Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.

Q: The Sackler family owns Purdue Pharma, the privately held drug company that has made billions from OxyContin, and Sacklers hold most of the seats on the board. Members of the family have been accused in a case brought by the state of Massachusetts of deceiving patients and doctors about the drug’s risks as deaths mounted. And documents recently released in the case shine new light on former Purdue Pharma President Richard Sackler’s role in the aggressive marketing of the powerful opioid. As the allegations mount, family members who made their fortunes well before OxyContin even went on the market have sought to distance themselves from their relatives. At the same time, activists have called on institutions to cut ties with the Sacklers, staging protests at museums that have received millions in donations. “The Sackler name is becoming synonymous with the opioid epidemic, and it is damning for these institutions to have their name up,” said Nan Goldin, a photographer whose works have been displayed at Harvard’s Arthur M. Sackler Museum and at New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, which has a Sackler Wing. Lost in the outrage: One of the most generous and best known of the Sacklers died in 1987, nearly a decade before OxyContin was released. Arthur M. Sackler made his money from medical research, medical advertising and trade publications. His younger brothers, Raymond and Mortimer, bought out his stake after he died. Arthur Sackler’s name is on a gallery at the Smithsonian, a wing of galleries at London’s Royal Academy of Arts and a museum at Beijing’s Peking University. The Sackler Wing at the Met, which houses the celebrated Temple of Dendur from ancient Egypt, was funded by all three brothers. Richard has likewise donated heavily to various institutions. After a federal investigation, Purdue Pharma and three executives — none of them Sacklers — pleaded guilty in 2007 and agreed to pay more than $600 million for misleading the public about the risks of OxyContin. The Stamford, Connecticut, company has also been hit with a multitude of lawsuits over its role in the opioid crisis that killed more than 47,000 people in 2017 alone. Arthur’s nephew, Richard Sackler, who became president of Purdue Pharma in 1999 and remains on the board, is at the center of the litigation. He and other current and former executives have been accused of hiding the dangers of the drug from doctors and patients, encouraging physicians to prescribe more of the highest doses and minimizing the abuse crisis as it was unfolding. “This is not too bad. It could have been far worse,” he wrote to Purdue Pharma executives in 2001 after a federal prosecutor reported that 59 people in one state had died from OxyContin, according to documents released this week in the Massachusetts case. At the launch party for OxyContin in 1996, Richard Sackler boasted the drug would bring a “blizzard of prescriptions that will bury the competition,” the documents say. Years later, they say, he sought to shift blame onto drug users themselves, recommending the company “hammer on the abusers in every way possible.” “Richard followed that strategy for the rest of his career: collect millions from selling addictive drugs, and blame the terrible consequences on the people who became addicted,” attorneys in Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey’s office wrote. “By their misconduct, the Sacklers have hammered Massachusetts families in every way possible. And the stigma they used as a weapon made the crisis worse.” A spokesman for Richard Sackler’s family referred questions about the lawsuit to the company. Purdue Pharma said in a statement that Massachusetts’ case — the first one brought by a state to personally name members of the Sackler family — is “littered with biased and inaccurate characterizations.” The company said it will “aggressively defend against these misleading allegations.” Arthur Sackler’s widow and children insist that they never financially benefited from the sale of OxyContin. “It is a gross injustice to connect Arthur to the opioid crisis some 30 years after his death when he had nothing to do with it,” Dame Jillian Sackler said in a statement. “It denies the many important contributions he made working to improve world health and to build cultural bridges between peoples.” But activists have made no distinction between Arthur and his relatives. In July, dozens of activists led by Goldin held a protest inside the Arthur M. Sackler Museum at Harvard, scattering pill bottles and holding banners that read “SHAME ON SACKLER.” Similar demonstrations have been held at the Met and the Smithsonian. Goldin, who was addicted OxyContin for years, said that getting the institutions to act will be difficult. “Who is going to turn down the money? They offer millions to these institutions, and the board members are not necessarily committed to action, so it’s going to take a lot,” she said. A Met spokesman said that the Sackler family’s support began decades before the opioid crisis, but that the museum will be examining its gift acceptance policies. The Guggenheim, home to the Sackler Center for Arts Education, had no comment. A Harvard spokesman said in an email that Arthur Sackler’s donation in 1982 paid for the construction of the building that originally housed the museum but that his foundation does not fund the museum. ___ Associated Press reporter Verena Dobnik contributed to this report from New York. ___ Follow Alanna Durkin Richer at http://www.twitter.com/aedurkinricher

A: Opioid crisis brings unwanted attention to wealthy family.
****
Q: Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea virus (PEDv), which causes diarrhea, vomiting and severe dehydration is transmitted orally and through pig faeces. While older pigs have a chance of survival, the virus kills 80 to 100 percent of piglets that contract it. The total number of confirmed cases has increased to 2,692 in 23 states as of the week ended January 25. Nearly 40 percent of the cases, 1,006, were confirmed in Iowa, the top U.S. pork producing state. As defined by the USDA, each diagnostic case could represent multiple animals at either a single farm site or several locations. The USDA's NAHLN released its latest PEDv data on Wednesday. (here)  There are no official figures for pigs lost to the PEDv - which does not affect humans - but up to 4 million pigs may have died from the virus, according to industry analyst estimates. Additionally, the virus was confirmed in Canada last week. PEDv has spread to a fourth farm in the Canadian province of Ontario, the provincial government said on Wednesday, despite the hog industry’s efforts to stop it by disinfecting delivery trucks and clothing used on farms. PEDv has forced the U.S. hog industry to increase its biosecurity measures and has fueled concerns hog supplies will slump in the spring and summer.

A: U.S. pig virus cases see biggest weekly rise since PEDv found.
****
Q: "Twenty-three years into his Senate tenure, Wisconsin’s Herb Kohl hasn’t announced whether he will seek another six-year term in 2012. But as Republicans step up their criticism of him, Kohl is making crystal clear his disdain for the kind of rough-and-tumble campaign environment that almost surely would be part of another campaign. Compared to his last couple races when Kohl used his massive personal fortune to vanquish underfunded opponents with soft-sell TV ads, it would be a new environment for the senator who owns the Milwaukee Bucks and built the Kohl’s department and grocery store chains. In remarks to reporters in Madison on April 28, 2011, Kohl ruminated about the state of today’s campaigns. He said ""people don’t like anybody in public life"" because of ""venomous"" attacks and sniping among congressional members, something he said he engages in ""hardly at all."" Then he got specific: ""I’ve been through four campaigns and have not done any negative campaigning. And I don’t get into any personal jousts with other people in public life. But that’s just my style."" So has Kohl really avoided any negative campaigning? That’s quite a claim in this age of mud-slinging and aggressive campaign tactics. We decided to check it out. Of course, it would be impossible to track down every campaign statement Kohl made since 1988 and copies of decades-old TV ads. So we focused our look-back to media descriptions of TV ads, debates and the candidates’ strategies in his four races. We also talked to the people who should know best: several of his former opponents or their aides, Kohl’s campaign staff, and a longtime political reporter. Kohl has of course benefited from negative attacks launched by groups supporting his campaigns, but he spoke only of his own campaigns’ conduct, so we’ll limit our review to that. One more note before we begin: Because there is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes ""negative"" campaigning, we asked Team Kohl what exactly he meant by his claim. ""Sen. Kohl has said that he believes campaigning is about telling the people of Wisconsin what he’s done and what he plans to do, not tearing down his opponent or telling people not to vote for them,"" Kohl press secretary Lynn Becker said. ""He has not been deliberately malicious or factually dishonest in his campaigns or while serving in public office."" Indeed, his two most recent opponents said there was no negative campaigning in their contests -- and had high praise for Kohl. ""He never did anything negative in his campaign. He’ll have the job as long as he wants the job,"" said John Gillespie, founder of Rawhide Boys Ranch, who lost to Kohl in 2000. ""Say hi to Herb if you talk to him. Tell him I owe him a dinner,"" said Robert Lorge, Kohl’s 2006 rival. Fair enough. Those were landslide wins. What about the earlier contests? 1988: Kohl was a surprise entrant in the Democratic primary, winning the nomination comfortably over former Gov. Tony Earl, Ed Garvey and Doug La Follette. He frustrated his rivalsby limiting his debate participation and spending millions on TV ads. At the time, Earl’s media consultant David Axelrod charged that Kohl’s popular slogan -- ""Nobody’s Senator But Yours"" -- was an implicit negative attack. It implied that candidates who -- unlike Kohl -- have to raise most of their campaign money are beholden to donors, said Axelrod, who later went on to help a guy named Barack Obama get elected president. Earl attacked Kohl as uninformed and error-prone, prompting Kohl campaign aide Bill Christofferson to call Earl ""desperate"" and guilty of misrepresentation. Insiders on both sides agree that Kohl ran no attack ads in the primary -- and none in the very tight general election that saw Republican state legislator Susan Engeleiter close the gap to just a few pointswith a series of ads targeting Kohl in the closing weeks. Engeleiter herself told us she has ""nothing but positive recollections"" of a ""pretty cordial campaign."" She also praised Kohl’s dealing with her when she later was confirmed as administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration. La Follette and Garvey say today that they wouldn’t call Kohl’s primary race negative. Regarding Kohl’s slogan, La Follette agreed with Kohl aide Christofferson, who said:  ""Herb Kohl was talking about himself, not anyone else, when he promised to be 'nobody's senator but yours.'"" Indeed, Kohl explicitly used his positive campaign ads as a selling point, and called his victory a blow against negative campaigning. 1994: In his first re-election campaign, Kohl wasted little time aggressively portraying Republican opponent Robert Welch, a state lawmaker from Redgranite, as an ""extreme conservative"" and flip-flopper. At an early debate, he cited Welch’s no-exceptions stance against abortion and his vow never to vote for a tax hike as ""extreme."" According to media accounts, he did not explain the flip-flop charge. Afterwards, Welch told reporters Kohl was ""nastier than I expected."" Later, after Welch attempted to tie Kohl to President Clinton, Kohl launched a rare TV ad that focused on an opponent by name. Another followed. The ads accused Welch of distorting Kohl’s record. One said that ""fellow Republicans"" had criticized Welch’s tactics -- something deemed misleading in a Milwaukee Journal fact check. The exchange led Welch to accuse Kohl of running a ""multimillion dollar mudslinging campaign."" Kohl said it was Welch who went negative. The rhetoric heated up. At one point in the race, after Welch accused Kohl of ""religion bashing,"" Kohl spokesman Jeffrey Gillis said that "" Welch's attack again shows that he'll say or do anything to get elected."" So, that seems like quite a bit of snarling. Looking back, though, Welch’s campaign manager Mike Maxwell doesn’t have strong opinions about the back and forth. ""I don’t know that Kohl was particularly negative through that election,"" he told us. He didn’t recall the ""distort"" ad that Kohl ran. He did say that some might consider the ""extreme"" charge a negative attack. Kohl, Maxwell recalled, ""just had overwhelming resources and then he signed (Bucks first round draft choice Glenn Robinson) six days before the election."" (We could not reach Welch for comment). Kenneth Lamke, a Milwaukee Sentinel reporter who covered the 1994 race, offered the strongest opinion we heard on whether Kohl went negative against Welch. He says yes. Lamke said the ""extreme"" charge by Kohl was ""within bounds but uncharacteristic of Herb."" Lamke viewed the attack as unprovoked and an exaggeration; Gillis, the Kohl aide, said it was a response to the drumbeat of criticism of Kohl during the Republican primary. Lamke, we should note, asked us to describe his personal politics as ""leans Republican."" We asked several political scientists to characterize the language of the Kohl ad. They reacted cautiously because we could not provide the ad itself, just direct quotes from it in media accounts. That makes it impossible to fully judge the tone. Vanderbilt professor John Geer, an author of a much-cited book on negative campaigning, said it sounded like a ""tame"" response ad -- ""not the kind of classic negative ad the public doesn’t like."" Darrell West, of the Brookings Institution, agreed. UW-Madison’s Ken Goldstein said Kohl’s ad met the academic research definition of ""negative"" because it focused on Welch, not Kohl. The test of whether it was unfair is whether it was accurate, he said. So Kohl’s campaigns have been remarkably low-confrontation affairs, with the most notable exception being 1994, the first -- and perhaps only -- time Kohl aired TV spots going after an opponent. So how does Kohl fare on his statement that he has never campaigned negatively? Clearly, Kohl has spent the vast bulk of his time and money on upbeat, positive ads. Even his opponents agree strongly with that -- one even wants to buy him dinner. The only ad that pops up as arguably negative is the 1994 ""distort"" spot against Welch. It drew some critical attention, but is viewed as a pretty tame response ad. Beyond that, Kohl’s campaigns have engaged in some labeling and name calling. And Kohl’s aggressive 1994 portrayal of Welch as an ""extremist"" was arguably negative. Kohl is mostly on target here, with some minor exceptions. ."

A:
I’ve been through four campaigns and have not done any negative campaigning.
****