徐州孕多少周照四维更合适徐州怀孕24周多可以做四维吗,排畸检查徐州,徐州做四维还要憋尿吗,徐州做四维彩超大概的费用,徐州四维彩超几个月能预约,徐州做四维彩超需要多钱,徐州怀孕做四维彩超什么时候

WASHINGTON (AP) — Responding to an outcry from medical experts, Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen Hahn on Tuesday apologized for overstating the life-saving benefits of treating COVID-19 patients with convalescent plasma.Scientists and medical experts have been pushing back against the claims about the treatment since President Donald Trump’s announcement on Sunday that the FDA had decided to issue emergency authorization for convalescent plasma, taken from patients who have recovered from the coronavirus and rich in antibodies.Trump hailed the decision as a historic breakthrough even though the treatment’s value has not been established.Hahn had echoed Trump in saying that 35 more people out of 100 would survive the coronavirus if they were treated with the plasma. That claim vastly overstated preliminary findings of Mayo Clinic observation. 878

WASHINTON, D.C. -- Senate Democrats are unveiling a plan to extend additional unemployment benefits.This is for the extra 0 every week, on top of what states already offer for unemployment.The new proposal would decrease the added benefit as the unemployment rate drops.The Economic Policy Institute supports that plan, saying the additional benefit should stay in place as long as needed.“People are really, really uncertain about how this is going to unfold over the coming months, so putting some arbitrary end date on any provisions related to supporting the economy and the people in it during this crisis makes no sense,” said Heidi Shierholz, Senior Economist and Director of Policy at the Economic Policy Institute.The institute tells us the expansion makes a huge difference, not just for the individual, but for all of us. It estimates if it cuts off at the end of July, that could cost the U.S. 5 million jobs over the next year. That's because less spending creates a further drag on the economy.However, Republicans say the expanded benefit gives people a reason to not go back to work.Some studies have found the economy could actually be worse off if people don't get working again.The American Enterprise Institute agrees, saying the move was just meant to get through the initial lockdown.“This is becoming less of a, the pandemic caused us to initiate lockdowns and people are at home, and now it's just we have a large number of unemployed people, what should we do to assist them, and 0 addition to unemployment checks in a bad economy is a really unprecedented step,” said Matt Weidinger with the American Enterprise Institute.The group says extending the benefits could set that precedent for Congress to act similarly for any future recessions. 1781

WELLINGTON, Florida — Imagine going to the hospital to have back surgery, only to wake up and learn one of your major organs was mistakenly removed.That nightmare was a reality for one West Palm Beach, Florida woman at Wellington Regional Medical Center.“It was an ordinary day," described Maureen Pacheco, who was 51 when it happened back in April 2016.Pacheco was suffering from back pains from a car accident and after a lengthy process and diagnosis from her doctors, she was checked into Wellington Regional to have back surgery to help with the pains.“There was no red flags or anything," she said of the day she went into the operating room.But she ended leaving the hospital without one of her healthy kidneys. One of the surgeons, Dr. Ramon Vazquez, mistook it for a cancerous tumor and removed it from her body without her consent.“He just took my life and just dismissed it," said Pacheco.Pacheco recently settled in a lawsuit against her doctors  -- Dr. John Britt and Dr. Jeffrey Kugler -- and Dr. Vazquez.However, a complaint by the Florida Department of Health is still ongoing. Adding to the frustration, Pacheco says Dr. Vazquez wasn't even her doctor -- his job was just to cut her open so her physicians could perform the back surgery.“If he would have looked at the MRIs that were given to him, he would’ve realized it," she said. According to the state's?health department website, Dr. Vazquez has an active medical license. The site shows him practicing at with Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center, St. Mary's Medical Center and Good Samaritan Hospital in West Palm Beach, and Bethesda Memorial Hospital in Boynton Beach.“Physicians do get second chances," said Pacheco's attorney, Donald Ward III of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, PA in West Palm Beach.“It’s unlikely that he would lose his license over something like this. What is most likely is that he would face a fine and possibly be required to do some continuing medical education so that he could learn not to make the same mistake in the future," he added.Ward said Dr. Vazquez would have to pay that fine out of pocket because he didn’t have malpractice insurance.“What is not common is for you to meet that general surgeon the morning of and be told that if something were to happen to you, that general surgeon doesn’t carry any health insurance whatsoever," he said.Dr. Vazquez's attorney, Mike Mittelmark, said his client settled the matter for a nominal amount due to the uncertainty of litigation. He added that in no way did Dr. Vazquez admit liability by agreeing to the settlement.“I wish no ill will against him. Everyone is entitled to their livelihood but you should have consequences when gross mistakes and negligence are made," said Pacheco. “I just wish that he learns a lesson from the consequences."Pacheco said no amount of money will fix the complications she faces for the rest of her life.“It’s always in the back of my mind -- lifelong kidney transplant or dialysis," she said. “Now, I’m always fearful.”Wellington Regional Medical Center issued this statement in response to WPTV's request for comment: 3147

WAVELAND, Miss. (AP) — Hurricane Sally is slowly closing in on the northern Gulf Coast with powerful winds and weather forecasters are warning of “potentially historic” flooding. Hurricane warnings stretch from Morgan City, Louisiana, to Navarre, Florida. In Alabama on Monday, Gov. Kay Ivey asked for a federal emergency declaration as the weather service warned of a storm surge of more than 9 feet in the Mobile area. The storm reached Category 2 strength with sustained winds of 100 mph Monday afternoon. 517

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration says people would drive more and be exposed to increased risk if their cars get better gas mileage, an argument intended to justify freezing Obama-era toughening of fuel standards.Transportation experts dispute the arguments, contained in a draft of the administration's proposals prepared this summer, excerpts of which were obtained by The Associated Press.The excerpts also show the administration plans to challenge California's long-standing authority to enact its own, tougher pollution and fuel standards.Revisions to the mileage requirements for 2021 through 2026 are still being worked on, the administration says, and changes could be made before the proposal is released as soon as this week.RELATED: California sues over plan to scrap car emission standardsThe Trump administration gave notice earlier this year that it would roll back tough new fuel standards put into place in the waning days of the Obama administration. Anticipating the new regulation, California and 16 other states sued the Trump administration in May.Overall, "improvements over time have better longer-term effects simply by not alienating consumers, as compared to great leaps forward" in fuel efficiency and other technology, the administration argues. It contends that freezing the mileage requirements at 2020 levels would save up to 1,000 lives per year.New vehicles would be cheaper — and heavier — if they don't have to meet more stringent fuel requirements and more people would buy them, the draft says, and that would put more drivers in safer, newer vehicles that pollute less.RELATED: EPA moves to weaken Obama-era fuel efficiency standardsAt the same time, the draft says that people will drive less if their vehicles get fewer miles per gallon, lowering the risk of crashes.David Zuby, chief research officer at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said he's doubtful about the administration's estimate of lives saved because other factors could affect traffic deaths, such as automakers agreeing to make automatic emergency braking standard on all models before 2022. "They're making assumptions about stuff that may or may not be the same," he said.Experts say the logic that heavier vehicles are safer doesn't hold up because lighter, newer vehicles perform as well or better than older, heavier versions in crash tests, and because the weight difference between the Obama and Trump requirements would be minimal.RELATED: President Trump, California clash over key issues"Allow me to be skeptical," said Giorgio Rizzoni, an engineering professor and director of the Center for Automotive Research at Ohio State University. "To say that safety is a direct result of somehow freezing the fuel economy mandate for a few years, I think that's a stretch."Experts say that a heavier, bigger vehicle would incur less damage in a crash with a smaller, lighter one and that fatality rates also are higher for smaller vehicles. But they also say that lighter vehicles with metals such as aluminum, magnesium, titanium and lighter, high-strength steel alloys perform as well or better than their predecessors in crash tests.Alan Taub, professor of materials science and engineering at the University of Michigan, said he would choose a 2017 Malibu over a heavier one from 20 years earlier. It's engineered better, has more features to avoid crashes and additional air bags, among other things. "You want to be in the newer vehicle," he said.RELATED: Nearly every governor with ocean coastline opposes Trump's drilling proposalAn April draft from the Trump administration said freezing the requirements at 2020 levels would save people ,900 per new vehicle. But the later draft raises that to ,100 and even as high as ,700 by 2025.Environmental groups questioned the justification for freezing the standards. Luke Tonachel, director of the clean-vehicle program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the risk from people driving more due to higher mileage is "tiny and maybe even negligible."Under the Trump administration proposal, the fleet of new vehicles would have to average roughly 30 mpg in real-world driving, and that wouldn't change through 2026.California has had the authority under the half-century-old Clean Air Act to set its own mileage under a special rule allowing the state to curb its chronic smog problem. More than a dozen states follow California's standards, amounting to about 40 percent of the country's new-vehicle market.Asked if he thinks a freeze in U.S. mileage standards is warranted, EPA acting administrator Andrew Wheeler told a small group of reporters at EPA headquarters last week, "I think we need to go where the technology takes us" on fuel standards.Wheeler did not elaborate. Agency spokespeople did not respond when asked specifically if the EPA acting chief was making the case that modern cars could be both fuel efficient and safe.Wheeler also spoke out for what he called "a 50-state solution" that would keep the U.S car and truck market from splitting between two different mileage standards.The Department of Transportation said in a statement that the final fuel economy standards would be based on sound science. The department cautioned that a draft doesn't capture the whole picture of the proposed regulation.The draft said a 2012 analysis of fuel economy standards under the Obama administration deliberately limited the amount of mass reduction necessary under the standards. This was done "in order to avoid the appearance of adverse safety effects," the draft stated.___Krisher reported from Detroit. 5642