宜宾眼袋去除(宜宾玻尿酸丰下巴) (今日更新中)

The New England Journal of Medicine is one of the most popular medical journals in the world, where researchers go to share trials and information on data and science. But on Wednesday, the journal entered the world of politics.In an unusual and highly unprecedented fashion, the New England Journal of Medicine wrote a scathing rebuke of US leaders’ response to the coronavirus pandemic. While not formally offering any sort of endorsement, the journal referenced the upcoming election in its editorial. The piece did not name President Donald Trump or opponent Joe Biden by name.“Anyone else who recklessly squandered lives and money in this way would be suffering legal consequences,” the journal wrote. “Our leaders have largely claimed immunity for their actions. But this election gives us the power to render judgment. Reasonable people will certainly disagree about the many political positions taken by candidates. But truth is neither liberal nor conservative. When it comes to the response to the largest public health crisis of our time, our current political leaders have demonstrated that they are dangerously incompetent."The editorial, titled “Dying in a Leadership Vacuum,” comes just 27 days before the US election. While much of the world has been able to keep coronavirus deaths to a minimum in recent months, the US still has one of the highest death rates in the world from the virus related to the coronavirus.The United States continues to average 800 deaths per day from the coronavirus, according to Johns Hopkins University data. Only India has been averaging more deaths per day than the US in recent weeks, and India’s population is nearly quadruple America’s population.While many European nations saw a reprieve from the despair of the coronavirus over the summer, counties such as France and the United Kingdom are seeing cases jump in recent weeks, although their death counts still pale in comparison to the United States.The New England Journal of Medicine said that the US had every advantage going into the pandemic to combat the disease.“The United States came into this crisis with enormous advantages,” the journal’s editors wrote. “Along with tremendous manufacturing capacity, we have a biomedical research system that is the envy of the world. We have enormous expertise in public health, health policy, and basic biology and have consistently been able to turn that expertise into new therapies and preventive measures. And much of that national expertise resides in government institutions. Yet our leaders have largely chosen to ignore and even denigrate experts.”To read the full editorial, click here. 2657

The grave site of the five men who died, allegedly at the hands of Alferd Packer, are buried near Deadman Gulch, a couple miles south of Lake City. 156

The makers of the wildly popular video game Fortnite are facing a lawsuit from a rival company that claims the game violates intellectual property.The PUBG Corporation, the makers of PlayerUnkonwn's Battlegrounds, filed the lawsuit against Epic Games, claiming that Fortnite copied the "last-man standing" game concept.MORE:?Fortnite: What it is and why it is so popularAccording to the BBC, PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds was first released in March 2017. Fortnite was first released a few months later in July, but didn't release its popular "Battle Royale" mode until September. Both Battlegrounds' and Fortnite's Battle Royale mode both host up to 100 players online at a single time. The object of both games is to eliminate all other players and be the last person standing, and both games take place on an island. According to The Verge, both games were also developed on Unreal Engine 4, a system developed by Epic Games.However, the games do have notable differences: Fortnite allows players to gather materials and build fortresses and barriers.While PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds has waned in popularity, Fortnite has exploded around the world. Up to 3 million will be playing the game at one time, and millions more will watch professional gamers and celebrities play the game on the streaming service Twitch.Alex Hider is a writer for the E.W. Scripps National Desk. Follow him on Twitter @alexhider. 1495

The man taking over the Justice Department following Jeff Sessions' firing as attorney general has argued that special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation went too far.Matthew Whitaker, who was Sessions' chief of staff, is expected to take over oversight of Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether Trump campaign associates colluded with Russia. A source close to the President told CNN that the idea of Whitaker ending or suppressing the Russia probe is not an option as of now.In a CNN op-ed written last year, Whitaker argued that Mueller is "dangerously close to crossing" a red line following reports?that Mueller was looking into Trump's finances.He argued that Mueller does not have "broad, far-reaching powers in this investigation," but that the investigation's limits are clearly defined by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's?May 2017 letter appointing Mueller."It is time for Rosenstein, who is the acting attorney general for the purposes of this investigation, to order Mueller to limit the scope of his investigation to the four corners of the order appointing him special counsel," he wrote then. "If he doesn't, then Mueller's investigation will eventually start to look like a political fishing expedition."Back in 2017, Whitaker also told CNN's Don Lemon that he could see a scenario where Sessions is replaced with an attorney general who "reduces (Mueller's) budget so low that his investigation grinds to almost a halt."Trump announced on Twitter Wednesday that Whitaker would fill the role of attorney general while he finds a permanent replacement to be "nominated at a later date."Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation after it emerged that he had failed at his Senate confirmation hearing to disclose two pre-election meetings with Russia's ambassador to Washington at a time when Moscow was accused of interfering in the presidential race. The recusal was harshly criticized by Trump and led to the deterioration of their relationship.Whitaker was a CNN legal commentator and former US attorney who directed the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT), a conservative ethics watchdog group. He ran in the Republican primary for Iowa Senate in 2014.--This opinion article was originally published on August 6, 2017, and authored by now acting AG Matthew Whitaker:Last month, when President Donald Trump was asked by The New York Times if special counsel Robert Mueller would be crossing a line if he started investigating the finances of Trump and his family, the President said, "I think that's a violation. Look, this is about Russia."The President is absolutely correct. Mueller has come up to a red line in the Russia 2016 election-meddling investigation that he is dangerously close to crossing.According to a CNN article, Mueller's investigators could be looking into financial records relating to the Trump Organization that are unrelated to the 2016 election. According to these reports, "sources described an investigation that has widened to focus on possible financial crimes, some unconnected to the 2016 election." The piece goes on to cite law enforcement sources who say non-Russia-related leads that "involve Trump associates" are being referred to the special counsel "to encourage subjects of the investigation to cooperate."This information is deeply concerning to me. It does not take a lawyer or even a former federal prosecutor like myself to conclude that investigating Donald Trump's finances or his family's finances falls completely outside of the realm of his 2016 campaign and allegations that the campaign coordinated with the Russian government or anyone else. That goes beyond the scope of the appointment of the special counsel.In fact, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's letter?appointing special counsel Robert Mueller does not give Mueller broad, far-reaching powers in this investigation. He is only authorized to investigate matters that involved any potential links to and coordination between two entities -- the Trump campaign and the Russian government. People are wrongly pointing to, and taking out of context, the phrase "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation" to characterize special counsel's authority as broad.The word "investigation" is clearly defined directly preceding it in the same sentence specifically as coordination between individuals associated with the campaign of Donald Trump and Russia. The Trump Organization's business dealings are plainly not within the scope of the investigation, nor should they be.Indeed, Sunday on Fox News, Rod Rosenstein acknowledged Mueller had limited authority and would need to seek his permission to expand the investigation.Beyond the legal reading, the broad authority argument defies plain logic: If the special counsel could investigate anything he wants, why would there even need to be a letter spelling out the specific limits of the investigation?One of the dynamics at play here is that people are conflating this investigation and Kenneth Starr's 1994 investigation into President Bill Clinton. While partly understandable at first glance, the two investigations are not comparable -- not only have more than two decades passed since then, but a completely new law and legal framework governing separate investigations has also passed. Starr was an independent counsel and Mueller is a special counsel, the two words are different for a reason.Any investigation into President Trump's finances or the finances of his family?would require Mueller to return to Rod Rosenstein for additional authority under Mueller's appointment as special counsel.If he were to continue to investigate the financial relationships without a broadened scope in his appointment, then this would raise serious concerns that the special counsel's investigation was a mere witch hunt. If Mueller is indeed going down this path, Rosenstein should act to ensure the investigation is within its jurisdiction and within the authority of the original directive.I've prosecuted several financial crimes at the federal level and I've also defended plenty in my private practice. From this unique vantage point, I can understand how a motivated prosecutor, in a broad investigation into the financial affairs of high-profile individuals, can become overzealous toward the targets of such probes -- with calamitous results. While no one is above the law, in situations such as this, any seasoned prosecutor must use discretion both judiciously and expertly.It is time for Rosenstein, who is the acting attorney general for the purposes of this investigation, to order Mueller to limit the scope of his investigation to the four corners of the order appointing him special counsel.If he doesn't, then Mueller's investigation will eventually start to look like a political fishing expedition. This would not only be out of character for a respected figure like Mueller, but also could be damaging to the President of the United States and his family -- and by extension, to the country. 7167

The Museum of the Bible in Washington, DC says five of its most valuable artifacts — all thought to be part of the historic Dead Sea Scrolls — are fake and will not be displayed anymore.German-based scholars tested the fragments and found that five "show characteristics inconsistent with ancient origin and therefore will no longer be displayed at the museum.""Though we had hoped the testing would render different results, this is an opportunity to educate the public on the importance of verifying the authenticity of rare biblical artifacts, the elaborate testing process undertaken and our commitment to transparency," said Jeffrey Kloha, the chief curatorial officer for Museum of the Bible."As an educational institution entrusted with cultural heritage, the museum upholds and adheres to all museum and ethical guidelines on collection care, research and display."But some scholars had questioned the fragments in the collection even before the museum opened with splashy ceremonies last November. Others believe they are all fake.Steve Green, the museum's founder and chairman, won't say how much his family spent for the 16 fragments in its collection. But other evangelicals, including a Baptist seminary in Texas and an evangelical college in California, have paid millions to purchase similar pieces of the Dead Sea Scrolls.In April 2017, Bible Museum sent five fragments to the Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und-prüfung (BAM) a German institute for analyzing materials, where scholars tested for 3D digital microscopy and conducted material analyses of the ink and sediment on the papyrus. (Scholars have theorized that forgers use old scraps of papyrus or leather, to make fraud detection more difficult.)Their report, which the Bible Museum said they recently received, "further raises suspicions about the authenticity of all five fragments." 1874

来源：资阳报