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.

Example Input: The researchers who conducted the review said their findings suggest most people can eat red and processed meat at current average intake, typically three or four times a week for adults in North America and Europe, without significant health risks. “Based on the research, we cannot say with any certainty that eating red or processed meat causes cancer, diabetes or heart disease,” said Bradley Johnston, an associate professor at Dalhousie University in Canada who co-led the review published on Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine journal. However, in what amounts to a scientific food fight, experts from Harvard, Yale, Stanford and elsewhere, including one of the review authors, said guidelines that could lead people to eat more red and processed meats were irresponsible. They asked in a letter to the journal that it “pre-emptively retract publication” of the papers pending further review. A statement by the Harvard School of Public Health, shared with Reuters by Frank Hu, a doctor and chair of the nutrition department, said: “From a public health point of view, it is irresponsible and unethical to issue dietary guidelines that are tantamount to promoting meat consumption, even if there is still some uncertainty about the strength of the evidence.”  The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) both say red and processed meat may or can cause cancer. The WCRF advises eating “little, if any” processed meat and only “moderate amounts” of red meat, such as beef, pork and lamb - with a weekly limit of 500 grams (17.6 ounces) cooked weight. Giota Mitrou, the WCRF’s director of research, said people should not misinterpret the review as saying meat is risk-free. “The public could be put at risk if they interpret this new recommendation to mean we can continue eating as much red and processed meat as they like without increasing their risk of cancer,” she said. “This is not the case.”          In the analysis published on Monday, researchers from Canada, Spain and Poland conducted a series of reviews of both randomized controlled trials and observational studies looking at the possible health impact of eating red and processed meat. Among the randomised trials they selected for analysis, which included around 54,000 people, they found no statistically significant link between eating meat and the risk of heart disease, diabetes, or cancer. Among the observational studies, which covered millions of people, they did find “a very small reduction in risk” in those who ate three fewer servings of red or processed meat a week, but said this association “was very uncertain.”  “Our bottom line recommendation ... is that for the majority of people, but not everyone, continuing their red and processed meat consumption is the best approach,” Johnston said. David Katz, director of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center at the Yale University School of Medicine, said he had “grave concerns” about the potential of the new review “for damage to public understanding, and public health”. But other experts said the work was a comprehensive, well-conducted analysis of the available evidence on eating meat and human health. “This study will, I hope, help to eliminate the incorrect impression ... that some meat products are as carcinogenic as cigarette smoke, and to discourage dramatic media headlines claiming that ‘bacon is killing us’,” said Ian Johnson, a nutrition expert at Britain’s Quadram Institute of bioscience. Christine Laine, editor in chief of Annals of Internal Medicine, noted that nutrition studies are challenging. “To be honest with our patients and the public, we shouldn’t be making recommendations that sound like they’re based on solid evidence,” she said. “There may be lots of reasons to decrease meat in your diet, but if you’re decreasing it to improve your health, we don’t have a lot of strong evidence to support that.”
Example Output: Steak is back on the menu, if a new red meat risk review is to be believed.

Example Input: The story says the federal government is paying about $2,250 per patient for a standard 5-day treatment course. It also notes that the approved alternative treatments are less expensive. The story points out that the benefits of peramivir have yet to be proven and that it is being offered only because some patients are not helped by approved drugs or are they are so sick they need a drug that can be given intravenously. The approved antiviral drugs are currently available only in pill or inhaled form. The story should have mentioned the side effects seen in clinical trials so far, as well as the risk that patients could suffer harms like those sometimes seen in people who have been given similar antiviral drugs. These side effects are clearly spelled out in an FDA fact sheet prepared for patients and caregivers: “The most common side effects of PERAMIVIR are: • diarrhea • nausea • vomiting • white blood cell count decreased These side effects may go away after you stop receiving PERAMIVIR. These are not all the possible side effects of PERAMIVIR. Peramivir is still being studied so it is possible that all of the risks are not known at this time. Other medicines that are used to treat people with 2009 H1N1 flu have side effects that may also happen in people who receive PERAMIVIR. These side effects include: • Signs of unusual behavior. People with the flu, especially children and adolescents, may be at a higher risk for seizures, confusion, or abnormal behavior early in their illness. These events may happen after starting PERAMIVIR or may happen if the flu is not treated. These events are not common. Patients should be watched for signs of unusual behavior. • Allergic reaction or severe rash Not a lot of people have taken PERAMIVIR for 5 days or longer. Serious and unexpected side effects may happen. The side effects of getting any medicine by vein are brief pain, bleeding, bruising of the skin where the needle enters, soreness and swelling at that spot, and possible infection at that spot.”  Patient fact sheet available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/UCM187799.pdf Provider fact sheet available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/UCM187811.pdf The story points out more than once that peramivir is still being tested and that questions remain about its potential effectiveness. The story points out that the experimental drug is being offered only to patients who are already in the hospital and aren’t being helped by approved drugs. The story did not point out that one of the supporters of faster and broader access to peramivir, Dr. Richard Whitley, has long been a booster of the drug, which is being commercially developed by a spin-off of the University of Alabama department he works in. See Whitley comments in a 2005 article promoting the potential of peramivir: http://main.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=87834 Here we also point out that the story profiled only one patient and includes a quote from the patient’s father crediting peramivir with saving his daughter’s life. The story does not give any examples of similar patients who either survived after getting approved drugs or who received peramivir and yet did not survive. Despite the clear caveats in the story, the reliance on only a single anecdote may give readers a skewed sense of the benefits of the unapproved drug. The story makes clear that the approved antiviral flu drugs are Tamiflu and Relenza. The story makes very clear that peramivir is experimental and is being offered only because some patients cannot take or aren’t helped by approved antiviral drugs. The story is quite clear that peramivir is still being tested. The story does not appear to rely on a news release.
Example Output: New Drug for H1N1 Flu Offers Hope

Example Input: On Thursday, Italy overtook China as the country to register most deaths from the highly contagious respiratory disease. The total number of cases in Italy rose to 47,021 from a previous 41,035, a rise of 14.6%, the Civil Protection Agency said. In its most complete analysis of the outbreak yet published, the national health institute (ISS) said the average age of those who died was 78.5 years, with the youngest victim aged 31 and the oldest 103. The median age was 80. Some 41% of all those who died were aged between 80-89, with the 70-79 age group accounting for a further 35%. Italy has the oldest population in the world after Japan, with some 23% of people aged over age 65. Medical experts say these demographics could explain why the death toll here is so much higher than anywhere else in the world. The ISS report, based on a survey of 3,200 of the dead, said men accounted for 70.6% of the deaths and women 29.4%. The median age for the women who died was 82 against 79 for men. By comparison, the median age of those who tested positive for the illness was 63. A deeper analysis of 481 of the deceased showed that almost 99% of them were suffering from one or more medical condition before catching the virus. Some 48.6% had three or more previous pathologies. A total 73.8% had had high blood pressure, 34% had diabetes and 30.1% had heart disease. On being admitted to hospital, 76% had a fever, 73% had breathing difficulties, 40% had a cough and 8% had diarrhea. The median time between the onset of the first symptoms and subsequent death was eight days, with the median time spent in hospital just four days. Of the 3,200 deaths reviewed in the survey, only nine were aged less than 40, all but one of them men.
Example Output:
Italy's coronavirus deaths surge by 627 in a day, elderly at high risk.