揭阳白癜风患者发病原因-【汕头中科白癜风医院】,汕头中科白癜风医院,308治疗白癜风费用揭阳,揭阳儿童白癜风多久能看好,揭阳看白癜风在哪看最好,308激光白癜风汕头中科,白癜风汕尾308费用,汕尾治疗白癜风最新的方法
揭阳白癜风患者发病原因汕头白癜风医保可以报销么,汕尾最好的白癜风是哪家,汕尾哪里有看好的白癜风,汕尾治疗白癜风哪里医院疗效最好,潮州白癜风哪家治疗最放心,揭阳治疗白癜风哪家效果好,潮州得了白癜风如何护理
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Despite doctors and medical experts working to assure the community the COVID-19 vaccine is safe, there are some myths flying around. In an interview with KSHB, Dr. Matt Gratton, associate chief medical officer at Truman Medical Center, addressed some of the most common myths.MYTH: The COVID-19 vaccine has a microchip that will allow the government to track those who get it:"That is definitely not true, I mean I’m not really sure how I can prove that, but it's not true," Gratton said. "If it helps I got the vaccine yesterday, and so I would not let somebody plant a microchip into my body, I think that is something that the vast majority of Americans would find incredibly hard to believe."MYTH: The vaccine was rushed and therefore is not safe:"I think people should look at this a different way and say this is really a miracle of modern science being able to develop this vaccine as quickly as possible using literally the most modern up-to-date genetic techniques," Gratton said. Gratton said Americans should take comfort in knowing that thousands of scientists worked on the production of the vaccine to produce it quickly."It just goes to show you what human beings can do when they work together and follow science," Gratton said.Gratton said it's important to note that the approval process of the vaccine is a thorough one."The CDC is an organization made up of some of the smartest scientists and physicians in America, and American scientist and physicians are the smartest in the world," Gratton said. "When the CDC sets up a process to evaluate a vaccine and other technology I feel very confident trusting their judgment."Gratton said many of the people involved with the decision-making process at the CDC don't work for the government but are outside scientists and physicians who advise the CDC.MYTH: You don't need to get the vaccine if you've had COVID-19:Gratton said the CDC does recommend someone who has had COVID-19 to still get the vaccine, but there is some question about what the best timing is."Because the vaccine is fairly rare at the moment there’s just not that much of it to go around, there is the recommendation from some experts that you might want to wait for 90 days or so and let other people who have not had COVID get a vaccine," Gratton said. Gratton said this is the approach Truman Medical Center is taking with workers who have had COVID-19 in the last 90 days. Ultimately, he said everyone will get the vaccine at some point."There’s still some science to be worked on, but there is some evidence that perhaps the vaccine will give better immunity than natural COVID," Gratton said. "That’s not definitively determined, but I think everyone agrees at some point you should get the vaccine even if you have had COVID."MYTH: The vaccine will cause severe side effects:"Every vaccine has a potential to give people side effects, and this is no different than that," Gratton said.Gratton said there is some evidence that shows people may be more likely to develop symptoms after receiving the second injection. According to Gratton, the most common side effects are injection site symptoms such as pain, swelling or redness. Other minor symptoms may be headache, fatigue or body aches.Gratton said studies show only about 10-15% of people had minor symptoms such as a low-grade fever."The second shot it’s a little bit higher so more like 20 percent," Gratton said. "So it is true that people with the second shot typically feel, if they get any symptoms at all, a little bit worse than after the first shot, but the vast majority of people will be able to go about their business."As far as allergic reactions, Gratton said there have been several cases in England."That can happen with any vaccine so there is a recommendation that if you've had an allergic reaction, a serious allergic reaction, that you need to be more cautious about getting this one and be observed a little bit longer afterwards," Gratton said. Gratton said he feels confident that the people giving the vaccine will be able to treat allergic reactions if they do happen. "It’s very rare, in the actual study they based approving this vaccine on there were no serious allergic reactions," Gratton said. This story was originally published by Emma James at KSHB. 4313
KANSAS CITY, Mo. - A woman was shot and killed about 3:30 Saturday morning in Kansas City, Missouri. Police responded to an ambulance call and discovered a woman shot. Kindrea Brown, 24 was found shot to death in her own bed.Janet Brown says she heard gunfire late Friday night but went to bed shortly thereafter. She had no idea that her youngest daughter, who was asleep in her bed, had been shot."I heard gunshots. That's all I heard. We checked and laid back down." said Brown.Brown went to her daughter's room Saturday morning to wake her up for work. "I get her up every morning and mess with her before she goes to work. I went back to wake her up and she didn't wake up. I couldn't get her up. She didn't respond to me anymore." said Brown.No other information has been released. And no suspect has been taken into custody. 860
Just after Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's sudden firing Tuesday morning, American diplomats at posts spanning the globe were then increasingly surprised -- and in some cases disturbed -- to receive guidance from Washington telling them not to post or retweet the statement from Undersecretary of State Steve Goldstein on how Tillerson was fired by President Donald Trump, according to multiple diplomats who spoke to CNN about the guidance.Goldstein, part of Tillerson's tight inner circle of aides, had released a statement to the press and then tweeted words that he says came from Tillerson himself on his firing: "The secretary did not speak to the President this morning and is unaware of the reason, but he is grateful for the opportunity to serve, and still believes strongly that public service is a noble calling and not to be regretted." 859
Just because you're bankrupt doesn't mean you don't need a hand during the holiday season.Toys R Us, which filed for bankruptcy on Monday night, announced Thursday that it is looking to fill at least 13,000 positions nationwide for the upcoming holiday season.The toy retailer didn't give the total number of seasonal workers it plans to hire, but said it is looking for 3,800 workers in the New York area, 2,400 in greater Los Angeles as well as 2,400 at a warehouse in Groveport, Ohio that is run by DHL. It is also looking for about 1,000 workers each in the Philadelphia, Chicago and Boston markets as well as 900 work at home call center employees.Hiring workers just for the holidays will be harder for retailers this year since unemployment at at 4.4%, near a 16-year low. There are currently a record number of unfilled job openings according to Labor Department statistics. To fill the jobs in the current environment, Toys R Us has sweetened its pay package to offer employees weekend pay rates on peak holiday shopping days, as well as additional employee discounts said spokesman Joseph Contrino.Earlier this week Walmart, the nation's largest private sector employer, said that instead of hiring seasonal employees this year it will give?its existing part-time employees more hours.Toys R Us has nearly 1,000 Toys R Us and Babies R Us stores across the United States and Canada, and filed for bankruptcy protection on Monday. Its employees will continue to be paid and its stores will remain open during the reorganization. The company said it has about 65,000 employees worldwide. 1642
Just three weeks before facing voters, Sen. Kamala Harris questioned Judge Amy Coney Barrett for 30 minutes during Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing on Tuesday.Harris, Joe Biden’s running mate and Democratic candidate for vice president, largely used her allotted time to point toward President Donald Trump’s campaign goal of eliminating the Affordable Care Act.Democrats, like Harris, have zeroed in on their belief that Barrett would vote to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, which was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Barack Obama nearly a decade ago.Just one week after the election, the Supreme Court will hear another GOP-led challenge to the law. In 2012, the Affordable Care Act was “saved” in a 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court as justices said that the law should stand as it levied a tax penalty for those without health care. In 2017, the individual mandate was struck down, meaning there is no longer a tax penalty component to Obamacare. Now the argument comes back to the Supreme Court, as Republicans claim the court's previous ruling is moot given there is no longer a tax penalty.Harris pointed to a previous op-ed pinned by Barrett when she was a law professor at Notre Dame to claim Barrett would rule against Obamacare. Barrett wrote that the Affordable Care Act should have been overturned in 2012."You've already opined the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. And that position satisfied the president's promise to only nominate judges who would tear down the Affordable Care Act,” Harris said.Barrett fired back, and added that she has made no commitment to the Trump administration on overturning the act.“Question would be figuring out whether Congress, assuming that the mandate is unconstitutional now, whether that consistent with your intent,” Barrett said.Harris then pressed Barrett on her views on Roe vs. Wade. Barrett said multiple times throughout the hearing that she would not offer an opinion on the 1970s-era ruling that largely has kept abortion legal throughout the US.“I would suggest that we not pretend that we don't know how this nominee views a woman's right to choose,” Harris said.Harris was questioned by Mike Pence at last week’s vice presidential debate on whether her and Biden would be supportive of expanding the Supreme Court. Harris avoided the question, and Biden had largely avoided the question until last night, stating he was not supportive of expanding the Supreme Court. 2487