instruction:
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:
This release doesn’t discuss costs in its comparison of influenza shots versus nasal sprays, although both modes of immunization have been around for a long while and the costs for both are easily known. While flu immunizations are often free through public health clinics and such, some people receive their immunizations from their family physicians and carry a specific cost. Knowing the difference in costs between the two types is useful information both for people and public health officials. The release reports similar rates of vaccine uptake for intranasal vaccine and standard flu shots. But it does not quantify benefits for the main outcome of the study, that is, rates of influenza in communities vaccinated with nasal vs injected vaccine over the course of the study. These rates were statistically no different: 5.2% for the standard vs 5.3% for the nasal vaccine. This release makes no mention of possible harms that my follow the use of either the influenza vaccine injections or nasal spray, even though there are well-known restrictions on whom should and should not receive the nasal spray, and potential negative reactions to the injections among some people. The release points out that the study was the “first blinded randomized controlled trial” done in children within largely closed communities and it found similar efficacy in using the two modes of immunization. However, we do wish the release had addressed limitations, as well as some of the complexity of making these results generalizable to a larger population, as we saw with NPR’s take on the news. While media attention is routinely heightened leading up to and during flu season, this release does not appear to reach the level of disease mongering. The release does identify the chief funder of the study, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, although it offers no information on possible conflicts of interest among any of the researchers. The abstract of the study does state that two of the researchers do have links to pharmaceutical firms, but not in relation this study. Since the study looked a two forms of influenza vaccine administration, it obviously addresses the question of comparing alternatives. Both forms of immunization — shots and nasal spray — have been around for some time, their availability is widely known, earning the release a Satisfactory in this category. The release makes clear that the novelty of this study is its ability to examine both indirect effects of vaccination on the community as well as direct effects for persons receiving the vaccine. The release does not use any unjustifiable language.
answer:
Flu nasal spray provides similar protection against influenza as flu shot: Study


question:
"Since the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., supporters and opponents of gun control have thrown out statistics to support their point of view. Here’s one that caught our eye, offered by liberal commentator Mark Shields on the Dec. 21, 2012, edition of the PBS NewsHour. Shields told host Judy Woodruff, ""You know, Judy, the reality is -- and it's a terrible reality -- since Robert Kennedy died in the Ambassador Hotel on June 4, 1968, more Americans have died from gunfire than died in … all the wars of this country's history, from the Revolutionary through the Civil War, World War I, World War II, in those 43 years. ... I mean, guns are a problem. And I think they still have to be confronted."" Is the death toll that high? Let's examine each half of his comparison. Deaths from warfare  We found a comprehensive study of war-related deaths published by the Congressional Research Service on Feb. 26, 2010, and we supplemented that with data for deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan using the website icasualties.org. Where possible, we’ve used the broadest definition of ""death"" -- that is, all war-related deaths, not just those that occurred in combat. Here’s a summary of deaths by major conflict:  4,435 2,260 13,283 525,000 2,446 116,516 405,399 36,574 58,220 383 2,175 4,486 1,171,177 Another 362 deaths resulted from other conflicts since 1980, such as interventions in Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Somalia and Haiti, but the number is not large enough to make a difference. Gunfire deaths  The number of deaths from gunfire is a bit more complicated to total. Two Internet-accessible data sets from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention allow us to pin down the number of deaths from 1981 to 1998 and from 1999 to 2010. We’ve added FBI figures for 2011, and we offer a number for 1968 to 1980 using a conservative estimate of data we found in a graph in this 1994 paper published by the CDC. Here is a summary. The figures below refer to total deaths caused by firearms: We should note that these figures refer to all gun-fire related deaths -- not just homicides, but also suicides and accidental deaths. In 2011, about one-quarter of firearm-related deaths were homicides, according to FBI and CDC data. Using total firearm-related deaths makes the case against guns more dramatic than just using homicides alone. When we rated a previous Facebook post, we lowered an otherwise  claim because it said that ""nearly 100,000 people get shot every year."" We found that the number of gun deaths and non-fatal injuries added up to 104,852, but we concluded that the term ""get shot"" could suggest victims who got shot by someone else rather than by their own hand. We don’t see a similar problem with the way Shields’ comment was phrased -- namely, ""died from gunfire."" Our ruling Since Shields’ comparison was otherwise accurate, with about 1.4 million firearm deaths to 1.2 million in war."
answer:
"Since 1968, ""more Americans have died from gunfire than died in … all the wars of this country's history."


question:
After about a 45-minute outpatient procedure and a bill ranging from $3,500 to $7,500, New York-based Antell’s patients emerge with what he said is a confidence boost: an athletic, youthful look from a more prominent chin. “People want that leading lady, leading man look,” said Antell, who is also an assistant clinical professor of surgery at Columbia University. “If you look at people in the limelight, they all have strong chins and it’s a part of the profile that has long been overlooked,” he said. Chin implants surged by 71 percent in 2011 as more than 20,600 adults went under the knife to sharpen their jaw lines, up from roughly 12,000 the year before, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Strong chins are associated with leadership, confidence and honesty, Antell said, not to mention some powerful men and women. “Romney’s got a great chin,” Antell said of the presidential hopeful. “Obama has a pretty good chin. Bill Clinton has a very good chin.”   Chin implants surgery increased more than breast augmentation, Botox and liposuction combined last year with both men and women opting for the procedure in nearly equal numbers, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Chin augmentation, or actually making the chin protrude more, increased among all patients over the age of 20, with the most significant increases in patients 40 and older, according to the society. Facial aging tends to appear first on the chin and jaw line and surgery provides a quick change, experts said. They also point to video chat and online photo technology as driving forces behind the escalating numbers. Posting pictures on Facebook, online dating sites and the increasingly prevalent use of video chat technology like Skype and FaceTime make it harder to hide a person’s least favorite feature or perceived flaws, said Dr. Malcolm Roth, president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and the head of plastic surgery at Albany Medical Center in New York. “We tend to not look at what we don’t like,” said Roth. “I think there is a heightened awareness to how we look to the outside world.”   The surgery is even appealing to people out of work, according to Roth, who said the cost hasn’t deterred some who say it gives them more confidence at job interviews. Chin augmentation can be done by putting a semi-solid implant on top of the chin, by moving bone to reconstruct the chin or simply by using a needle and syringe for an injection to enhance the chin, Roth said. The procedure leaves minimal scarring from a very small incision and is sometimes coupled with micro-liposuction to trim a so-called double chin, enhancing the neck and jaw line even further. Recuperation is easy and patients can typically be back to normal routines in a matter of days, Roth said. Despite the chin implant boom, breast augmentation still reigns as the most popular cosmetic procedure. The surgery costs about $10,000 more than 307,000 procedures were performed in 2011, statistics showed. Antell said he expects the chin implants trend to continue, largely because of the quick recovery and low complication rate. He added that other similar, smaller scale procedures at a younger age are also likely to climb. “This is an operation that whispers, it doesn’t shout,” said Antell. “Most people are not looking for huge changes, they are just hoping to look a little better, the best they can.”
answer:

Best face forward: chin implants surge in popularity.