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.

Input: Consider Input: Biotechnology company Alkermes said earlier in the day that  it expected Lilly to drop out of their program to develop an  inhaled insulin treatment for diabetes, sending Alkermes shares  down more than 9 percent. Lilly’s decision marks the third setback in recent months  for inhaled insulin formulations, once deemed potential  blockbuster products because of their greater convenience than  standard injectable insulin. Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Alkermes, which makes the  alcohol addiction drug Vivitrol, said Lilly has the right to  terminate its license to the inhaled treatment, Air Insulin, at  its discretion. “While Lilly may elect not to commercialize Air Insulin,  Alkermes believes that the phase 3 safety and efficacy trials  should be completed,” Alkermes said in a statement. After Lilly’s announcement, the company said it was  evaluating the impact of the termination, which will become  effective in 90 days. Indianapolis-based Lilly said its decision was not due to  safety concerns, “but rather was a result of increasing  uncertainties in the regulatory environment, and a thorough  evaluation of the evolving commercial and clinical potential of  the product compared to existing medical therapies.”    Lilly Chief Operating Officer John Lechleiter said in a  statement that the company is beginning the process of halting  ongoing clinical studies. Lilly said it will record a first-quarter 2008 charge of  around $90 million to $120 million, or 5 cents to 7 cents per  share. The company said its adjusted earnings per share outlook  remains unchanged at $3.85 to $4.00, while net earnings will  range from $3.73 to $3.90. Lilly’s action comes just five months after Pfizer Inc  abandoned Exubera, the first approved inhaled form of insulin,  and returned rights to the product to longtime partner Nektar  Therapeutics. Exubera had dismal sales because patients were turned off  by the clumsy device used to administer the powdered insulin  and because doctors were concerned by the drug’s tendency to  slightly impair lung function. Alkermes Chairman Richard Pops, in an interview with  Reuters in October, said Air Insulin may have similar effects  on lung function. “We’re assuming that pulmonary insulins in that regard are  all pretty much the same,” he said, although a conclusive  picture of Air Insulin’s safety will not emerge until two-year  safety trials of the product end later this year. A second setback for inhaled insulin came in January, when  Novo Nordisk said it was halting development of its AERx  product, meant to deliver inhaled droplets. The Danish  drugmaker said AERx did not have adequate sales potential,  given the limited commercial success seen with Exubera. Morgan Stanley analyst Jami Rubin said on Friday Lilly’s  abandonment of AIR Insulin made good business sense. “We are not (at) all surprised, and have never been strong  advocates of the pulmonary insulin agents, following the poor  launch and ultimate demise of Pfizer and Nektar’s Exubera and  Novo Nordisk’s termination of its AERx program,” Rubin said in  a research note. Rubin said Alkermes, known for its drug-delivery  technology, is unlikely to continue development of Air Insulin  without Lilly, “given that this represents the third  termination of a pulmonary insulin drug.”    But she said the sharp drop in Alkermes shares represented  a buying opportunity for investors because Air Insulin had only  paltry sales potential. She said investors should be focused instead on another  product Alkermes is developing with Lilly: a long-acting  formulation of Lilly’s Byetta diabetes treatment called Byetta    “We estimate that Byetta LAR could be worth $11 to $12 for  the (Alkermes) stock,” Ryan said. Alkermes shares fell $1.14 to close at $11.26 on Nasdaq. Lilly, a far larger company with an array of big-selling  products, rose 2 cents to end at $49.70 on the New York Stock  Exchange, and was slightly lower at $49.67 in after-hours  trading.

Output: Eli Lilly drops inhaled insulin program.


Input: Consider Input: Most people know roughly what a bottle of vitamin D supplements might cost them, so the lack of information on cost is not a significant gap. We appreciate that the story provided data showing the large and growing amount our society is spending on vitamin D supplements ($430 million in 2009), with apparently little health benefit to show for it. The story was mostly concerned with discussing the lack of benefit from taking extra vitamin D and calcium. And in this area it excels. While the story does lack precision when it suggests that adolescent girls should be getting more calcium (it never specifies how much they are getting now, how much more they’d need to meet the recommendations, or what benefits they might expect from this increased intake), it would be difficult for a journalist to come up with any sort of quantifiable benefit or harm estimate from the IOM report. The story captured the overall gist of the problem, which is that the evidence base is complex and still inadequate. The story notes that, contrary to the claims of many advocates for increased supplemental vitamin D, there is evidence that high levels of vitamin D may have adverse effects, such as increased risk for fractures and an increase in the overall death rate. The story also explained that too much calcium has been linked to increased risk of kidney stones and, more tentatively, heart disease. The story did a good job of describing how the expert committee conducted its review and what evidence they found. Importantly, it noted that  claims of benefit from extra vitamin D are based on observational studies that most scientists agree “cannot determine cause and effect.” We also like that the story solicited opinions from a variety of experts with no obvious stake in the controversy. This produced a number of quotes that emphasized the need for restraint when interpreting the research on vitamin D. Examples: “I think this report will make people more cautious” and “The onus is on the people who propose extra calcium and vitamin D to show it is safe before they push it on people.” Although we agree with the story’s skeptical overall message, we think it may have slammed the door just a bit too hard on the possibility of benefit from supplemental vitamin D. While claims of benefit may not be supported by the currently available evidence, they have not been conclusively disproved in randomized controlled studies, either. In fact, research is now underway to determine whether the benefits found in observational studies of vitamin D can be replicated in more rigorously designed trials. The story probably should have mentioned this research, and left the door to potential benefits open just a crack. No disease-mongering here. The diversity of independent voices included in this story is a real strength. Although it solicits the obligatory comment from a supplement industry spokesman, it didn’t go out of its way to find any of the more widely known vitamin D experts, some of whom have been issuing recommendations that are untenable based on current evidence. The enthusiasm of some of these researchers might be explained by their significant career and financial interests in promoting vitamin D. Not applicable for this story. The approaches discussed are not new, and there’s not really any alternative to getting adequate amounts of these essential nutrients. The availability of vitamin D from diet, sunlight and supplements is clear from the story. The novelty of vitamin D and calcium is not really in question, so we’ll call this not applicable. This story was not based on a news release.

Output: Report Questions Need for 2 Diet Supplements


Input: Consider Input: "On April 6 2020, the New York Post claimed that New York City was considering “temporary mass graves” in public parks such as Central Park in an article bearing the headline, “NYC may temporarily bury coronavirus victims in parks: lawmaker.”The New York Post cited a multi-tweet thread published by New York City councilman Mark Levine. Levine’s ninth tweet was the one which drew widespread interest, and it read:Soon we’ll start “temporary interment”. This likely will be done by using a NYC park for burials (yes you read that right). Trenches will be dug for 10 caskets in a line. It will be done in a dignified, orderly–and temporary–manner. But it will be tough for NYers to take. 9/Levine’s thread began with the first transcribed tweet below, and the preceding seven to eight tweets led up to the “temporary internment” portion:NYC’s healthcare system is being pushed to the limit. And sadly, now so is the city’s system for managing our dead. And it, too, needs more resources. This has big implications for grieving families. And for all of us. 1/NYC’s “city morgue” is the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME), which luckily is the best in the world. But they are now dealing w/ the equivalent of an ongoing 9/11. And so are hospital morgues, funeral homes & cemeteries. Every part of this system is now backed up. 2/A typical hospital morgue might hold 15 bodies. Those are now all full. So OCME has sent out 80 refrigerated trailers to hospitals around the city. Each trailer can hold 100 bodies. These are now mostly full too. Some hospitals have had to add a 2nd or even a 3rd trailer. 3/Grieving families report calling as many as half a dozen funeral homes and finding none that can handle their deceased loved ones. Cemeteries are not able to handle the number of burial requests and are turning most down. 4/It’s not just deaths in hospitals which are up. On an average day before this crisis there were 20-25 deaths at home in NYC. Now in the midst of this pandemic the number is 200-215. *Every day*. 5/Early on in this crisis we were able to swab people who died at home, and thus got a coronavirus reading. But those days are long gone. We simply don’t have the testing capacity for the large numbers dying at home. 6/Now only those few who had a test confirmation *before* dying are marked as victims of coronavirus on their death certificate. This almost certainly means we are undercounting the total number of victims of this pandemic. 7/And still the number of bodies continues to increase. The freezers at OCME facilities in Manhattan and Brooklyn will soon be full. And then what? 8/Levine continued, concluding with a “recap” tweet:To recap: Nothing matters more in this crisis than saving the living. But we need to face the gruesome reality that we need more resources to manage our dead as well. Or the pain of this crisis will be compounded almost beyond comprehension. 13/13Naturally, Levine’s stark descriptions — particularly of “temporary internment” and mass graves in city parks (like Central Park) generated tremendous interest. That claim proved an eerie follow-up to an unrelated March 27 2020 viral tweet about the semantics (“temporary”) of mass graves:We are, at most, like 10 days away from semantic arguments about what qualifies as a ""mass"" grave.— Mass for Shut-ins (is a podcast) (@edburmila) March 27, 2020Incidentally, the “arguing about the semantics of mass graves” tweet was published on March 27 2020. Levine’s tweets were dated April 6 2020. That is, in fact, a difference of ten days:Two hours after the first Twitter thread, Levine clarified with a follow-up tweet in which he explained that the temporary mass graves were part of New York City’s contingency plans. He also said they would only be considered if the infection rates for COVID-19 kept climbing:This tweet has gotten a lot of attention. So I want to clarify:  the is a contingency NYC is preparing for BUT if the death rate drops enough it will not be necessary. https://t.co/6wLO8qWtML— Mark D. Levine (@MarkLevineNYC) April 6, 2020According to the New York Times, New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio acknowledged the existence of such contingency plans, adding that the use of temporary mass graves was “under consideration” but not in place:Mayor Bill de Blasio said on [April 6 2020] that no such plan had been put in place yet, though he acknowledged it was under consideration.“If we need to do temporary burials to be able to tide us over to pass the crisis, and then work with each family on their appropriate arrangements, we have the ability to do that,” he said, adding, “We may well be dealing with temporary burials so we can deal with each family later.”The medical examiner’s office said in a statement, “We are planning for all possibilities, however no decision on this has been made, and there is still adequate capacity at this time.”The Times included some additional information from Levine which slightly contradicted DeBlasio’s remarks; further, Levine noted that the storage for deceased COVID-19 victims was almost at capacity in New York:Mr. Levine, however, said in an interview: “This is definitely not in the hypothetical stage now. I think it’s fair to say we are moving to do this.” … Mr. Levine said plans for the possible use of “temporary interment” had been mapped out as part of that plan. He said the city had to face the reality that “traditional burial system has largely frozen up.”“We are relying on freezers now to hold bodies, but that capacity is almost entirely used up,” he said, describing temporary interment as “essentially an extension of the freezer system.”In the ensuing discussion about the claims, Central Park was often mentioned as a possible site for temporary mass graves. That may have been due to Central Park’s prominence among people not personally familiar with Manhattan as well as its size; Levine referenced an established potter’s field on Hart Island (in the Bronx), but cited “logistical challenges” in accessing that site as well as city parks in general:Mr. Levine said the possible sites for mass burials would be a city park or on Hart Island in the Bronx, where inmates from Rikers Island are typically employed to bury the indigent in potter’s field.Hart Island has logistical challenges because it is inaccessible and it is a secure Department of Correction facility, so there are limitations on who can go there and under what circumstances, Mr. Levine said.The use of labor from Rikers’ Island to dig mass graves was a part of early reporting on COVID-19 in New York. On March 10 2020, Business Insider mentioned the same site Levine did, reporting:New York City’s contingency plan for ‘biological outbreaks’ includes mobile refrigerator units for dead bodies and mass graves dug by inmates… Inmates on Rikers Island would be transported to Hart Island to dig mass graves where the dead could be buried, and cremation efforts would be ramped up.Currently, Hart Island, which once housed a prison for Confederate soldiers, has two prepared mass graves that could accommodate 19,200 bodies, but there is another site that has yet to be cleared.That reporting also noted the plan itself was not new in 2020, but was designed during a previous disease outbreak in 2008 — which did not result in the need for mass graves:The plan was developed by the city’s late chief medical examiner, Charles Hirsch, in 2008, in response to concerns that Bird Flu would cause the next pandemic influenza. But as Hirsch states in the report, the plan can be used to tackle “other biological outbreaks” that cause mass fatalities.On March 31 2020, The Intercept reported that Rikers’ Island inmates were offered $6 hourly to begin digging mass graves for COVID-19 victims:NEW YORK CITY is offering prisoners at Rikers Island jail $6 per hour — a fortune by prison labor standards — and personal protective equipment if they agree to help dig mass graves on Hart Island, according to sources with knowledge of the offer. Avery Cohen, a spokesperson for the office of Mayor Bill de Blasio confirmed the general arrangement, but said that it was not “Covid-specific,” noting that prisoners have been digging graves on Hart Island for years.The offer is only being made to those with convictions, not those jailed before trial, as is generally the case. A memo sent to prisoners, according to a source who reviewed it, does not specify what the work on Hart Island will be, but the reference to PPE leaves little doubt. The offer comes as New York City continues to be the epicenter of the coronavirus pandemic in the United States, with 38,000 people infected and more than 914 dead so far.That earlier reporting by The Intercept closely echoed details in Levine’s Twitter thread, such as requirements for mass graves and space limitations on Hart Island. It also referenced the March 10 2020 Business Insider piece:Hart Island, though, “has limited burial space,” the report noted, and “may not be able to accommodate a large influx of decedents requiring burial,” which the preparedness plan estimated at between 50,000 and 200,000 in a pandemic with a mortality rate of 2 percent in which 25 to 35 percent of the population is infected.The city document proposed employing the Department of Defense’s “temporary mass internment method,” which places caskets 10 in a row, head to foot, so as not to stack them on top of each other. Hart Island is located off City Island in the Bronx. In 2008, Rikers prisoners were burying roughly 20 to 25 bodies per week there, the report found.Typically, the remains of decedents whose bodies are unclaimed or whose families cannot afford burial are interred on Hart Island. However, the internment of COVID-19 victims amounted to far more burials, far more frequently:Normally, about 25 bodies a week are interred on the island, mostly for people whose families can’t afford a funeral, or who go unclaimed by relatives. But recently, burial operations have increased from one day a week to five days a week, with around 24 burials each day, said Department of Correction spokesman Jason Kersten.It is true that a New York City councilmember — Levine — disclosed the discussion of plans for mass burials or possible “temporary internments” of COVID-19 victims on Hart Island or in unspecified city parks. Levine and DeBlasio provided different information in terms of the planning stages, and existing information indicated that the plans had been in place since as early as 2008. Although all the information appears to be accurate, we are rating the overall trajectory of the reported mass graves plan as Unknown as of April 6 2020.Update, April 10 2020, 1:52 PM: Numerous outlets (such as the BBC and The Guardian) published aerial footage captured on April 9 2020 and depicting mass graves on Hart Island in the Bronx:New York using mass graves amid coronavirus outbreakhttps://t.co/R61mrlbfdc pic.twitter.com/T0EctJmFPR— BBC News (World) (@BBCWorld) April 10, 2020NYC Mayor confirms they are now burying many #Covid19 corpses in mass graves on Hart Island. Today alone there were at least 40 coffins. The bodies are wrapped in body bags and placed in pine boxes, with their names scrawled on the top. Source: NY Post #TrumpBurialPits pic.twitter.com/2yb2pVVt3U— Jake Morphonios 🇵🇸 🇹🇭 😷 (@morphonios) April 10, 2020The tragedy is incomprehensible. Caskets buried three on top of one another in mass graves now being dug on New York’s Hart Island. No families present, just workers in hazmat suits. pic.twitter.com/4wF9mIJGZl— Mike Sington (@MikeSington) April 9, 2020New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio tweeted about the images, stating in part:The pictures of our fellow New Yorkers being buried on Hart Island are devastating for all of us.I want to make sure everyone knows what they’re seeing and what is actually happening on Hart Island.Remember, these are human beings. These are neighbors we've lost.— Mayor Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) April 10, 2020We have accordingly changed our rating from “unknown” to “true.”"


Output: "New York City is planning mass graves (or ""temporary mass graves"") for COVID-19 victims in Central Park (and other public parks.)"