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.

[Q]: Since the vaccine is not available, a discussion of costs is not warranted. The piece does a nice job of presenting the results of the initial report in terms of absolute and relative risk reduction; however, absolute data is not provided for the secondary analyses. To its credit, the story clearly and effectively explained statistical significance as it relates to this research. As stated in previous coverage, the story reiterates that the benefits of the vaccine are modest and additional research is needed. Given that this is a follow-up report focused on newly released data, a discussion of the potential harms of the vaccine is not necessary. This story does an excellent job defining the different types of analyses used to evaluate the outcome data. The story also points out the results of the secondary analyses have been published in a peer-reviewed journal, suggesting the calculations have been checked for accuracy. This story does not engage in disease-mongering. This story does not provide commentary from any independent sources. In this case, a single comment from a biostatistical consultant would have provided helpful perspective. Given the nature of this follow-up story, a discussion on the existing alternatives to HIV prevention may not be warranted. This story makes it known that the vaccine is still in the testing phase and is not yet available. The story makes it clear that researchers have been working on an AIDS vaccine for decades. The story does not appear to be based on a press release.
[A]: AIDS Vaccine Is of Modest Help, Fuller Research Says


[Q]: They found several creams caused skin cancer in the specially bred mice, which had been pre-treated with ultraviolet radiation. The cancers are not melanoma, the deadliest kind of skin cancer, they stressed in their report in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology, but another type called squamous cell carcinoma. Such tumours are slow growing, highly treatable and only fatal if patients fail to have them removed. Allan Conney and colleagues at Rutgers University in New Jersey said they discovered the risk while testing a theory that caffeine could prevent skin cancer. “We sort of got into this by accident,” Conney said in a telephone interview. “We wanted a safe cream that we could put the caffeine into.”   They were testing specially bred albino mice, which are prone to develop skin cancer. The mice are pre-treated with ultraviolet radiation to simulate the effects of a human who has had heavy sun exposure in the past but then stopped — something that may be happening in the population as people realize the risks of getting a tan. Conney’s team decided to test the creams first and found that all four they tested caused tumours to grow on the mice. He said he does not know why, but suspects two ingredients — mineral oil and sodium laurel sulphate. “We’d like to understand the mechanism. What is most important is to see whether these moisturizing creams are tumorigenic in people,” Conney said. He said his lab is not equipped to do this but someone should. But he added, “I don’t think that people should be scared because this is a mouse study and we don’t know whether or not it applies to humans.”   Other experts were sceptical about the study. “This is a pretty artificial situation with the mouse skin primed by a lot of UV light to develop cancer,” Karol Sikora, Medical Director of Cancer Partners U.K. in Britain, said in a statement. Dr. Jonathan Rees, an expert in dermatology at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, said squamous cell carcinoma was not a big health worry. “Non-melanoma skin cancer in man is very, very common and is almost 100 percent curable with an operation usually simpler than a tooth filling,” Rees said in a statement. Conney said the mouse was a commonly used model in skin cancer but said he agreed that it does not perfectly replicate human skin and human behaviour. He said his team approached Johnson & Johnson to create a cream without the suspect products and they developed one using other readily available ingredients. “They are things that are commonly used in many moisturizing creams,” he said. This cream did not cause the tumours in the mice, they said. He said Rutgers and Johnson & Johnson had patented the new cream jointly but did not know whether it would be commercially developed. A spokesman at the company was not immediately available for comment.
[A]: Skin creams seen to cause tumours on mice.


[Q]: Whether asbestos in the talc supply in Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder caused cancer has been the subject of litigation for years. The lawmakers, Senator Jeff Merkley and Representative Suzanne Bonamici, did not mention Johnson & Johnson by name but expressed “deep concern” about Friday’s Reuters report, according to a copy of their letter dated Dec. 19 and reviewed by Reuters. Read the Reuters investigation reut.rs/2rAz2TO  In their letter, the two lawmakers asked the EPA how it was regulating potentially unsafe asbestos-containing products. J&J has disputed the Reuters report, calling it a “misrepresentation.” The company says its talc is safe and has never contained asbestos, adding that decades of studies and regulatory assessments confirm the safety of its product. Representatives for the EPA did not be respond to an email or a telephone call seeking comment on the congressional letter. Asked about the lawmakers’ letter, J&J spokesman Ernie Knewitz declined to comment but said the Reuters report was “one-sided, false and inflammatory.”  According to the Reuters report, documents as well as deposition and trial testimony showed that from at least 1971 to the early 2000s the company’s raw talc and finished powders sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos. Most internal J&J asbestos test reports Reuters reviewed did not find asbestos. The company has defended its products in recent days with a series of full-page newspaper advertisements and a television interview with its chief executive. Shares of the company have fallen about 12.5 percent since the Reuters report on Friday. Merkley and Bonamici also asked the EPA to detail what steps it was taking to help prevent vulnerable populations such as pregnant women and infants from being exposed to products containing asbestos, including other products with talc, a mineral. Although baby powder is subject to regulation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, other talc products sold to consumers would be within the purview of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and thus the responsibility of the EPA, they wrote in the letter. Democratic U.S. Senator Edward Markey separately called on the FDA to investigate the findings in the Reuters report in a letter on Friday. The FDA could not immediately be reached for comment. “Asbestos is a known carcinogen, and one for which there is no controlled use or safe level of exposure,” Merkley and Bonamici wrote. “Fifty-five countries have already banned asbestos. Unfortunately, the United States still permits the use of asbestos.”
[A]:
Two lawmakers question EPA on asbestos after Reuters report.