alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 21.1
   Subsidiaries of the Registrant
   SinoHub International, Inc., a Delaware corporation
  SinoHub Electronics Shanghai, Ltd., a PRC company, wholly owned by SinoHub International, Inc.
  SinoHub Electronics Shenzhen, Ltd., a PRC company, wholly owned by SinoHub International, Inc.
  SinoHub SCM Shenzhen, Ltd., a PRC company, wholly owned by SinoHub Electronics Shenzhen, Ltd.
  SinoHub SCM Shanghai, Ltd., a PRC company, wholly owned by SinoHub Electronics Shenzhen, Ltd.
  B2B Chips, Limited, a Hong Kong company, wholly owned by SinoHub Electronics Shenzhen Ltd.
  SinoHub Technology (Hong Kong) Limited, a Hong Kong company, wholly owned by B2B Chips, Limited.
  Topology Communication Technology (Shenzhen) Ltd., a PRC company, wholly owned by B2B Chips, Limited.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT In the Interest of A.W., A.W., and A.S., children.

____________________________

P.W., Appellant,
v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, and GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, Appellee. No. 2D21-1187 September 24, 2021 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Gilbert Smith, Jr., Judge. David Maldonado, The Maldonado Law Firm, P.A., Lakeland, for Appellant. Meredith K. Hall of Children's Legal Services, Bradenton, for Appellee, Department of Children and Families. Thomasina Moore and Sarah Todd Weitz of Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, for Appellee, Guardian ad Litem Program. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. BLACK, LUCAS, and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

MIGUEL RAMON VARGAS

- ZUNIGA,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 19

- 10359

D.C. No. 2:19

- cr

- 00816

- SMB

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Susan M. Brnovich, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 5 , 2020 * *

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Miguel Ramon Vargas

- Zuniga appeals from the district court’s judgment

and challenges his guilty

- plea conviction and 37

- month sentence for reentry of a

removed alien , in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California

,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), V argas

- Zuniga ’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

AUG 7 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 10359

are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record.

We have provided Vargas

- Zuniga the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental

brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Vargas

- Zuniga waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our

independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waive r. See United

States v. Watson , 582 F.3d 974, 986

- 88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss

the appeal. See id. at 988.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Morgan ROSE, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-30241.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 22, 2004.*

Decided April 26, 2004.

Douglas B. Whalley, Esq., USSE — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michael Craig Nance, Esq., Law Office of Michael Nance, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, RYMER, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Morgan Rose appeals the district court’s order revoking his supervised release and imposing an 18-month sentence. He originally pleaded guilty to conspiracy to import and distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(D).

Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Rose has filed a brief stating there are no meritorious issues, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83-84, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no grounds for relief.

Accordingly, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPHENIE ROBERTSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

REPUBLIC OF NICARAGUA, THE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00852-JST 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: ECF No. 1

Plaintiff Josephine E. Robertson’s purports to bring this case for herself and on behalf of 

seven other named plaintiffs, although none of the putative named plaintiffs has signed the 

complaint. ECF No. 1 at 1, 10-11. The same complaint states that Plaintiffs bring “this Class 

Action Complaint against Defendants the Republic of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega, and the 

Sandinista Party . . . on behalf of all the Miskitu peoples.” ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff Robertson is 

not represented by an attorney, however, and is not an attorney herself. Id. at 25. 

“Pro se plaintiffs are not adequate class representatives able to fairly represent and 

adequately protect the interests of [a] class.” Blake v. Cty. of Santa Clara, No. 16-CV-01279-

HSG, 2016 WL 4073339, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2016) (citing Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 

1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975); Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664-65 (9th Cir. 2008)). 

“[A] litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than 

[herself].” Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962). 

Plaintiff may not maintain a purported class action, or bring claims on behalf of the other 

seven named plaintiffs, unrepresented. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE 

why the Court should not dismiss all claims except her individual claim on her own behalf. A 

hearing on this Order to Show Cause is set for June 22, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. to coincide with the 
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

pending motion to dismiss. Plaintiff’s written response is due by June 8, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2017

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22336-22337]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10973]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[OH54-1-6164b, FRL-5201-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation 
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes: State of Ohio

AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The USEPA proposes to approve the redesignation request and 
maintenance plan for the Dayton-Springfield, Ohio area as a revision to 
Ohio's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone. In the final rules 
section of this Federal Register, the USEPA is approving the State's 
redesignation request and maintenance plan as a direct final rule 
without prior proposal because USEPA views this as a noncontroversial 
revision amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed 
rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no 
adverse comments are received in response to the direct final rule, no 
further activity is contemplated in relation to this proposed rule. If 
USEPA receives comments adverse to or critical of the approval, USEPA 
will withdraw the approval before its effective date by publishing a 
subsequent Federal Register document which withdraws the direct final 
rule. All public comments received will then be addressed in a 
subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. USEPA will not 
institute a second comment period on this document. Any parties 
interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments on this action must be received by June 5, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed to: William MacDowell, 
Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Enforcement Branch (AE-17J), 
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, 60604.
    Copies of the State submittal and USEPA's analysis of it are 
available for inspection at: Regulation Development Section, Air 
Enforcement Branch (AE-17J), United States Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Lee, Regulation Development 
Section, Air Enforcement Branch (AE-17J), United States Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604.

[[Page 22337]] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information 
see the direct final rule published in the Final Rules section of this 
Federal Register.

    Dated: March 14, 1995.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-10973 Filed 5-4-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
**EXHIBIT 15.1**

 

January 30, 2006 

 

**The Board of Directors and Stockholders, Sun Microsystems, Inc.**

 

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 33-18602, 33-25860, 33-33344, 33-38220,33-51129, 33-56577, 333-09867, 333-34543, 333-34651, 333-38163, 333-40677, 333-40675, 333-59503, 333-62987, 333-65531, 333-67183, 333-72413, 333-86267, 333-89391, 333-90907, 333-35796, 333-45540, 333-48080, 333-49788, 333-52314, 333-56358,333-59466, 333-61120, 333-62034, 333-68140, 333-73218, 333-98097, 333-100189, 333-101332, 333-101323, 333-108639, 333-109303, 333-111968, 333-114550, 333-114551, 333-122586, 333-127063, 333-128324 and 333-128325; and Form S-3 No. 333-81101) of SunMicrosystems, Inc. of our report dated November 2, 2005 and January 20, 2006 relating to the unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial statements of Sun Microsystems, Inc. that are included in its Form 10-Q for the quarters endedSeptember 25, 2005 and December 25, 2005. 

 

Very truly yours, 

 

/s/    ERNST & YOUNG LLP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL BENCH TRIAL MINUTES

Date: January 16, 2018 Time: 5 hours 1 minute Judge: VINCE CHHABRIA

Case No.: 16-cv-07014-VC Case Name: Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC v. 

City of Oakland

Attorney for Plaintiff: Robert Feldman, David Myre, Meredith Shaw, and Stephen Swedlow

Attorney for Defendant: Kevin Siegel, Timothy Colvig, Gregory Aker, Christopher Long

Attorney for Defendant Intervenor: Colin O'Brien, Heather Lewis, Jessica Yarnall Loarie, 

Adrienne Bloch, Marie Logan, Joanne Spalding

Deputy Clerk: Kristen Melen Court Reporter: Debra Pas

Trial Began: January 16, 2018

Further Trial: January 17, 2018, at 10:00 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS:

Bench Trial - Day 1.

RULINGS AND ORDERS:

The declaration of Heather Klein is due by the end of day on January 17, 2018.

Witness sworn and examined:

 Patrick Cashman

 Darin Ranelletti

 Phillip Tagami

 Crescentia Brown

 Victoria Evans

ADMITTED EXHIBITS: 65, 584, 976, 972, 138, 842, 1225, 448 (Based on a list provided to the courtroom deputy prior to 

the calling of the case.)

**The parties stipulated on the record in the middle of trial today to the admission of all exhibits unless there is a 

stated objection by a party during testimony. The parties must work with the courtroom deputy to insure that all 

exhibits that are meant to be admitted into evidence will be moved in.

Case 3:16-cv-07014-VC Document 225 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 24.2

Power of Attorney of Fred C. Davison


STATE OF GEORGIA

COUNTY OF FULTON


                               POWER OF ATTORNEY


KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that I, Fred C. Davison, a Director of EDUTREK
INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Georgia corporation, do constitute and appoint Steve
Bostic and David J. Horn, jointly and severally, my true and lawful
attorneys-in-fact, each with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for
me in any and all capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K for
EDUTREK INTERNATIONAL, INC. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1999,
pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and to
file such document with the Securities and Exchange Commission, together with
all exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith, and to sign
on my behalf and in my stead, in any and all capacities, any amendments to said
Annual Report, incorporating such changes as any of the said attorneys-in-fact
deems appropriate, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of said
attorneys-in-fact, or his substitute or substitutes, may do or cause to be done
by virtue hereof.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 3rd day
of March 2000.



                                                   /s/   Fred C. Davison
                                                   --------------------------
                                                   Fred C. Davison




                                 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

BEFORE me this 3rd day of March 2000, came Fred C. Davison, personally known to
me, who in my presence did sign and seal the above and foregoing Power of
Attorney and acknowledged the same as his true act and deed.


                                                   /s/  Cynthia Gardere
                                                   --------------------------
                                                   NOTARY PUBLIC


                                                   State of Georgia

                                                   My Commission Expires:

                                                   September 11, 2003
Rufino GUEBARA, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-9538.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 22413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11100]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Advisory Committee for Education and Human Resources; Notice of 
Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name and Committee Code: Advisory Committee for Education and 
Human Resources (#1119)
    Date and Time: May 24-25, 1995; 8:30 am-5:30 pm
    Place: Room 320, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: William McHenry, Program Director, Alliance for 
Minority Participation (AMP), Human Resource Development (HRD), Room 
815, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, 
VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 306-1633.
    Purpose of Meeting: To carry out Committee of Visitors (COV) 
review, including examination of decisions on proposals, reviewer 
comments, and other privileged materials.
    Agenda: To provide oversight review of the AMP Program
    Reason for Closing: The meeting is closed to the public because 
the Committee is reviewing proposal actions that will include 
privileged intellectual property and personal information that could 
harm individuals if they are disclosed. If discussions were open to 
the public, these matters that are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) 
and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act would be improperly 
disclosed.

    Dated: May 1, 1995.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-11100 Filed 5-4-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHUNG KAO,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. SORIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00873-HSG (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Re: Dkt. No. 14

Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s second request for an extension of time to file an 

opposition to defendants’ motion for stay is GRANTED, and the opposition filed at docket no. 15 

is deemed timely. 

Plaintiff states that he intends to file an amended complaint by November 30, 2017. 

Because the amended complaint may moot the motion to stay, defendants need not file a reply in 

support of the stay until December 15, 2017. Plaintiff is advised that his proposed amended 

complaint should be accompanied by a motion for leave to amend pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 15(a). Alternatively, plaintiff may obtain defendants’ written consent to amend 

his complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

This order terminates Docket No. 14.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

11/21/2017
Richard ARIZPE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR The WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.

No. 12-945.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Gregory WILLIAMS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Mike CARROLL, Secretary, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4287

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 17, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Ronald HOWARTH, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Diane LOMBARDI, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1753

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 13, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Carlos E. WIGGINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2736

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 3, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sabine Royalty Trust
(the Trust) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, not in its individual
capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its
knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
    1934, as amended; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly
    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
    results of operations of the Trust.  BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., TRUSTEE FORSABINE ROYALTY TRUST  By:
    /s/ Ron E. Hooper Ron E. HooperSenior Vice President, Royalty Management Date: October 28, 2010 A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to Sabine Royalty Trust and
will be retained by Sabine Royalty Trust and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Tomas VIZCARRA, petitioner, v. Rick THALER, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 12-6257.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for further consideration in light of *McQuiggin v. Perkins,* 569 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 1924, 185 L.Ed.2d 1019 (2013).
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

KUTCHEV PIERRE, ) a/k/a KUTCHEV CELESTIAL PIERRE, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-50 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed November 7, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier County; Christine Greider, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Matthew D. Bernstein, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and John M. Klawikofsky, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, VILLANTI, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
更年期和激素

常见问题

什么是更年期?

更年期是女性生命周期终止后正常的自然变化。 这就是

为什么有人将更年期称为“生活的改变”或“改变”。 在更

年期,女人的身体会缓慢产生更少的雌激素和孕激素。 

这通常发生在45至55岁之间。当她连续十二个月没有月

经时就进入了更年期。

更年期有哪些症状?

每个女人的经期都会在更年期停止。一些女性可能根

本没有任何其他症状。当她们接近更年期时,您可能

会有:

• 月经的变化–月经周期或者月经量可能会不同。

• 潮热(“潮热”)- 脸,脖子或胸部感觉到潮热,可能

有汗或无汗。

• 夜间盗汗可能导致入睡困难并感到疲倦,压力或紧

张。

• 阴道变化 - 阴道可能变得干燥和狭窄,做爱时可能

会疼痛。

• 骨骼变薄,可能导致身高降低和骨折(骨质疏松

症)。

谁需要治疗更年期症状?

• 对一些女性来说,这些变化中的很多症状都会在一

段时间内消失而不用接受治疗。

• 一些女性会选择适合自己的治疗方法来防止骨质流

失。 如果您选择激素治疗,可单独使用雌激素或雌

激素孕激素(对于仍然有子宫的女性)。 

什么是更年期激素治疗?

更年期激素水平降低可能导致潮热、阴道干燥和骨质

疏松。为了帮助解决这些问题,可以给女性开雌激素

或雌激素加黄体酮(另一种激素)。和所有药物一样,激

素疗法既有好处也有风险。和您的医生、护士或药剂

师讨论激素疗法。如果您决定使用激素疗法,请以有

助于治疗的最低剂量使用它。 并且要在需要的最短时

间内使用激素。

使用激素疗法治疗更年期有什么好

处?

• 激素疗法可能有助于缓解潮热,盗汗,阴道干燥或

性交困难(性生活引起的疼痛)。vvvvv

• 激素可能会减少骨骼变薄,脆弱的可能性(骨质疏

松症),骨质疏松症使骨骼很容易折断。

使用激素疗法有什么风险?

对于一些女性来说,激素疗法可能会增加她们患血栓、

心脏病、中风、乳腺癌和胆囊疾病的几率。对于有子

宫的女性来说,雌激素会增加患子宫内膜癌(子宫内膜

癌)的几率。添加黄体酮可以降低这种风险。 

谁不应该服用激素治疗更年期症状?

女性:

• 认为他们怀孕了。

• 有阴道出血问题。

• 患有某些类型的癌症。

• 曾经中风或心脏病发作。 

• 有血栓。

• 患有肝病。
欲了解更多信息: 请咨询美国食品和药物管理局女性健康办公 室

www.fda.gov/menopause

2021

我应该使用激素疗法治疗更年期症

状多长时间?

• 您应该与您的医生,护士或药剂师讨论。

• 更年期症状的治疗方案应由您的医疗保健提供者决

定,因为有许多不同的美国食品和药物管理局批准的

激素可用于治疗更年期的症状。

我用什么激素来治疗更年期症状会

有什么不同吗?

是的。美国食品和药物管理局建议女性使用美国食品和

药物管理局批准的激素疗法。美国食品和药物管理局批

准的激素疗法的安全性和有效性都通过了评估。

复合的“生物同质激素”是否比美国

食品和药物管理局批准的更年期激

素疗法更安全或更有效?

被称为“生物同质激素”的许多市售产品都是未经美国食

品和药物管理局批准的复合药物。 美国食品和药物管理

局没有证据表明复合的“生物同质激素”比美国食品和药

物管理局批准的激素治疗更安全有效,或更安全或更有

效。

美国食品和药物管理局已批准含有与育龄女性自然产生

的激素相同的激素的药物。 

雌激素三醇是“更安全的雌激素”吗?

美国食品和药物管理局没有证据表明含有雌三醇的药物

是安全有效的,或者是“更安全的”雌激素。”美国食品

和药物管理局未批准含有雌三醇的药物。市面上含有雌

三醇的药物是未经美国食品和药物管理局批准的合成药

物。

美国食品和药物管理局是否批准了

其他更年期治疗方法?

是的。2013年,美国食品和药物管理局批准了:

• 非激素治疗,用于绝经相关的中度至重度潮热。

• 治疗由于绝经引起的阴道变化而引起的中度至重度的

性交困难(性活动引起的疼痛)的药物。

草药和其他“天然”产品可用于治疗

更年期症状吗?

目前,美国食品和药物管理局不知道草药或其他“天然”

产品是否有用或安全 。

更年期和激素

我应该用雌激素来预防骨质疏松吗?

是的,但是还有其他药物和其他可以帮助骨骼的方法。 

与您的医疗保健提供者讨论这些方案。

我应该使用激素疗法来保护心脏或预防

中风吗?

不,请勿使用激素疗法来预防心脏病或中风。

我应该使用激素疗法来防止记忆丧失或

阿尔茨海默病吗?

不,不要使用激素疗法来防止记忆丧失或阿尔茨海默

病。

荷尔蒙能防止衰老和皱纹吗?或者能增加

我的性欲?

没有研究表明激素疗法可以防止衰老、皱纹或增加性

欲。

更年期和激素 (CHINESE)