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.
--------
Question: Novacyt said the FDA’s approval meant that hospitals and laboratories in the United States would be able to use the test for clinical diagnosis of the coronavirus, and that the test was now available for immediate distribution in the U.S. market. “The U.S. FDA EUA authorization is another important endorsement of the performance and quality of our COVID-19 test and demonstrates once again Novacyt’s growing role in tackling this pandemic,” said Novacyt CEO Graham Mullis.

Answer: Healthcare group Novacyt wins U.S. approval for coronavirus test.


Question: 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

Answer: Opioid crisis brings unwanted attention to wealthy family.


Question: "In an announcement, the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy said that its efforts to persuade Gorsky to testify included “repeated attempts to accommodate the company” over nearly a month. Democrat Raja Krishnamoorthi, chairman of the House panel investigating concerns about cancer-causing asbestos in cosmetic talc and powders, said he was disappointed Gorsky turned down the invitation. “Mr. Gorsky refuses to speak to the Subcommittee under oath, yet he has not refrained from making multiple public comments on the topic,” Krishnamoorthi said in a statement. J&J spokesman Ernie Knewitz said that the subcommittee had rejected the company’s offers to send a talc testing expert or a J&J executive in charge of consumer products. Gorsky “is not, as we have repeatedly told the Subcommittee, an expert in the stated subject of the hearing,” Knewitz said. “We have respectfully declined the invitation for our CEO to testify.”  Knewitz said that the composition of the hearing, which includes two experts who have testified for plaintiffs against J&J, also factored into the company’s decision. Gorsky has played a lead role in J&J’s efforts to reassure consumers and investors that its talc powders are safe and asbestos free. Last year, he issued a statement vouching for the safety of the products after a jury issued a $4.69 billion verdict in favor of 22 women who sued over allegations their ovarian cancers were caused by J&J powders. Gorsky appeared on CNBC's ""Mad Money with Jim Cramer"" and in a video posted on J&J's website to rebut a December 2018 Reuters report here that the company knew for decades about the presence of small amounts of asbestos in its talc and powders. “Since tests for asbestos in talc were first developed, J&J’s Baby Powder has never contained asbestos,” Gorsky said in the video. In October, Gorsky testified in a depositihere in a lawsuit filed by an Indiana man, saying, ""We unequivocally believe that our talc and our baby powder does not contain asbestos."" J&J faces more than 16,000 similar lawsuits. Concerns over asbestos in talc cosmetics have grown in recent months as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced that the carcinogen had been found in several products, including a bottle of Baby Powder. J&J said it recalled 33,000 bottles of Baby Powder “out of an abundance of caution.” Later, J&J said labs it hired found no asbestos - other than some contamination it blamed on an air conditioner - in samples from the same Baby Powder bottle and its production lot. The FDA has said it stands by its finding. Chief executives of companies embroiled in controversies routinely comply with lawmakers’ invitations to testify. In recent months, the CEOs of Boeing (BA.N) and Facebook (FB.O) have appeared before congressional committees to answer questions about how their companies were safeguarding consumers. Charles M. Elson, director of the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, said CEOs have a responsibility to go to Washington when Congress calls, just like other citizens. But Elson said Gorsky’s pass was understandable. He said the CEO and his advisers probably figured that the downside was greater to testifying than not. “It’s being invited in for a punch in the nose,” Elson said. For Gorsky, “nothing good will come out of it.”"

Answer:
J&J CEO spurns U.S. congressional hearing on carcinogens in talc products.