濮阳东方医院割包皮口碑非常高(濮阳东方医院男科治早泄评价比较好) (今日更新中)

The U.S. Army has announced previously-scheduled leadership changes at Fort Hood as well as an investigation into the chain-of-command actions surrounding the case of Spc. Vanessa Guillen.Gen. Michael X. Garrett, commanding general of U.S. Army Forces Command, is directing that Maj. Gen. John B. Richardson IV formally assume duties as deputy commanding general for operations of III Corps and acting senior commander of Fort Hood.The change will take effect on Sept. 2.Army officials say the change in leadership was previously-scheduled and will enable "continuity of command" as III Corps returns from its role leading the Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve.Maj. Gen. Richardson previously served as FORSCOM's director of operations from 2019-20 and was selected in March 2020 by the Department of the Army to serve as the next DCG for III Corps.Maj. Gen. Scott Efflandt will continue to serve as the deputy commanding general for support and will remain at Fort Hood to assist with the reintegration of III Corps as they return from their mission supporting Operation Inherent Resolve.With Maj. Gen. Efflandt remaining at Fort Hood, the Army will announce the name of a new commander for the 1st Armored Division, which Efflandt had previously been designated to lead. That announcement is expected in the coming days.The Army also announced that Sen. Garrett will appoint Gen. John Murray, commanding general of Army Futures Command, and one of the Army’s most senior commanders, to lead an in-depth investigation into the chain-of-command actions related to Spc. Vanessa Guillen.There are currently several investigations underway at Fort Hood. The Army says those investigations are tasked with reviewing a wide range of topics and concerns. According to the Army, Gen. Murray will roll those efforts into a more complete and comprehensive investigation that will delve into all activities and levels of leadership.Murray’s investigation, which will be conducted under the provisions of Army Regulation 15-6, is separate from the Independent Review of Fort Hood, which began in August.Full release: This story was first reported by Sydney Isenberg at KXXV in Waco, Texas. 2228

The U.S. regulators who will decide the fate of COVID-19 vaccines are taking an unusual step: Asking outside scientists if their standards are high enough.The Food and Drug Administration may have to decide by year’s end whether to allow use of the first vaccines against the virus. Thursday, a federal advisory committee pulls back the curtain on that decision process, debating whether the guidelines FDA has set for vaccine developers are rigorous enough.“We will not cut corners, and we will only use science and data to make that determination,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn pledged at a meeting of the Milken Institute Wednesday.Exactly how much data his agency needs to be sure a vaccine is safe and effective is a key question for the advisers. An even bigger one: If the FDA allows emergency use of a vaccine before final testing is finished, will that destroy chances of ever learning just how well that shot -- and maybe competitors still being studied -- really work?“We can’t lose sight of the fact that it is in our societal interest to see these trials to completion,” said Dr. Luciana Borio, a former FDA acting chief scientist who will be watching the advisers’ debate.Plus, multiple vaccines are being studied -- shots made with different technologies that each have pros and cons.“The first vaccine is not necessarily the best vaccine,” cautioned Dr. M. Miles Braun, a former FDA scientist now with Georgetown University School of Medicine. If the trials aren’t allowed to finish, it may be difficult or impossible to ever know for sure.It’s a critical moment in FDA’s 114-year history. The government has spent billions to race a vaccine through a research process that usually takes years, and FDA faces unprecedented pressure from the Trump administration, fueling public skepticism that politics could overrule science.Interest is so high, FDA is airing the meeting on YouTube. Here are some key issues the committee will discuss:HOW MUCH EVIDENCE IS NEEDED?FDA is requiring manufacturers to do studies of at least 30,000 people to prove if a vaccine protects and how safe it is. Those studies must include adequate numbers of people at highest risk from COVID-19 -- older adults, minorities and anyone with underlying health problems.FDA has made clear that any vaccine must be at least 50% effective. And while the studies are designed to run for two years, companies may get enough evidence the shots are protective -- in at least some people -- to stop the trials early and seek what’s called an “emergency use authorization” for wider vaccinations.Despite White House objections, the FDA told vaccine makers earlier this month not to seek that speedier review until they’ve tracked at least half their trial participants for two months. With other vaccines, that’s about the amount of time when major side effects crop up.That’s not long enough, said the head of the non-profit ECRI Institute, which reviews medical technology for hospitals and insurers. In comments submitted to the advisory committee, ECRI’s Dr. Marcus Schabacker said FDA should require six months of follow-up.“Doing any less would simply risk too much, and the consequences may be severe,” he wrote. “A weak vaccine that loses public trust could poison the well for epidemic control for many years.”WOULD EMERGENCY USE DERAIL FULL ANSWERS ABOUT VACCINES?Normally when a study ends because of evidence that a vaccine is working, the participants who got dummy shots are offered the real thing.But if FDA allows emergency use of a COVID-19 vaccine, that’s not the same as having full proof the shot works, Borio cautioned.And if the participants in the placebo group are immediately offered the real shot, researchers may not be able to get answers about all the high-risk groups in the study — or tell how long the vaccine’s protection lasts, a process expected to take many more months.But Pfizer Inc., which with Germany’s BioNTech is developing one of the leading candidates, told FDA that if it’s granted emergency use authorization, it “would have an ethical obligation” to alert study participants who got a placebo and allow them vaccine access. The company wants FDA to look into “other scientifically and statistically sound methods” to determine long-term safety and effectiveness.Pfizer’s stance is likely to face pushback. The Infectious Diseases Society of America states that FDA’s panelists “should insist” that vaccine developers “present a compelling case” for how they will complete their trials if FDA grants early authorization of their vaccine.Clearing a vaccine based on premature or faulty data “could cause more harm” by “further eroding public confidence in all vaccines,” the group said.It’s an unprecedented dilemma. The FDA has previously allowed emergency use of only one vaccine, a decades-old shot that in 2005 was authorized to prevent anthrax poisoning.This time around, multiple COVID-19 vaccines are in the pipeline. Pfizer competitor Johnson & Johnson cautioned that early FDA clearance of one vaccine could “jeopardize integrity” of other ongoing trials if patients decide to drop out to seek the first cleared shot instead.The company asked regulators to explain what options are available to ensure completion of all ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials.WHAT ABOUT LONG-TERM SAFETY MONITORING?Even a study of 30,000 people cannot spot a side effect that only strikes 1 in 100,000. So the government is planning extra scrutiny of every COVID-19 vaccine to hit the market.At first there will be limited doses given to just certain high-risk people -- and those early recipients are to get text messages daily for the first week after vaccination, and then weekly out to six weeks, asking how they’re feeling.FDA also will be checking databases of electronic health records and insurance claims, looking for any red flags.“There’s a kind of tracking that has to take place here on a massive basis that hasn’t taken place before,” said Dr. Jesse Goodman of Georgetown University, a former director of the FDA’s vaccine and biologics center.___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. 6274

The strike that closed West Virginia's public schools for four days is over, West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice announced Tuesday evening.School will resume Thursday, he said.Teachers and school-related personnel will get a 5% raise in the first year and all other state employees will get a 3% raise, the governor said.The numbers still have to be passed by the Legislature.Justice said he had spoken to the leaders of the Senate and the House and he was "very, very hopeful" a bill would pass soon.The governor said he had changed his position on giving a raise this size after he had a conversation Monday with a sixth-grader named Gideon.Justice said Gideon was asking questions about tourism and the governor tried to explain about returns on investments in marketing.Turning one dollar into eight is a good investment, the governor told Gideon."Wouldn't it be an investment to invest in smart teachers that make me smart and then I can in turn, turn around and do smart, good things for our state?" the student replied.The governor said Gideon was right and he was approaching the strike wrong."I was looking at it as what the prudent thing was to do and not as investment." he said Tuesday.Dale Lee, president of the West Virginia Education Association, said the organization reserves the right to call teachers and service workers out again at a later date if the legislation gets bogged down or doesn't move ahead at their desired speed.Not all strikers pleasedThe strike put about 20,000 teachers and 13,000 school service employees on the picket lines to demand better pay and benefits.With the pay issue seemingly solved but insurance issues not, there was mixed reaction outside the state Capitol when the news was announced to the people on strike.There were big cheers for the pay raise, but boos for the lack of an immediate change to insurance.After they were told they would go back to schools Thursday with a possibility they might get called to strike again, teachers chanted "Back to the table!" and "Fix it now!"There are other issues, teacher saysWendy Peters, a third-grade teacher who traveled from Daniels, told CNN sister network HLN by phone that the primary issues are pay and insurance. But there are others, such as seniority and less stringent criteria that allow for noncertified teachers -- something Peters doesn't think should happen.She told "On the Story with Erica Hill" that teachers want to feel "valued and respected."Peters, who has 16 years of service and says she makes ,000, said teachers want a wage competitive with surrounding states. "We take care of the most important thing in our state, our children," she said.Legislation sparked strikeThe walkout -- which kept the state's roughly 277,000 public school students out of class -- came after Justice signed legislation late on the night of February 21, granting teachers a 2% pay increase starting in July, followed by 1% pay increases over the next two years.But the bill did not address further concerns of teachers, including issues with the teachers' public employees insurance program, the rising costs of health care and a tax on payroll deduction options, according to Christine Campbell, president of the American Federation of Teachers-West Virginia.Many people in West Virginia said that the high health insurance costs they face are the main sticking point in the work stoppage. That insurance affects all state employees.Tonya Spinella, a fourth-grade teacher in Mercer County, said rising insurance premiums are "going to be a real issue for us, for our family."She said she has a second job, teaching English to Chinese children online."And really, sometimes the only way we can make ends meet is through my second teaching job and through other little side jobs that I do," she?said. 3817

The so-called cone of uncertainty for Tropical Storm Jose now includes North Carolina's Outer Banks, Maryland and Delaware, after the National Hurricane Center on Thursday shifted its potential path west.The cone shows the probable track of the center of a storm over a five-day period.With maximum sustained winds of 70 mph, Jose is a tropical storm after being a hurricane through the week. The storm is expected to strengthen and become a hurricane again by this weekend, the center said. At one point last weekend, Jose was a Category 4 hurricane.Jose, which recently completed an odd clockwise loop, is forecast to move closer to the United States before turning north. The vast majority of computer models still keep the storm out to sea, but a few show it making a potential landfall along the East Coast, CNN meteorologist Brandon Miller said."Jose could produce other direct impacts next week along portions of the east coast of the United States from North Carolina northward to New England, but it is too soon to determine what those impacts might be or where they could occur," the hurricane center said.Track the storm hereThe inclusion of the Outer Banks in Thursday's advisories marked the first time the United States mainland has been in the forecast cone tracking Jose.As of 11 pm on Thursday, Jose was in the southwest Atlantic Ocean, about 375 miles northeast of the southeastern Bahamas, and was moving west-northwest at 8 mph.No matter its path, Tropical Storm Jose is expected to bring rough surf and rip current conditions in the next few days. The swells generated by Jose are affecting Bermuda, the Bahamas, the northern coasts of Hispaniola and Puerto Rico and the US Southeast coast. Those effects will spread north along the mid-Atlantic coast in the next few days.Jose is the sixth named hurricane of the Atlantic basin season, which lasts through November. The peak of hurricane season is generally from mid-August to mid-October. Two major hurricanes, Harvey and Irma, have hit the United States, with Irma also demolishing islands in the Caribbean. 2089

The U.S. Olympic Committee has announced Salt Lake City will be its choice in a bid for the Winter Games in 2030 or beyond."We won!" Governor Gary Herbert cheered, holding hands in victory with Salt Lake City Mayor Jackie Biskupski, Council Chairwoman Erin Mendenhall and others."This has been the culmination of a significant team effort, starting with the support of the public," the governor added.The announcement came following a meeting by the U.S. Olympic Committee in San Francisco on Friday. Salt Lake City was competing with Denver for the nomination.The International Olympic Committee is expected to pick the next host cities for future Games in 2023.Salt Lake City has argued it is uniquely situated to host another Olympics. Our venues are still operating and in excellent condition and our infrastructure is in place with billions in expansions (light rail, a new airport, etc.). There is also significant support with polls showing 89% of Utahns in favor of another bid."We feel like we’re as prepared as we could be. We have unanimity with our public officials that have lined up behind this effort," said Jeff Robbins, the president of the Utah Sports Commission.The cost to host an Olympics would also be cheaper than other cities. It would cost about .4 billion, but boosters insist it would not cost any state or local tax dollars. Instead, it would be paid for in broadcast rights, sponsorships and ticket sales."People say, 'Well, is this worth the investment?' The investment is zero! Look at all we get. Number one, we get the spotlight of the world on Utah and we get to show the world what a great state this is, what great people are here. The volunteers were fantastic last time," said Fraser Bullock, an executive for Salt Lake's 2002 Winter Olympics and the co-chair of this Olympic Exploratory Committee.Utah estimates it received more than billion in economic benefit from the 2002 Winter Olympics. Mayor Biskupski said she envisioned the next Games that Utah could host would be even better. She said there would be an emphasis on sustainability (as in, environmentally friendly) and a modern Olympics."This will be an entirely new Games and experience. We're excited to bring that vision," she said. 2247

来源：资阳报