双鸭山个心脏彩超多少钱(焦作查腹部是什么科) (今日更新中)

The Food and Drug Administration warned pregnant women on Thursday of using some pain and fever medications during the second half of pregnancies.According to the FDA, these nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can cause rare but serious kidney problems in the unborn baby, which can cause pregnancy-related complications. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs include ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac, and celecoxib. The FDA added that its warning does not apply to low-dose aspirin.“It is important that women understand the benefits and risks of the medications they may take over the course of their pregnancy,” said Patrizia Cavazzoni, M.D., acting director of FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “To this end, the agency is using its regulatory authority to inform women and their health care providers about the risks if NSAIDs are used after around 20 weeks of pregnancy and beyond.”The FDA says that warnings on prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs already advise of complications past 30 weeks. The newest guidance calls on health care providers to only prescribe the lowest effective dose for the shortest period possible for women 20 to 30 weeks into their pregnancy.More information on the warning can be found here. 1259

The California NAACP is urging "The Star-Spangled Banner" be removed as the national anthem, according to the Sacramento Bee. The NFL has been embroiled in a national controversy regarding players kneeling for the playing of "The Star-Spangled Banner" before games. President Donald Trump has weighed in multiple times condemning players as being disrespectful for kneeling for the anthem.  413

The decision to reintroduce gray wolves in Colorado will be decided by the people, and both sides of the issue say the decision will impact the entire country.“Only in 2020, the weird year that we are having would Colorado be voting to introduce a species that’s already here in Colorado,” said Shawn Martini, the vice president of advocacy for the Colorado Farm Bureau.“The western part of Colorado is primarily owned, and majority-owned, by the people as public lands,” said Rob Edward, who is part of the Rocky Mountain Wolf Project. “We all have interests on what happens on our public lands.”For centuries, the gray wolf roamed North America in large populations. But in the 1900s, the wolves were nearly hunted out of existence.The wild wolves haven’t lived in Colorado since 1940, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service classified the animal as an endangered species in 1978.“They are the missing link in the Rocky Mountain chain,” Edward said. “From the high arctic to New Mexico, we can re-establish a population of wolves again by reintroducing wolves to western Colorado. The presence of wolves on those wild landscapes is important for the long-term health of those landscapes.”With Proposition 114 in Colorado, the people will be able to vote in November on whether this will become a reality. This is something that has never happened in the nation’s history.“Wolves are already all over the place,” Martini said. “They’ve come down from Wyoming and Montana through a natural process. We’re asking voters to say no to this ballot initiative, because it makes something a natural process into a political one.”Having people vote on this is something Martini is strongly against.“So, this the first time a species would be introduced into a state via a ballot measure,” Martini said. “The reason it’s never been done before because it’s a really bad idea to make a scientific process a political one. The Colorado Parks and Wildlife and biologists should be the ones making this decision, not voters who don’t always have access to the info and are not biologists and who don’t do this for a living.”The main reason wolf advocates like Edwards want to re-introduce wolves to the area is that they believe it could improve the ecosystem. In 1995, the gray wolf was reintroduced into the greater Yellowstone ecosystem to help manage the high population of elk. But that decision wasn’t voted on by the people.Biologists came up with a plan and brought it to Congress. After years of public comment, the secretary of the interior finally signed off on the project.“Colorado is not Yellowstone,” Martini said. “Yellowstone is subject to a ton of environmental regulations, so the people managing the area don’t have the same tools as Colorado does.”Regardless of what side people are on this issue, both sides agree that this a historic ballot measure that could change the course of the country ecologically and politically. 2941

The Christian evangelist who attempted to convert one of the world's last remaining isolated tribes wrote of his convictions in pursuing the mission even in the face of open hostility and attempts on his life, according to diary entries and notes.In excerpts from his journal, John Allen Chau, the American who is believed to have been killed by members of the isolationist Sentinelese tribe on a tiny, remote island in the Bay of Bengal, wrote of returning to the island to continue his attempts at conversion even after a tribesman shot at him with a bow and arrow, piercing a Bible he was carrying."I hollered, 'My name is John, I love you and Jesus loves you,'" he wrote in his diary, pages of which were shared by his mother with the Washington Post. Shortly after, a young member of the tribe shot at him, according to his account.In pages left with the fishermen who facilitated his trip to the island, his musings are a clear indication of his desire to convert the tribe."Lord, is this island Satan's last stronghold where none have heard or even had the chance to hear your name?" he wrote.His notes indicate that he knew the trip was illegal, describing how the small fishing vessel transported him to the isolated island under cover of darkness, evading patrols."God Himself was hiding us from the Coast Guard and many patrols," he wrote.All seven locals who facilitated the trip have been arrested. 1419

The Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday authorized the first rapid coronavirus test that doesn’t need any special computer equipment to get results.The 15-minute test from Abbott Laboratories will sell for , giving it a competitive edge over similar tests that need to be popped into a small machine. The size of a credit card, the self-contained test is based on the same technology used to test for the flu, strep throat and other infections.It’s the latest cheaper, simpler test to hit the U.S. market, providing new options to expand testing as schools and businesses struggle to reopen and flu season approaches. The FDA also recently greenlighted a saliva test from Yale University that bypasses some of the supplies that have led to testing bottlenecks.Both tests have limitations and neither can be done at home. Several companies are developing rapid, at-home tests, but none have yet won approval. Abbott’s new test still requires a nasal swab by a health worker, like most older coronavirus tests. The Yale saliva test eliminates the need for a swab, but can only be run at high-grade laboratories.And in general, rapid tests like Abbott’s are less accurate than lab-developed tests. The FDA said in a statement announcing the decision that negative results with Abbott’s test may need to be confirmed with a lab test in some cases. The agency granted Abbott’s test an emergency use authorization late Wednesday for patients with suspected COVID-19.The two additions should help expand the number of available tests. The U.S. is now testing about 690,000 people per day, down from a peak of 850,000 daily tests late last month. Many public health experts believe the country will soon need to test vastly more people to find those who are infected, isolate them and contain the virus.The FDA noted that Abbott’s test could be used in a doctor’s office, emergency room or some schools. “Given the simple nature of this test, it is likely that these tests could be made broadly available,” the FDA said.Since the start of the pandemic, nasal swab tests that are sent to a lab have been the standard for COVID-19 screening. While considered highly accurate, the tests rely on expensive, specialized machines and chemicals. Shortages of those supplies have led to repeated delays in reporting results, especially during a spike in cases last month.Government and health experts view rapid tests that can be run outside the laboratory system as key to boosting capacity.“Those screening tests are what we need in schools, workplaces and nursing homes in order to catch asymptomatic spreaders,” said Dr. Jonathan Quick of the Rockefeller Foundation, in an interview earlier this month. The nonprofit group has called for the U.S. to conduct about 4 millions per day by October, mostly rapid, point-of-care tests.Abbott’s BinaxNOW is the fourth rapid test that detects COVID-19 antigens, proteins found on the surface of the coronavirus, rather than the virus itself. It’s considered a faster, though sometimes less precise, screening method. The other tests need to be inserted into a small machine.Inside the Abbott test is a specially coated strip that interacts with COVID-19 antigens. The patient’s nasal swab is inserted into the card and a few drops of a chemical solution are added. Markings appear on the card to indicate whether the sample is positive or negative — much like a pregnancy test.Two other makers of antigen tests — Quidel and Becton Dickinson have said they haven’t been able to meet demand for the tests. A third, LumiraDx, plans to begin shipping its recently approved antigen tests by the end of this month. Abbott expects to begin shipping tests in September, reaching 50 million tests a month in October.The influx of antigen tests will go a long way toward meeting the Trump administration’s projection that 90 million COVID-19 tests a month will be available by September if needed. But U.S. “testing czar” Adm. Brett Giroir has stressed that the U.S. can contain the outbreak with far fewer tests.“That’s the capacity ... we do not need that many tests to safely and sensibly reopen,” Giroir told reporters on a recent call. He pointed to several key indicators that have been falling, including new infections and hospitalizations, even as testing has slowed.Earlier this month, the FDA authorized Yale’s saliva-based test, which is expected to cut the time and cost compared with similar tests. It’s the fifth COVID-19 saliva tests OK’d by regulators. All require lab processing.Developed by Yale’s School of Public Health, SalivaDirect can use any sterile container to collect a sample, not the special tube needed with earlier tests, and requires less chemicals. Outside experts welcomed the new approach but noted its limitations.“It’s not a rapid test, it’s a laboratory-based test that will still be prone to the same massive delays as any other test,” said Dr. Michael Mina of Harvard University.___Follow Matthew Perrone on Twitter: @ AP_FDAwriter.___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. 5201

来源：资阳报