濮阳东方看妇科病评价很高濮阳东方医院看阳痿技术好,濮阳东方医院做人流手术收费多少,濮阳东方医院男科收费,濮阳东方男科医院割包皮非常可靠,濮阳东方男科咨询预约,濮阳东方妇科收费低,濮阳市东方医院技术非常哇塞

House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes' dispute with Depuity Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray appeared to de-escalate Wednesday after Nunes was given access to the document that kicked off the FBI's investigation into the Trump campaign and Russia.Nunes had been threatening to hold Rosenstein and Wray in contempt -- and to potentially impeach them -- if the Justice Department didn't cooperate with his committee amid stepped-up congressional Republican criticism of Rosenstein as President Donald Trump considers whether to fire him.A Justice official told CNN that Nunes and Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina went to the Justice Department on Wednesday to view the document, known as an electronic communication, which details the origination of the counterintelligence investigation into Trump's team and Russia that began in July 2016. The official said the document was no longer redacted, except for "narrowly tailored" redactions to protect the name of a foreign country and foreign agent that, if revealed, could undermine "the trust we have with this foreign nation."The Justice Department also made 1,000 pages of classified materials available to the full House Intelligence Committee, the official said, which the department believes "substantially satisfied" Nunes' August 2017 subpoena.Nunes disagreed with that characterization, saying the committee's subpoenas "remain in effect," but he also had kind words for Rosenstein."Although the subpoenas issued by this Committee in August 2017 remain in effect, I'd like to thank Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein for his cooperation today," the California Republican said in a statement.Nunes' comments were a stark change from his position 24 hours ago."Well, I can just tell you we're not just going to hold in contempt -- we will have a plan to hold in contempt and to impeach," Nunes said in a Fox News interview Monday.But Rosenstein isn't out of hot water on Capitol Hill yet, as Republicans on the Judiciary and Oversight committees have also slammed him over failing to provide documents related to the FBI's handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation.Senior Republicans on the key committees in the House bluntly warned that it was time to hold the senior officials in contempt."I would certainly support that," Rep. Peter King, an ally of Trump's who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, told CNN earlier Wednesday when asked about holding Wray and Rosenstein in contempt. "We need these documents and they won't give them to us. They've been stonewalling us for a year on one document after another."Congressional action against Rosenstein, who appointed special counsel Robert Mueller and has the authority to fire him, could add to Trump's ire toward the deputy attorney general. And if the House were to take aggressive action against Rosenstein, it could give Trump cover to fire the deputy attorney general, who is ultimately in charge of the Mueller investigation.In addition to Nunes' demand, House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican, has subpoenaed the Justice Department demanding a wide range of documents about the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation in 2016. In response, the department delegated dozens of more staff to comply with the request and named a US attorney from Utah, John Lausch, to oversee the document production.Still, Republicans say the response has been paltry, giving ammunition for Trump to go after Rosenstein."Absolutely," Rep. Mark Meadows, a North Carolina Republican and close Trump ally who sits on the House Oversight Committee, said when asked if Rosenstein and Wray should be held in contempt. "At this particular point, they have not complied with a subpoena. They should be held in contempt."Meadows, who met with Lausch on Monday, said: "They can't tell us how many documents they're going to deliver, when they're going to deliver it, how they'll redact it. Those are three questions that they've had five months to answer and they can't answer it. It's appalling."While Republicans have been threatening to hold Rosenstein and Wray in contempt of Congress if they don't cooperate with both the House Intelligence and House Judiciary committee subpoenas for documents, Nunes' comments appeared to be the first to suggest impeachment.Meadows said the first step would be for Congress to hold Rosenstein and Wray in contempt, and impeachment could follow if the documents still aren't produced. "It would be the first step you hold them in contempt, then you have other tools in the toolbox if you do not get the documents," he said. "But it is certainly on that path to impeachment."CNN reported Tuesday that Trump is considering firing Rosenstein in the aftermath of the FBI raid of the office of his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen.The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff of California, said Wednesday that the threat from the GOP serves "insidious purposes: to intimidate DOJ and FBI, to provide the President with a pretext to fire Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and FBI Director Wray, and to undermine special counsel Mueller's investigation."A GOP leadership aide said Nunes has not spoken to House Speaker Paul Ryan yet about the possibility of moving to hold Wray or Rosenstein in contempt.Nunes had given the Justice Department a Wednesday deadline to provide an unredacted copy of the document, saying what they had previously provided in redacted form was not sufficient.Still, firing Mueller or Rosenstein would prompt a backlash from many Republicans on Capitol Hill, who have publicly cautioned Trump against taking steps against the special counsel's investigation.King, a New York Republican, said while he supports holding Wray and Rosenstein in contempt if they don't turn over the documents, he was opposed to any effort that would oust them because of the Pandora's box it would open with the Mueller investigation."There's the consequences of Rosenstein that would open up. It would just create a firestorm," King told CNN. "Whether it's right or wrong to do it, the fact is it would create a firestorm that doesn't make it worthwhile." 6222

How accurate are the coronavirus tests used in the U.S.?Months into the outbreak, no one really knows how well many of the screening tests work, and experts at top medical centers say it is time to do the studies to find out.When the new virus began spreading, the Food and Drug Administration used its emergency powers to OK scores of quickly devised tests, based mainly on a small number of lab studies showing they could successfully detect the virus.That’s very different from the large patient studies that can take weeks or months, which experts say are needed to provide a true sense of testing accuracy.The FDA’s speedy response came after it was initially criticized for delaying the launch of new tests during a crisis and after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stumbled in getting its own test out to states.But with the U.S. outbreak nearly certain to stretch on for months or even years, some experts want the FDA to demand better evidence of the tests’ accuracy so doctors know how many infections might be missed.There have been more than 2 million confirmed coronavirus cases in the U.S. and more than 115,000 deaths, according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University. Cases in nearly half of U.S. states are rising.In recent weeks, preliminary findings have flagged potential problems with some COVID-19 tests, including one used daily at the White House. Faulty tests could leave many thousands of Americans with the incorrect assumption that they are virus-free, contributing to new flare-ups of the disease as communities reopen.“In the beginning, the FDA was under a lot of pressure to get these tests onto the marketplace,” said Dr. Steven Woloshin of Dartmouth College, who wrote about the issue in the New England Journal of Medicine last week. “But now that there are plenty of tests out there, it’s time for them to raise the bar.”The FDA said in a statement that it has already asked multiple test makers to do follow-up accuracy studies, although it didn’t say for how many of the more than 110 authorized screening tests. The agency also said it is tracking reports of problems. Accuracy has also been an issue with blood tests that look for signs of past infections.No screening test is 100% accurate. So details on accuracy are routinely provided for tests of all types, including seasonal flu, hepatitis, HIV and cancers. For example, rapid flu tests are known to miss 20% or more of all cases, a factor doctors weigh when treating patients who have symptoms but test negative.For now, most COVID-19 tests in the U.S. don’t give data on real-world performance, including how often the tests falsely clear patients of infection or falsely detect the virus. That information is lacking for all but a few of the roughly 80 commercial screening tests available, according to an Associated Press review.The government’s emergency authorization process “requires a lower level of evidence,” the agency said. Makers need only show that a test “may be effective” instead of the usual requirement to demonstrate “safety and effectiveness.” They would have to meet that higher threshold once the U.S. government declares the emergency over.Many of the commercial test makers submitted results from 60 samples, the minimum number required and mostly used lab-produced specimens of the virus. The FDA now recommends the use of nasal swabs or other real samples from people screened for coronavirus.Experts say larger patient studies patients are needed to assess a test’s true performance.Lab testing bears little resemblance to actual — sometimes imperfect — conditions at hospitals, clinics and testing sites noted Dr. Robert Kaplan of Stanford University.“You’re testing people in parking lots, the patients themselves are extremely anxious and often unable to follow instructions,” said Kaplan, a former associate director of the National Institutes of Health.Kaplan and others say those differences could explain why some tests are not performing as expected.Last month, the FDA warned doctors of a potential accuracy problem with Abbott Laboratories’ rapid ID Now test, which delivers results in roughly 15 minutes. The test has been lauded by President Donald Trump and used to screen the president, his staff and visitors to the White House.The FDA alert followed a preliminary report by New York University that found Abbott’s test missed between a third to one-half of infections caught by a rival test in patients screened for the virus.Abbott rejected the findings, saying the researchers did not follow the instructions for using its test. The company pointed to alternate patient studies, including its own, that have found the test successfully detects between 91% and 95% or more of virus cases when compared to other tests.But similar problems with ID NOW’s accuracy have been flagged in preliminary reports by researchers at Stanford University, Loyola University and the Cleveland Clinic.For now, the FDA is requiring Abbott to conduct follow-up studies in several different patient groups.The FDA’s emergency standards “are still high but there is a significant difference in the body of work that what would go into a submission under the normal process,” said Abbott vice president John Hackett. “Our normal process takes years to bring these out.”Requiring bigger studies of all coronavirus tests could provide valuable information, but it could also strain the FDA’s already stretched staff and resources, said Dr. Daniel Schultz, former director of the FDA’s medical device center.Dr. Colin West of the Mayo Clinic worries doctors and patients have put too much confidence in the current crop of tests, when an unknown number of patients with COVID-19 are likely receiving false negative results.Even a modest error rate can have grave consequences during an outbreak like COVID-19. West gives the example of a test that is 95% accurate at detecting the virus and is used on 1 million people. That would still result in 50,000 people being incorrectly told that they don’t have the virus.“The negative test does not mean that I’m off the hook,” West said. “We just need to maintain that level of vigilance until we have a better sense of how good these tests really can be.”___Follow Matthew Perrone on Twitter: @AP_FDAwriter.___Follow AP pandemic coverage at http://apnews.com/VirusOutbreak and https://apnews.com/UnderstandingtheOutbreak.___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. 6604

Icelandair Group has announced plans to buy rival budget airline WOW air for about million, the company announced Monday.WOW air was previously a competitor to Icelandair as it boasted flights as low as , making it an attractive option for budget travelers.The two flight carriers will continue to operate under their different brand names.  376

Hurricane Michael intensified as it aimed for the Florida Panhandle, where it could make landfall as the strongest storm in terms of wind speed in the country this year.Michael churned in the Gulf of Mexico on Tuesday as a Category 3 storm, poised to grow stronger and slam Florida's Panhandle.If the storm's core comes ashore as a Category 2 or higher, it would be the strongest storm in terms of wind speed to make landfall in the country this year.Michael was expected to intensify?overnight and be near Category 4 strength when it makes landfall Wednesday afternoon. It is threatening dangerous surges to low-lying areas ill-equipped to handle them.Florida Gov. Rick Scott called Michael a "monstrous storm" that could bring "total devastation," and urged people to get out of the way."Hurricane Michael is forecast to be the most destructive storm to hit the Florida Panhandle in decades," Scott said. "You cannot hide from storm surge, so get out if an evacuation is ordered."The storm had sustained maximum winds of 120 mph Tuesday night, with gusts to 150 mph. Category 3 storms have sustained winds of 111 mph to 129 mph, according to?the hurricane center's scale. A storm goes to Category 4 with sustained winds stronger than 130 mph.Winds of tropical storm force will be felt in the area starting early Wednesday, and mandatory or voluntary evacuation orders already have been issued in at least 22 counties on the Florida Gulf Coast head of the storm.About 3.7 million people were under hurricane warnings in the Panhandle and Big Bend regions, as well as parts of southeastern Alabama and southern Georgia. Tropical storm warnings cover 8.5 million people in four states.Michael was moving north at 12 mph, about 220 miles southwest of Panama City, Florida, the National Hurricane Center said Tuesday night. 1828

In a victory for employers and the Trump administration, the Supreme Court on Monday said that employers could block employees from banding together as a class to fight legal disputes in employment arbitration agreements.Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority, his first major opinion since joining the court last spring and a demonstration of how the Senate Republicans' move to keep liberal nominee Merrick Garland from being confirmed in 2016 has helped cement a conservative court."This is the Justice Gorsuch that I think most everyone expected," said Steve Vladeck, CNN contributor and professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law. "Not only is he endorsing the conservative justices' controversial approach to arbitration clauses, but he's taking it an important step further by extending that reasoning to employment agreements, as well."Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took the rare step of reading her dissent from the bench, calling the majority opinion in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis "egregiously wrong.""The court today holds enforceable these arm-twisted, take-it-or-leave-it contracts -- including the provisions requiring employees to litigate wage and hours claims only one-by-one. Federal labor law does not countenance such isolation of employees," she said.In the majority opinion, Gorsuch maintained the "decision does nothing to override" what Congress has done."Congress has instructed that arbitration agreements like those before us must be enforced as written," he said.As the dissent recognizes, the legislative policy embodied in the (National Labor Relations Act) is aimed at 'safeguard[ing], first and foremost, workers' rights to join unions and to engage in collective bargaining," he wrote. "Those rights stand every bit as strong today as they did yesterday."Gorusch, responding to Ginsburg's claim that the court's decision would resurrect so-called "yellow dog" contracts which barred an employee from joining a union, said that "like most apocalyptic warnings, this one proves a false alarm."The case was the biggest business case of the term, and represented a clash between employers who prefer to handle disputes through arbitration against employees who want to be able to band together to bring their challenges and not be required to sign class action bans.It also pitted two federal laws against each other.One, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), gives employees the right to self organization to "engage in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protection" the other, the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) allows employers to "settle by arbitration."Lawyers for employers, who have long backed arbitration as a means of resolving disputes, argued that class action waivers are permissible under the 1925 law. They say the NLRA does not contain a congressional command precluding enforcement of the waivers.The Trump administration supported the employers in the case, a switch from the Obama administration's position.  3034