汕尾白癜风研究院挂号汕头有没有中医看白癜风,揭阳去哪里买白癜风的药,潮州慢性白癜风怎么治疗,在普宁哪里治疗白癜风好,梅州治疗白癜风价格是多少,潮州白癜风最新的治疗方法,潮州哪家治白癜风较好

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) — Breakfast and brunch aficionados will soon have a whole new reason to flip over the most important meal of the day. "Flap Your Jacks" is bringing its own take on the traditional breakfast dish to North Park later this summer. The eatery will take over 3020 University Ave. with a bright, modern space featuring a custom art installation of "thousands" of spatulas hanging from the ceiling and a syrup-topped stack of "pancakes" on the building's facade.RELATED: 9 San Diego restaurants named most scenic in AmericaA menu packed with breakfast and brunch favorites will be offered from the kitchen, in addition to several freshly-squeezed juice options, "energy shots," and signature cocktails to jump start the day. But perhaps the most fun will be found in the breakfast joint's unique approach to pancakes, which guests can customize on their own.Each table will be outfitted with a personal griddle, inviting guests to put on their own chef hat and create their favorite pancakes from a variety of homemade batter flavors and toppings. The interactive concept aims to not only bring a new level of creativity to breakfast but also a unique conversation piece.RELATED: Puesto to move into Gordon Biersch's Mission Valley location this summer(Plus the chance to wow your friends with your pancake making skills.)But for those less confident in their flipping abilities, there are still several options, including pancakes, available from the kitchen.The two-level restaurant will be open daily from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. once it opens. Currently, owners hope to debut Flap Your Jacks in late September or early October. 1642

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) — As the world waits for a vaccine against the coronavirus, two San Diego biotechs are teaming up to develop a nasal spray using designer antibodies cloned from COVID-19 survivors.About 70 companies worldwide are working on therapies for COVID-19 using cloned antibodies, according to an estimate by the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative. A few of these treatments, known officially as monoclonal antibody therapies, have advanced to clinical trials.Most require an injection, but San Diego-based Diomics and its partner Active Motif, based in Carlsbad, are developing a once-a-day spray that could be easily self-administered.Early research suggests the coronavirus primarily enters the body through the nose. The spray, called Dioguard, is designed to coat the lining of the nasal cavity with cloned antibodies that are held in place for 24 hours or more using a proprietary polymer material developed by Diomics.Diomics CEO Anthony Zolezzi said he believes the spray “holds the key to allowing many aspects of life to resume until the day comes when there’s an effective vaccine in widespread use.”Diomics is also developing two tests for COVID-19 antibodies using its polymer beads, including a device that looks like a nicotine patch that is designed to monitor for infections for a week or more.RELATED: How a dot on your forearm could be the future sign of COVID immunityActive Motif is providing the cloned antibodies for the nasal spray. With a lab in Shanghai and other relationships in China, the Carlsbad company was able to clone antibodies from 11 Chinese survivors in February, before the World Health Organization declared a pandemic.When the company started the cloning project, they thought the virus would probably disappear in three to six months, said Active Motif CEO Ted DeFrank. “Then people started realizing, no this is going to be with us for a while.”The plasma from the 11 Chinese patients contained thousands of antibodies, and scientists with Active Motif set about selecting the one that was most effective, dubbed 414-1. The company says it can neutralize SARS-CoV-2 virus particles with 98 percent effectiveness.Monoclonal antibodies have some similarities to convalescent plasma, which is a complex cocktail of antibodies and other immune molecules drawn from the blood of recovered patients. One of the key differences is that cloned antibodies can be mass produced in a lab.Cloned antibodies have been used in treatments for more than 30 years, primarily for cancer. One such treatment famously helped former U.S. President Jimmy Carter beat melanoma.But of the more than 100 monoclonal antibody therapies licensed for use, only seven are for communicable diseases, according to IAVI.Historically, the treatments have been expensive and difficult to produce, but Diomics said it’s targeting a price of about a spray for Dioguard, roughly per bottle.“We do not want to have huge profits from a pandemic, that’s just wrong,” Zolezzi said. “We’re going to price this as effectively as we can for the masses. We want to get this out to the masses.”Animal testing is about to begin and the companies said they hope to progress to human trials soon. Their goal is to release the spray in early 2021, when a vaccine may be on the market but not yet widely available.If the spray works, it could be adapted to other viruses to help fight future pandemics, Zolezzi said."That’s our real goal," Zolezzi said. "That we never get caught flat-footed like this time." 3526

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) - Border officials say the man shot and killed on Friday night by a Border Patrol agent behind the Las Americas Premium Outlets mall was trying to enter the U.S. illegally.A statement from Aaron Heitke, Chief Patrol Agent for the U.S. Border Patrol, San Diego Sector reads:“On Friday, October 23, 2020, at approximately 5:45 p.m., a United States Border Patrol agent responded to apprehend a man illegally entering the United States immediately west of the port of entry in San Ysidro, California. During the arrest, an altercation ensued and the agent discharged his firearm, wounding the man, who was later identified as an adult Mexican national. Nearby agents and law enforcement personnel responded immediately and initiated lifesaving efforts until emergency medical services arrived. At approximately 6:25 p.m. the man was pronounced deceased at the scene. The investigation is currently being led by the San Diego Police Department. Customs and Border Protection will continue to fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation. The specifics of this incident have also been shared with FBI, DHS OIG and CBP Office of Professional Responsibility. Additional updates will be provided by the San Diego Police Department, inquiries should be directed to them.”SDPD added Saturday that the 30-year-old man was shot once in the torso by the agent after he fought the agent, who sustained minor injuries.Social justice leaders with the American Friends Service Committee and Alliance San Diego have sent a letter to SDPD calling in part for an independent investigation to be handled only by police, not border officials or unions. Part of the letter reads, “Any involvement or coordination with these agencies, and specifically with CIIT has the potential to corrupt the investigation and could be considered an obstruction of justice.”Pedro Rios with the American Friends Service Committee said that he and others are considering holding a demonstration on Sunday. “I think for us it's important to ensure that people are treated with dignity regardless of who they are and we shouldn't jump to conclusions about the person who is now a victim and is now deceased,” Rios told ABC 10News on Saturday. He added, “I think we should permit the investigation — an unobstructed investigation — to move forward and that way we get to know exactly what took place that led to the demise of this individual.”There's now a call for evidence related to the shooting to be released right away. “We know that there's a lot of surveillance cameras in the area, not only belonging to Customs and Border Protection and [the] Department of Homeland Security but also the Las Americas mall has a lot of cameras in the area,” said Rios.Officials are not releasing the name of the man who was shot or the name of the agent who fired at him. 2848

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) — As we approach the November election, all eyes are on a handful of battleground states.That’s because of an election procedure that a lot of people have questions about and one that is unique to presidential politics: the Electoral College.When you fill out a ballot for president, you’re not actually voting for the candidate whose name you see. In California, you’re actually voting for 55 people who you may have never heard of, a “slate of electors,” who turn around and cast the real votes from the state Capitol in December. It dates back to 1787. The Founding Fathers were split on the mechanics of how to elect a president, and “this was the thing that they could all agree on,” said UC San Diego political science professor Daniel Butler.The Electoral College was a compromise between the framers who were leery of giving direct power to the masses and others who opposed having Congress elect the president.“It felt a lot like Parliament, a lot like what the British did, which is not what they were going to do,” Butler said.Article II of the Constitution lays out how it works. Each state gets a number of electors equal to the size of their congressional delegation; their senators and U.S. representatives. California has 55 electors, the most of any state.The Founders set up the Electoral College system under one big assumption: that it would be extremely rare for candidates to actually secure a majority, which today is 270 votes. If the contest ended without a majority winner, it would be decided by Congress.The last election decided by Congress was in 1824. The scenario the Founders predicted might happen once or twice a century has unfolded in every election since.“I think what frustrates many people about the Electoral College is that that majority winner in the popular vote isn’t always who captures the majority in the Electoral College,” said UC San Diego political science chair Thad Kousser.In 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump became just the fifth person in history to win the Electoral College and lose the popular vote, out of 58 presidential elections. It also happened in 2000 in the contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore.The Founders envisioned the Electoral College as a check on the popular vote, able to potentially choose a different candidate than the one favored by the masses, but in practice, electors almost never do that. Most states have laws requiring electors to follow the popular vote.It was big news in 2016 when 10 electors broke ranks in an effort to block candidate Trump, because in every state electors are party loyalists, hand-picked by top leaders. So-called faithless electors have never swung an election.Kousser says for all the recent controversy surrounding the electoral college, there are some major benefits. Because the system empowers states whose electorate is closely divided between the parties, Kousser said it helps mitigate the role of money in politics.“What the electoral college does is it focuses and narrows the playing field to these few battleground states,” he said. “That's where you've got to run ads. That's where you've got to run your campaigns, not in 50 states. If we had to run 50-state campaigns then it would cost billions of dollars to win elections and it would give a huge advantage to whichever side raised the most money.”The other benefit of focusing elections on key swing states is that it pushes the parties more towards the center, Kousser argues. Without the Electoral College, he says candidates would try to “run up the score” and collect as many votes as possible in more populous states like California and Texas that tend to be more politically polarized. 3703

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) -- As drugmakers race to develop a vaccine against the coronavirus, several legal questions are emerging: could the government require people to get it? Could people who refuse to roll up their sleeves get banned from stores or lose their jobs?The short answer is yes, according to Dov Fox, a law professor and the director of the Center for Health Law Policy and Bioethics at the University of San Diego.“States can compel vaccinations in more or less intrusive ways,” he said in an interview. “They can limit access to schools or services or jobs if people don’t get vaccinated. They could force them to pay a fine or even lock them up in jail.”Fox noted authorities in the United States have never attempted to jail people for refusing to vaccinate, but other countries like France have adopted the aggressive tactic.The legal precedent dates back to 1905. In a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the court ruled Massachusetts had the authority to fine people who refused vaccinations for smallpox.That case formed the legal basis for vaccine requirements at schools, and has been upheld in subsequent decisions.“Courts have found that when medical necessity requires it, the public health outweighs the individual rights and liberties at stake,” Fox said.In 2019, New York City passed an ordinance that fined people who refused a measles vaccination.That said, recent protests over face coverings show there could be significant backlash to a vaccine mandate, Fox said. Just because states have the power to do it, doesn’t mean it’s the best public policy, he added.Although states would have the authority to mandate vaccinations, there’s more doubt about whether Congress could enact a federal requirement.The most likely federal vaccination requirement would come in the form of a tax penalty, but Fox said given the current composition of the Supreme Court, a federal vaccine requirement would likely be found unconstitutional.Opponents of a federal mandate would cite the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision on the Affordable Care Act, Fox said. In that case, the justices ruled that Congress could not use its powers to regulate interstate commerce to require people to buy health insurance, even though the ACA’s individual mandate was ultimately upheld on separate grounds.That means the U.S. could have a patchwork of different vaccine requirements in different states.States that explore a vaccine requirement should only do so if the vaccine is widely and readily available, Fox said.“Otherwise you create an underclass of people who are less safe and without access to the basic means of society,” he said.States would need to allow exemptions for people with legitimate medical risks, like pregnancy, but not exemptions on religious or philosophical grounds, he said.“Religious exemptions are not constitutionally required by the First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause, provided that the vaccine mandates don’t single out religion; they’re not motivated by a desire to interfere with it,” he said.In the workplace, private employers would have a lot of flexibility to require vaccinations and fire workers who refuse them for anything but legitimate medical concerns.As long as employers show there are significant costs associated with having unvaccinated workers, they would not need to offer religious exemptions to employees, Fox said.Under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, employers are not required to accommodate religious employees if doing so would pose more than a “de minimis,” or minimal cost. 3561