濮阳东方医院治疗阳痿收费公开(濮阳东方男科医院咨询) (今日更新中)

The US surgeon general issued an advisory Thursday recommending that more Americans carry the opioid overdose-reversing drug, naloxone.The drug, commonly known as Narcan, can very quickly restore normal breathing in someone suspected of overdosing on opioids, including heroin and prescription pain medications.Dr. Jerome Adams emphasized that "knowing how to use naloxone and keeping it within reach can save a life." To make his point, Adams relied on a rarely used tool: the surgeon general's advisory. The last such advisory was issued more than a decade ago and focused on drinking during pregnancy.Adams noted that the number of overdose deaths from prescription and illicit opioids doubled in recent years: from 21,089 deaths across the nation in 2010 to 42,249 in 2016.America's top doctor attributed this "steep increase" to several contributing factors, including "the rapid proliferation of illicitly made fentanyl and other highly potent synthetic opioids" and "an increasing number of individuals receiving higher doses of prescription opioids for long-term management of chronic pain.""Research shows that when naloxone and overdose education are available to community members, overdose deaths decrease in those communities," Adams said. Naloxone is used by police officers, first responders and emergency medical techs to reverse opioid overdoses. Adams added that increasing both the availability of naloxone and effective treatment is critical to ending the opioid epidemic.Speaking at the National Prescription Drug Abuse & Heroin Summit in Atlanta on Thursday morning, Adams addressed the potential "moral conflict" felt by some people who believe that providing naloxone "doesn't make a difference," since many people with drug addictions will just "go on and misuse substances again.""Well, that would be like me saying 'I'm not gonna go do surgery on this trauma patient because they're just gonna go out and speed again,' " he said.Adams noted that in most states, people who are or who know someone at risk for opioid overdose can get trained to use naloxone properly and also may receive naloxone by "standing order" -- without a prescription -- from pharmacies or some community-based programs."No mother should have to bury their child ,and especially not when there's a life-saving medication that virtually anyone can access," Adams said. "It is for this reason that I am issuing the first Surgeon General's Advisory in 13 years."The-CNN-Wire 2484

The Smithsonian announced the reopening of two prominent Washington, D.C., area attractions that have been shuttered during the spread of the coronavirus.The National Zoo located in Washington and the National Air and Space Museum in nearby Chantilly, Virginia, are scheduled to reopen Friday with a number of safety precautions in place. All other Smithsonian attractions will remain closed. Most other prominent D.C. destinations, including the White House and Capitol, also remain closed to visitors.Both at the zoo and the National Air and Space Museum, all visitors age 6 and over will be required to wear face coverings. The zoo and museum are also requiring timed tickets, and has scaled back its hours to close at 4 p.m.“As a public entity, we thrive on serving our visitors and making our collections readily available to them, virtually and in person,” said Lonnie Bunch, Secretary of the Smithsonian. “However, the safety and well-being of our staff, visitors and volunteers come first and are paramount, so we are taking a deliberate, phased and cautious approach to reopening. Our goal is to be safe and measured in order to adjust and pivot as necessary.” 1177

The Supreme Court is siding with Republicans to prevent Wisconsin from counting mailed ballots that are received after Election Day. In a 5-3 order, the justices on Monday refused to reinstate a lower court order that called for mailed ballots to be counted if they are received up to six days after the election. A federal appeals court had already put that order on hold. The three liberal justices dissented from the order issued just before the Senate started voting on Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination. Democrats argued that the flood of absentee ballots and other challenges posed by the coronavirus pandemic makes it necessary to extend the deadline. 677

The Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine says it has a new use for its bioprinting system. In the past they've 3D printed normal-size organs and tissues in hopes of someday implanting them in patients.For the coronavirus, the lab is creating organs using human cells that can be as small as a pinhead. They're focusing on the organs most likely to be infected by the disease. like the lungs.“And so we've been playing with a number of agents to, on both prongs what can make it more infective, what can make it less infective to try to sort this out for the future,” Anthony Atala, director for the institute said.Atala says he hopes the system will help in testing drugs before they hit the market.Drug companies do extensive testing and clinical trials in people before releasing a new medication.Atala says sometimes those companies find no serious side effects, but then years later, discover that it's toxic to patients taking it. Atala says testing a drug using the bioprinting system can tell if a drug is toxic in weeks instead of after years on the market.“Even though we've used the tool extensively for toxicity testing, it's also a tool that can be used for screening,” Atala said. “So we can test agents that are currently being considered for testing against COVID and test the efficacy of the treatment on miniature human organs made up of normal cells”To be clear, Atala said drug tests on 3D printer organs are not meant to replace clinical trials in humans, be are an added step to better predict what will happen in those trials. 1567

The Supreme Court appears deeply divided about whether it can address partisan gerrymandering and come up with a standard to decide when politicians go too far in using politics to draw congressional districts that benefit one party over another.Hearing a case on Wednesday challenging a district in Maryland, several of the justices suggested that the issue could be addressed by the courts, but grappled with how to devise a manageable standard to govern future legislative maps.How the court rules could dramatically impact future races, as Democrats try to win back the House amid widespread unhappiness at President Donald Trump. Recently a state court in Pennsylvania redrew congressional districts there, possibly serving to erase the Republicans' 12-6 district advantage.Wednesday's case was brought by a group of Republican voters in Maryland who say Democrats went too far in redrawing districts after the last census.At one point during their one hour of oral arguments, Justice Stephen Breyer wondered whether the court should take the two challenges it has already heard dealing with maps in Wisconsin and Maryland, and another case out of North Carolina and hold arguments again next fall.The suggestion could have interesting implications if Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has been considering retirement and could be a key vote in the case, were to step down at the end of this term.On the issue of partisan gerrymandering, Breyer acknowledged that there seemed like "a pretty clear violation of the Constitution in some form" but he worried that the court needed a "practical remedy" so that judges would not have to get involved in "dozens and dozens and dozens of very important political decisions."Justice Elena Kagan pointed to the case at hand and said that Democrats had gone "too far" and took a "safe" Republican district and made it into a "pretty safe one" for Democrats. She referenced a deposition that then Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley gave where he said his intent was to create a map "that all things being legal and equal, would nonetheless be more likely to elect more Democrats rather than less."Kagan asked a lawyer for Maryland, "How much more evidence of partisan intent could we need?"Breyer seemed to urge his more conservative colleagues to step in, for the first time, and devise a framework for how to address gerrymandering.Pointing to the particular facts in the case he said, "We will never have such a record again.""What do we do, just say goodbye... forget it," Breyer asked.The challengers say former Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley led the charge to redraw the lines to unseat long-time GOP incumbent Rep. Roscoe Bartlett. They argue that Democrats diluted the votes of Republicans in the district by moving them to another district that had a safe margin for Democrats.In 2010, Bartlett won his district with by 28 percentage points, but he lost after the new maps were drawn in 2012 by 21 percentage points.But Justice Samuel Alito seemed to be on the other side of the spectrum and said, "Hasn't this Court said time and again you can't take all consideration of partisan advantage out of redistricting?"Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose vote could be critical, did not tip his hand but indicated that the current map, no matter what happens in the court, would have to be used in the next cycle.While the Supreme Court has a standard limiting the overreliance on race in map drawing except under the most limited circumstances, it has never been successful in developing a test concerning political gerrymandering. If the justices do come up with a standard, it could reshape the political landscape.In court, Michael Kimberly, a lawyer for the challengers, said that the Democratic politicians violated the free speech rights of voters by retaliating against them based on their party registration and prior voting history.He said that government officials may not "single out" a voter based on the votes he cast before.Maryland Solicitor General Steven Sullivan defended the map and suggested that the courts should stay out of an issue that is "inherently political." He argued that if the challengers prevail in their First Amendment challenge, it will mean that any partisan motive by political players would constitutionally doom all district maps.Justice Neil Gorsuch, appearing to agree with Sullivan, noted that the maps had been approved by the legislature.The challengers suffered a setback in the lower court when a special three-judge panel of federal judges refused to issue a preliminary injunction.Last year, the Supreme Court heard a similar political gerrymandering case in Wisconsin.That case was a statewide challenge brought by Democratic challengers to Republican-drawn state legislative maps. Challengers rely on both the First Amendment charge and say the maps violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.It is unclear why the Supreme Court added the Maryland case to the docket after hearing arguments in the Wisconsin case. 5026

来源：资阳报