuesday called for an immediate ban on all electronic cigarettes and vaping devices.The group adopted the sweeping stance at a policy-making meeting in San Diego. It aims to lobby for state and federal laws, regulations or legal action to achieve a ban, but the industry is sure to fight back.The AMA cited a surge in underage teen use of e-cigarettes, which typically heat a solution that contains nicotine.“It’s simple, we must keep nicotine products out of the hands of young people.” Dr. Patrice Harris, AMA’s president, said in a statement.The doctors’ group said a separate health issue also prompted its action — the recent U.S. outbreak of lung illnesses linked to vaping. Most of those sickened said they vaped THC, the high-inducing ingredient in marijuana, not nicotine. Officials believe a thickening agent used in black market THC vaping products may be a culprit.The outbreak has “shined a light on the fact that we have very little evidence about the short- and long-term health consequences of e-cigarettes and vaping products,” Harris said. About 2,100 people have gotten sick; 42 have died.The AMA has previously sought bans on e-cigarette flavors and ads.Some observers say the AMA’s position is flawed and has little chance of achieving a sweeping ban.“I would be 100% with the AMA if they were seeking a ban on all tobacco products that are smoked, including e-cigarettes,” said Jonathan Foulds, a tobacco addiction specialist at Penn State University. “But right now, nicotine electronic cigarettes are competing with and replacing the most harmful legal product in this country.”Gregory Conley, president of the American Vaping Association, a pro-vaping advocacy group, said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has made clear that its focus “is not store-bought nicotine vaping products, but illicit contaminated THC oil cartridges sold by drug dealers.”“It would be a mistake for adult smokers and their families to listen to these misguided prohibitionists, as the evidence continues to indicate that adult smokers who switch to nicotine vaping products greatly improve their health,” Conley said.The AMA policy calls for a ban of vaping products not approved to help people quit. But so far, none have been reviewed or approved for that use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.Stephanie Caccomo, an FDA press officer, said the agency is “committed to doing everything we can to prevent kids from using tobacco products and will continue to develop a policy approach that aligns with that concern.”Juul Labs, the nation’s biggest e-cigarette maker, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.E-cigarettes first appeared in the U.S. more than a decade ago and have grown in popularity despite little research on their long-term effects. The FDA has been widely criticized for repeatedly pushing back its own deadline to begin reviewing thousands of vaping products on the market, at one point until 2022. The deadline is now next May.___AP writer Matthew Perrone in Washington contributed to this report.___The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. 3293

The federal government and the court system have deemed variations of the phrase "go back to where you came from" when used by employees to be discriminatory, cases reviewed by CNN show.Since President Donald Trump tweeted that four progressive Democratic congresswomen of color "who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe" should "go back to where" they "came from" last Sunday, the President has insisted his comments were not racist. The four minority lawmakers he referenced -- Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts -- are all American citizens. Three of the four were born in the United States.While Trump is not the employer of these four congresswomen and therefore likely not subject to laws governing their work environment, the federal government has deemed the phrase he used to be discriminatory.CNN reviewed several complaints filed with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and found a few where similar language to what Trump used was considered evidence of discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC is a part of the federal government that enforces federal law to make sure employees are not discriminated against for their gender, sex, national origin or age.In 2007, the commission sued a company on behalf of a Muslim car salesperson of Indian descent who was repeatedly called "Taliban" and told that he should "just go back where [he] came from." EEOC also alleged a manager told the defendant "[t]his is America . . . not the Islamic country where you come from."The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals sided with EEOC's claim that the salesperson was subjected to a hostile work environment based on his national origin and religion. The court cited the example of use of the phrase several times in rendering its decision. The case is cited on EEOC's website in a section where it specifically lists the comment "go back to where you came from" as an example of "potentially unlawful conduct."In another case, EEOC filed a lawsuit against a California hospital on behalf of 70 Filipino-American hospital workers. The hospital workers alleged that they were the targets of harassing comments. Some Filipino-American workers were told they would be arrested if they did not speak English and were told to go back to the Philippines.The hospital settled the case in 2012 agreeing to pay nearly million dollars in the EEOC national origin discrimination suit.New York University, one of the largest private universities in the country, agreed to pay 0,000 to settle a race and national origin harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the EEOC. In 2011, the commission alleged that NYU violated federal law by subjecting a Ghanaian-born employee to a hostile work environment that included "degrading verbal harassment." Settling a case is not necessarily an admission of wrongdoing.According to the EEOC's suit, the supervisor of the mailroom in NYU's Elmer Holmes Bobst Library regularly addressed the employee, a native of Ghana, with slurs like "monkey" and "gorilla" and insults such as "go back to your cage."In a 2006 case between a postal worker and a coworker, the postal worker said she faced discrimination in the workplace after a coworker said, "If you can't speak English, you don't belong here. Learn to speak better or go back to your own country." In this case, the EEOC found sufficient evidence to make a harassment claim.CNN legal analyst Laura Coates said Trump's tweets, "although obviously racist to the public," may not be unlawful in the case of the President."The EEOC guidelines are clear but they relate to employment," Coates said. "Congress doesn't work for the President. I'm not sure they could use the same claim of a hostile work environment based on a political atmosphere." 3896

来源：资阳报