天津龙济男科什么地方(在线预约武清龙济医院) (今日更新中)

House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte has issued subpoenas for former FBI Director James Comey and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch.Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican who is retiring, is requesting private depositions from Comey on December 3 and Lynch on December 4. House Republicans have been investigating FBI actions in the 2016 campaign, but that probe will end when Democrats take over the committee in January.Comey, who has previously rejected the committee's request for him to appear privately before the GOP-led inquiry, reiterated his position soon after the subpoenas became public."Happy Thanksgiving. Got a subpoena from House Republicans. I'm still happy to sit in the light and answer all questions. But I will resist a 'closed door' thing because I've seen enough of their selective leaking and distortion. Let's have a hearing and invite everyone to see," Comey tweeted.David Kelly, an attorney for Comey, said Thursday that his client will fight the order in court."While the authority for congressional subpoenas is broad, it does not cover the right to misuse closed hearings as a political stunt to promote political as opposed to legislative agendas," Kelly said.Lynch has not yet commented publicly about the subpoenas.After the House Judiciary Committee signaled earlier this month their intention to subpoena Comey and Lynch, Rep. Jerry Nadler, the Democrat who is expected to chair the panel next year, criticized the move as "unfortunate.""Months ago, Director Comey and Attorney General Lynch both indicated their willingness to answer the Chairman's questions voluntarily. My understanding is that the Republicans have had no contact with either the director or the attorney general since," Nadler said last week.Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein remains another potential witness hanging over the GOP-led investigation. Conservatives on the panels demanded that Rosenstein appear to answer their questions about his reported remarks about wearing a wire to record the President and efforts to recruit Cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office. A scheduled meeting with Rosenstein last month was postponed and has not been rescheduled. 2215

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

IMPERIAL BEACH, Calif. (KGTV) - Residents in one Imperial Beach neighborhood are hoping surveillance video will help put an end to an "endless" cycle of graffiti.In an alley off 14th Street, Gary Copeland looks at his neighbor's brand new fence and can only shake his head."It's disgusting we have to look at all this graffiti," said Copeland.On Monday around 4:30 a.m., a neighbor's motion-activated camera captured a man in a cap shaking a can of spray paint. In the next video recorded, one can hear the sound of spray paint before the man emerges from the dark. Hours later and blocks away, a camera in another alley captured a man without a cap spray-painting a similar tag on the wall of another home."It's a nuisance is what it is," said Copeland.Copeland's family has lived at his home for some four decades."You can see they've tagged my wall a few times. We've repainted, but they came back and re-tagged it," said Copeland.Copeland says his wall has been hit three times in the past six months."It's never-ending deal ... there's always tagging. Up and down the alley all these fences are tagged ... It takes your sense of living in a good home and neighborhood to feeling like you're living in a slum," said Copeland.If you have any information on the cases, call the Imperial Beach sheriff's station at 619-498-2400. 1339

If you were born after 1959, when Hawaii became the 50th state, 50 states in this country is all you've ever known. Paul Strauss, the shadow-senator for the District of Columbia, thinks it's time to change that. "This is the first century where we haven’t admitted a new state yet," Strauss told Scripps National Political Editor Joe St. George."That flag used to always change and get more and more stars on it," Strauss added.As shadow-senator, Strauss has no vote in committee or on the floor of the United States Senate. The possibility of another state joining the Union is intensifying as the prospect for a Democratic sweep on Election night increases. WHY ODDS ARE INCREASINGDemocrats are expected to maintain control of the House of Representatives and the chamber has already passed a bill admitting D.C. into the union.Democratic Nominee Joe Biden has also backed the idea. Meanwhile, if Democrats take back the Senate and change the filibuster rule, the possibility of D.C. becoming a state is even more likely. That's because Democrats would only need 51 votes in favor of statehood. Currently 60 votes are needed and unlikely even if Democrats win big on election night. DEMOCRATS' POLITICAL MOTIVE Of course Democrats have a political motive in making the District of Columbia a state beyond the belief that "no taxation without representation" is unjust. D.C. is an overwhelmingly Democratic city with only 4% voting for President Trump in 2016. In all likelihood, two Democratic Senators would be elected, giving Democrats a major political advantage for decades to come. "This is not about the voice of the people of the District of Columbia, this is a raw powerplay," Senator Steve Daines, R-Montana, said in a recent interview with Scripps. Daines says if D.C. truly wants representation, Virginia or Maryland could annex parts of the city where people live. Strauss couldn't disagree more. "We want to join the union. What could be more patriotic than that?" Strauss said. For those who say the Constitution calls for the seat of government to not be in a state, Strauss says a new special district would be created outside of D.C.'s jurisdiction and stretch from the Supreme Court to the Capitol, through the National Mall and to the White House. 2278

I cannot bring myself to include a link, because why give it more air? But that op-ed belittling Jill Biden, urging her to drop the Dr., mocking her research on community college, likening her degree to an honorary doctorate, is disgusting. 1/2— Melissa Korn (@melissakorn) December 13, 2020 305

来源：资阳报