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: She’s disappointed not to have been able to claim ultimate victory in the battle against the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) that causes the killer disease AIDS, but also proud that in three decades, the virus has been beaten into check. While a cure for AIDS may or may not be found in her lifetime, the 68-year-old says, achieving “remission” - where infected patients control HIV in their bodies and, crucially, can come off treatment for years - is definitely within reach. “I am personally convinced that remission...is achievable. When? I don’t know. But it is feasible,” she told Reuters at her laboratory at Paris’s Pasteur Institute, where she and her mentor Luc Montagnier discovered HIV in 1983. “We have ‘proof of concept’. We have...the famous Visconti patients, treated very early on. Now it is more than 10 years since they stopped their treatment and they are still doing very well, most of them.”   Sinoussi is referring to a study group of 14 French patients known as the Visconti cohort, who started on antiretroviral treatment within 10 weeks of being infected and stayed on it for an average of three years. A decade after stopping the drugs, the majority have levels of HIV so low they are undetectable. These and other isolated cases of remission, or so-called “functional cure”, give hope to the 37 million people worldwide who, due to scientific progress, should now be able to live with, not have their lives cut short by, HIV. In developed countries at least - and in many poorer ones too - an HIV positive diagnosis is no longer an immediate death sentence, since patients can enjoy long, productive lives in decent health by taking antiretroviral drugs to control the virus. It’s a long way from the early 1980s, when Sinoussi remembers sick, dying HIV-positive patients coming to the doors of the Pasteur and pleading with scientists there for answers. “They asked us: ‘What we are going to do to cure us’,” she says. At that time, she says, she knew relatively little about HIV, but what she was sure of was that these patients would never live long enough to see a treatment developed, let alone a cure. “It was very, very hard.”  Yet this interaction with real patients, and with their doctors and later their advocates, gave Sinoussi an important insight into what was needed to make her life in science one with meaning and impact — collaboration. Working across barriers - be they scientific disciplines, cultural, religious and political divides, international borders or gender distinctions, has been and remains Sinoussi’s driving force. In her earliest days, feeling disengaged while working on her PhD and itching for action in a real-life laboratory, she hustled her way in to working at the male-dominated Pasteur Institute for free with a virologist researching links between cancers and retroviruses in mice. While viruses are her thing, she has throughout her career worked with, cajoled and learned from immunologists, cancer specialists, experts in diseases of aging, pharmaceutical companies, AIDS patients, campaigners, and even the pope. “When you work in HIV, it’s not only working in HIV, it’s working far, far beyond,” she said. Freshly armed with her Nobel award and fired up about a lack of support for proven methods of preventing HIV’s spread, Sinoussi wrote an open letter to then-Pope Benedict XVI in 2009 criticising him for saying that condoms can promote the spread of AIDS. In what was widely seen as a modification of his stance in response to such criticism, Benedict said in a book a year later that use of condoms could sometimes be justified in certain limited cases as a way to fight AIDS. Sinoussi says: “HIV has shown the way to go in the field of science. You can’t be isolated in your laboratory. You need to work with others.”  And this, she adds, is the “all together” spirit with which she advises her successors to continue after she’s gone. Many will be sad to see her leave, but she has faith that her chosen field will deliver for the people who need it. “Of course, I would love to have stopped and to see we had a vaccine against HIV and another treatment that could induce remission – but that’s life. I encourage the new generation of scientists today to continue our work. “Science never stops,” she says. “Just because a scientist stops, the science should not stop.”
Example Output: Science won't stop until it beats AIDS, says HIV pioneer.

Example Input: According to the story, brand-name aromatase inhibitors cost between $340 and $420 a month, but the story also points out that lower-costing, generic versions are available in the U.S. It would have been useful had the story also provided cost information for the other preventive drug options, tamoxifen and raloxifene. A particular strength of this story is its presentation of data. Dr. Winer, an independent source included in the story, translates a 65% risk reduction to mean that exemestane may reduce a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer from 3% to 1%. Not only does the story provide absolute risk, but it also presents the number needed to treat. According to the study authors, 26 women would need to take exemestane for five years to prevent a single case of breast cancer. It should be noted, however, that few women in the study completed five years of therapy. Since this is being used as a preventive measure in healthy women, side effects are very important and data should have been provided. The story indicates that “slightly” more women taking exemastane experienced hot flashes, fatigue, sweating, insomnia, and joint pain, compared to those taking placebo pills. It would have been helpful to note, for example, that 40% in the exemestane group experienced a hot flash versus 32% in the placebo group. Citing older research, the story indicates that that joint pain, muscle aches, problems having sex, and vaginal dryness may be more evident with a longer duration of use. The story makes it clear that the study was a large-scale, placebo-controlled, randomized trial, which enrolled over 4500 women in North America and Europe. The women included had at least one risk factor for breast cancer. It also notes that given the significant risk reduction associated with exemestane, the study was stopped after 3 years to give women in the control arm the option of taking exemestane to prevent possible breast cancers. More information regarding participants’ characteristics, including age and race would have been helpful. This story did not engage in disease-mongering. In addition to including experts not affiliated with the exemestane study, the story also notes that the it was funded by the Canadian Cancer Society, the Avon Foundation, and Pfizer. In addition, the writer points out that the study lead and a few other authors have received speaking fees from Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies that make cancer drugs. This story compares the benefits and harms of exemestane with tamoxifen; however, a mention of how these compare with raloxifene, would have been useful. The availability of aromatase inhibitors is not in question. It’s clear from the story that aromatase inhibitors are currently used to prevent breast cancer recurrences. It’s also clear that this is the first study evaluating its utility for preventing the first instance of breast cancer in healthy women with a higher risk of developing the disease. The story does not appear to be based on the press release.
Example Output: Hormone-blocking drug reduces breast cancer risk

Example Input: The cost of the drug is not particularly relevant in this case. This story points out the potential benefits of Dimebon based upon preliminary research, but didn’t quantify those benefits. These include improved cognition, memory and ability to perform activities of daily living. These potential benefits should have been placed in the context of existing medications which have shown a very modest effect in these outcomes, in only one-third of people, and for a short-period of time. Little is know about the long-term use of these medications. The story references general concerns of experimental drugs which do not have proven effectiveness or safety. Potential harms of Dimebon were not mentioned. However, the research study about the Dimebon published in The Lancet reported that dry mouth was the most common side effect. For reference, there can be gastrointestinal side effects from currently approved medications. These are usually dose related and can be minimised by taking the medications with food and gradually increasing the dose overtime. This story takes a point-by-point approach to evaluate the medical issues related to Alzheimer’s disease raised in the TV episode. The Premise section provides a good, basic description of PET scan brain imaging and symptoms of mild to moderate memory loss. The story should have clearly noted that PET scans do not provide a definitive diagnosis and that tests to evaluate memory such as questionnaires and neurological examinations, are routinely performed as the first line of evaluation. The piece does provide an appropriate level of depth in its discussion of the experimental nature of Dimebon, results of research conducted in Russia, and the stages of the FDA approval process. Basics facts about the prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease were not provided, but would have helped readers to understand how many people are affected (about 15% over 70 years old). Given that, Alzheimer’s disease was accurately characterized in the story. The story includes interviews from an independent medical expert and the chief medical officer for the Alzheimer’s Association (www.alz.org). This story could have been enhanced by adding that there are currently no cures for Alzheimer’s disease. It should have noted that available medications can help a small number of people but only for a limited amount of time. This story clearly indicates that the experimental drug Dimebon is not available in the U.S. It also notes that the drug won’t be available for at least three years, pending FDA approval. The story indicates that Dimebon is a new and experimental drug to treat Alzheimer’s disease. This story does not rely on a press release.
Example Output:
‘Boston Legal’ lawyer makes his case for Alzheimer’s drug