西安补习班联系方式(长安区高考复习班正规多少钱) (今日更新中)

The first experimental COVID-19 vaccine in the U.S. is on track to begin a huge study next month to prove if it really can fend off the coronavirus, while hard-hit Brazil is testing a different shot from China.Where to do crucial, late-stage testing and how many volunteers are needed to roll up their sleeves are big worries for health officials as the virus spread starts tapering off in parts of the world.Moderna Inc. said Thursday the vaccine it is developing with the National Institutes of Health will be tested in 30,000 people in the U.S. Some will get the real shot and some a dummy shot, as scientists carefully compare which group winds up with the most infections.With far fewer COVID-19 cases in China, Sinovac Biotech turned to Brazil, the epicenter of Latin America’s outbreak, for at least part of its final testing. The government of S?o Paulo announced Thursday that Sinovac will ship enough of its experimental vaccine to test in 9,000 Brazilians starting next month.If it works, “with this vaccine we will be able to immunize millions of Brazilians,” said S?o Paulo′s Gov. Joao Doria.Worldwide, about a dozen COVID-19 potential vaccines are in early stages of testing. The NIH expects to help several additional shots move into those final, large-scale studies this summer, including one made by Oxford University that’s also being tested in a few thousand volunteers in Brazil.There’s no guarantee any of the experimental shots will pan out.But if all goes well, “there will be potential to get answers” on which vaccines work by the end of the year, Dr. John Mascola, who directs NIH’s vaccine research center, told a meeting of the National Academy of Medicine on Wednesday.Vaccines train the body to recognize a virus and fight back, and specialists say it’s vital to test shots made in different ways — to increase the odds that at least one kind will work.Sinovac’s vaccine is made by growing the coronavirus in a lab and then killing it. So-called “whole inactivated” vaccines are tried-and-true, used for decades to make shots against polio, flu and other diseases — giving the body a sneak peek at the germ itself — but growing the virus is difficult and requires lab precautions.The vaccine made by the NIH and Moderna contains no actual virus. Those shots contain the genetic code for the aptly named “spike” protein that coats the surface of the coronavirus. The body’s cells use that code to make some harmless spike protein that the immune system reacts to, ready if it later encounters the real thing. The so-called mRNA vaccine is easier to make, but it’s a new and unproven technology.Neither company has yet published results of how their shots fared in smaller, earlier-stage studies, designed to check for serious side effects and how well people’s immune systems respond to different doses.Even before proof that any potential vaccine will work, companies and governments are beginning to stockpile millions of doses so they can be ready to start vaccinating as soon as answers arrive.In the U.S., a program called “Operation Warp Speed” aims to have 300 million doses on hand by January. Under Brazil’s agreement with Sinovac, the Instituto Butantan will learn to produce the Chinese shot.___AP journalist Marcelo Silva de Sousa contributed to this report.___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. 3499

The cost of the Justice Department's ongoing investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election is now roughly million, according to a new report filed Friday by the special counsel's office.Friday's accounting provided the latest figures covering only the period for April 2018 through September 2018, with special counsel Robert Mueller listing direct expenditures of nearly .6 million.Another roughly .9 million was reported as costs for the work of other Justice and FBI officials who have assisted the investigation but are not under Mueller's direct control. According to the report, those investigation costs would have been incurred "irrespective of the existence of the (special counsel's office)."The department previously reported .7 million in direct and indirect costs from May through September 2017, and  million from October 2017 through March 2018 -- bringing the total from all three reports over the life of the investigation to just over million. Of that amount, only .3 million is the special counsel's direct expenditures.Since taking control of the Russia probe in May 2017, Mueller has advanced on multiple fronts to investigate any links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, along with other crimes arising from the investigation.To date, the investigation has yielded charges against 36 people or entities. Seven people have pleaded guilty to various charges, including President Donald Trump's first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, former deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates and former campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos.Meanwhile, Trump and his allies have relentlessly attacked Mueller and the probe as a waste of money.Trump took aim at the cost of the investigation last month, offering a grab-bag of different numbers Mueller had allegedly spent, untethered to the facts.On November 27, 2018 he tweeted: "now ,000,000 Witch Hunt continues and they've got nothing but ruined lives."Then 48 hours later, he tweeted criticizing the "witch hunt" for "wasting more than ,000,000." 2182

The end of net neutrality is now scheduled for next month.The Federal Communications Commission said in a notice filed Thursday that new rules repealing the net neutrality protections are set to take effect 30 days from this Friday, or June 11."Now, on June 11, these unnecessary and harmful internet regulations will be repealed and the bipartisan, light-touch approach that served the online world well for nearly 20 years will be restored," Ajit Pai, chairman of the FCC, said in a statement Thursday.The Republican-led FCC voted along party lines in December to repeal the Obama-era net neutrality rules, which were intended to prevent internet providers from blocking, speeding up, or slowing down access to specific online services.The FCC previously said that parts of the repeal order would take effect on April 23. The rest of the order required the approval of the Office of Management and Budget, which the FCC says it received earlier this month.The new timeline comes as net neutrality advocates make a last ditch effort to undo the repeal.Related: Trump administration sends mixed messages on big mediaSenate Democrats are currently pushing for a vote on a bill to overturn the decision as soon as next week. Even if the resolution passes the Senate, it still faces an uphill battle in the House.Gigi Sohn, a counselor to former FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, recently told CNN that the future of net neutrality will likely "stay murky" through the remainder of this calendar year, "at the very least."More than 20 states have filed a lawsuit to stop the net neutrality repeal. Several states, including New Jersey, Washington, Oregon and California, have gone so far as to push legislation to enforce the principles of net neutrality within their borders.This local legislation could lead to a legal showdown, however.A spokeswoman for the FCC previously directed CNNMoney to a section of the final order for net neutrality, in which the FCC asserts authority to prevent states from pursuing laws inconsistent with the net neutrality repeal."You do have a number of states who have passed rules and they haven't really implemented them because if they do they will be sued by the operators."It's patently illegal for the states to make their own internet policy," says Roslyn Layton, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who served on President Trump's transition team for the FCC.Layton expects telecommunications companies will sue the states if they try to enforce the protections.  2527

The first hearing in CNN and Jim Acosta's federal lawsuit against President Trump and several top White House aides lasted for two hours of tough questioning of both sides.At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Timothy J. Kelly said he would announce his decision Thursday afternoon.CNN and Acosta are alleging that the White House's suspension of his press pass violates the First and Fifth Amendments.The hearing started around 3:40 p.m., Kelly began by probing CNN's arguments for the better part of an hour. Then he turned to questioning a lawyer representing the government.Lawyers for the network and Acosta asked for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction that would restore his press pass right away, arguing that time is of the essence because his rights are violated every day his pass is suspended.Kelly opened the hearing by quizzing CNN attorney Theodore Boutrous on the network's First Amendment claim and asking how the President's history of attacks on CNN should be viewed in the context of the lawsuit.Boutrous rattled off examples of Trump's missives against CNN, including his claim that the network is an "enemy of the people."Kelly expressed skepticism that this proves the Acosta ban is "content-based discrimination," as CNN is alleging.Kelly said there is some evidence that Acosta's conduct -- not his content -- led the White House to suspend his press pass.But Boutrous disputed that and said there "never will there be more evidence of facial discrimination and animus against an individual reporter" than in this case.Kelly said "we've all seen the clip" of the White House press conference where Trump and Acosta had a combative exchange last week. Kelly said that Acosta "continued speaking after his time expired" and "wouldn't give up his microphone" -- points that the Trump administration made in its briefs earlier Wednesday.Under questioning from the judge, Boutrous cited Trump's words to Acosta from the press conference, and said, "'Rudeness' is really a code word for 'I don't like you being an aggressive reporter.'"Kelly peppered CNN's attorney with hypotheticals as he tried to determine what a lawful move by the White House, responding to Acosta's actions, would look like."Could they let him keep the pass but tell him he couldn't come to presidential press conferences?" Kelly asked.Boutrous contended that even a partial response like that would be a violation of Acosta's First Amendment rights.Boutrous called the White House's move to revoke Acosta's hard pass "the definition of arbitrariness and capriciousness.""What are the standards?" Boutrous asked. "Rudeness is not a standard. If it were no one could have gone to the press conference."Boutrous separately brought up evidence that hadn't been available when CNN filed its suit: A fundraising email that the Trump campaign sent Wednesday.The email touted the decision to revoke Acosta's credentials and attacked CNN for what it called its "liberal bias." Boutrous said that by grouping that all together in the same breath, the email made it clear that it was Acosta's coverage and not his conduct at a press conference that triggered the revocation of his press pass.Kelly asked CNN's lawyers to state the company's position regarding the original White House accusation that Acosta placed his hands a White House intern as she tried to grab his microphone away."It's absolutely false," Boutrous said.Boutrous also pointed out that Trump administration never mentioned that accusation against Acosta in the 28-page brief that Justice Department lawyers filed with the court earlier on Wednesday."They've abandoned that" claim, Boutrous said.In his first question in a back and forth with the government, Kelly asked Justice Department attorney James Burnham to clear up the government's shifting rationale for revoking Acosta's pass."Why don't you set me straight," Kelly said. "Let me know what was the reason and address this issue of whether the government's reason has changed over time.""There doesn't need to be a reason because there's no First Amendment protection and the President has broad discretion," Burnham said.Still, Burnham called the White House's stated reasonings "pretty consistent throughout," and walked through a series of statements that the administration has made — from Trump's first comments at the press conference to Sanders' tweets announcing the revocation to the official statement put out Tuesday after CNN filed its suit.Burnham said Sanders' claim that Acosta had inappropriately touched a White House intern was not a part of their legal argument."We're not relying on that here and I don't think the White House is relying on that here," Burnham said.Burnham said that it would be perfectly legal for the White House to revoke a journalist's credentials if it didn't agree with their reporting.He made the assertion under questioning from Kelly, who asked him to state the administration's position in this hypothetical situation.The judge asked if the White House could essentially tell any individual journalist, "we don't like your reporting, so we're pulling your hard pass." Burnham replied, "as a matter of law... yes."Pressed again by the judge on Sanders' claim that Acosta had inappropriately touched the intern, Burnham said "we don't have a position" on that."The one consistent explanation," Burnham said, "is disorder at the press conference."Burnham contended that revoking Acosta's hard pass was not "viewpoint discrimination" — part of a legal threshold for a First Amendment claim."A single journalist's attempt to monopolize a press conference is not a viewpoint and revoking a hard pass in response to that is not viewpoint discrimination," Burnham said.Kelly tried to press for details about how Acosta's pass came to be revoked, asking Burnham who made the actual decision.Burnham said he didn't have any information beyond what had been filed in court documents: that the revocation was first announced by Sanders on November 7 and then "ratified" by Trump the next day."Do you have any information to suggest that it was anyone other than Ms. Sanders that made the decision?" Kelly asked."No, not that I'm offering today. I'm not denying it but I don't know anything beyond what's been filed," Burnham said.Later, Burnham argued that revoking Acosta's press pass does not infringe on his First Amendment rights because he can still call White House staffers for interviews or "catch them on their way out" of the building."I think the harm to the network is very small," Burnham said."Their cameras are still in there," he added.Burnham said CNN had made an "odd First Amendment injury" claim and suggested that Acosta could do his job "just as effectively" watching the President's appearances piped into a studio on CNN."The President never has to speak to Mr. Acosta again," Burnham said. "The President never has to give an interview to Mr. Acosta. And the President never has to call on Mr. Acosta at a press conference.""To be in a room where he has no right to speak... this seems to me like an odd First Amendment injury that we're talking about," Burnham said.Boutrous, the CNN attorney, fired back on rebuttal."That's not how reporters break stories. It's simply a fundamental misconception of journalism," Boutrous said, adding how unscheduled gaggles and source meetings throughout the White House amounted to "invaluable access."In a legal filing by the Justice Department on Wednesday, the White House asserted that it has "broad discretion" to pick and choose which journalists are given a permanent pass to cover it.That position is a sharp break with decades of tradition. Historically both Republican and Democratic administrations have had a permissive approach to press access, providing credentials both to big news organizations like CNN and obscure and fringe outlets.Acosta's suspension -— which took effect one week ago — is an unprecedented step. Journalism advocates say it could have a chilling effect on news coverage.CNN and Acosta's lawsuit was filed on Tuesday morning, nearly one week after Acosta was banned.Before the hearing began, CNN's lawyers said the case hinges on Acosta and CNN's First Amendment rights; the shifting rationales behind the ban; and the administration's failure to follow the federal regulations that pertain to press passes, an alleged violation of Fifth Amendment rights. The lawsuit asserts that this ban is really about Trump's dislike of Acosta.The "reasonable inference from defendants' conduct is that they have revoked Acosta's credentials as a form of content- and viewpoint-based discrimination and in retaliation for plaintiffs' exercise of protected First Amendment activity," CNN's lawsuit alleges.In addition to the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that CNN is seeking at the hearing, CNN and Acosta are also seeking what's known as "permanent relief." The lawsuit asks the judge to determine that Trump's action was "unconstitutional, in violation of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." This could protect other reporters against similar actions in the future."If the press is not free to cover the news because its reporter is unjustly denied access, it is not free," former White House correspondent Sam Donaldson said in a declaration supporting CNN that was filed with the court on Tuesday. "And if denying access to a reporter an organization has chosen to represent it -- in effect asserting the president's right to take that choice away from a news organization and make it himself -- is permitted, then the press is not free."Ted Olson, a Republican heavyweight who successfully argued for George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore, is representing CNN, along with Boutrous — himself another prominent attorney — and the network's chief counsel, David Vigilante.Olson said Tuesday that while it was Acosta whose press pass was suspended this time, "this could happen to any journalist by any politician."He spoke forcefully against Trump's action. "The White House cannot get away with this," Olson said.Most of the country's major news organizations have sided with CNN through statements and plan to file friend-of-the-court briefs. 10291

The CIA has determined that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman personally ordered the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, despite the Saudi government's denials that the de facto ruler was involved, according to a Washington Post report.Citing people familiar with the matter, the Post reported Friday that the CIA reached its conclusion by examining several sources of intelligence. According to the Post, US officials have high confidence in the CIA's assessment.A spokesman for the CIA declined to comment to the Post. The Saudi government has denied bin Salman's involvement in Khashoggi's death.Fatimah Baeshen, a spokeswoman for the Saudi Embassy in Washington, told the newspaper that the claims in the CIA's "purported assessment are false.""We have and continue to hear various theories without seeing the primary basis for these speculations," she told the Post.Khashoggi, a former Saudi royal insider who became a critic of the country's government, went missing in October after he visited the Saudi consulate in Istanbul to obtain papers for his upcoming marriage. The Saudi government offered changing explanations for Khashoggi's disappearance.Included in the US intelligence analyzed by the CIA was a phone call the prince's brother Khalid bin Salman made to Khashoggi, encouraging the journalist to make the trip to the consulate to get the documents, according to the Post. Sources told the Post that Khalid made the call at his brother's command.Khalid denied the Post's reporting, saying on Twitter that he had never spoken to Khashoggi by phone."I never talked to him by phone and certainly never suggested he go to Turkey for any reason. I ask the US government to release any information regarding this claim," Khalid said.He said the last contact he'd had with Khashoggi was via text in October 2017.Baeshen told the Post that Khalid, who is the Saudi ambassador to the US, and Khashoggi never discussed "anything related to going to Turkey."The CIA also examined an audio recording from inside the Saudi consulate provided by Turkey and a phone call placed from inside the consulate after Khashoggi was killed, according to the Post.Maher Mutreb, an alleged member of the Saudi hit team and a security official for the crown prince, placed the phone call to a top aide for bin Salman informing the aide that the job had been done, people familiar with the call told the newspaper.According to the Post, the CIA also based its conclusion on its evaluation of bin Salman as a leader who is involved in minor matters.The CIA does not know the location of Khashoggi's remains, according to the Post.The Trump administration on Thursday?imposed penalties on 17 individuals over their alleged roles in the killing of Khashoggi. Khashoggi's assassination has created a crisis for the Trump administration and drawn attention to President Donald Trump's business ties to Saudi Arabia and the relationship between bin Salman and Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner.Earlier Thursday, the Saudi Public Prosecutor's Office said 11 people had been charged for their involvement in the death of Khashoggi, adding that five are facing capital punishment for being directly involved in "ordering and executing the crime."Khashoggi was killed following "a fight and a quarrel" at the Saudi consulate, the prosecutor's office claimed. Prosecutors said Khashoggi was tied up and injected with an overdose of a sedative that killed him. Then, according to prosecutors, his body was dismembered and removed from the consulate by five people. 3617

来源：资阳报