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: The story makes clear the “big unknown” remains the price and “how much people are willing to spend to cut a day or so off of a bout of flu.” The story reports that Genentech, the drug’s manufacturer, said it’s too early to comment on the drug’s U.S. price. The story also notes that in Japan, where the drug was invented, it “sells for the equivalent of about $43.50.” The story uses terms like “a little more than a day” and “nearly a day” and “substantially” to describe the drug’s reduction in flu symptoms, fever, and coughing and sneezing, respectively. It does not explain, as the news release does, that: “Similar efficacy results were seen between baloxavir marboxil and [Tamiflu] in relation to duration of symptoms and fever reduction.” In other words, on the symptom front, both drugs were the same. According to the news release, a difference was seen in the length of time the virus was shed from the body (presumably through coughing and sneezing): 24 hours for baloxavir marboxil verses 72 hours for Tamiflu. The news release also states that there was also a difference seen in the level of virus in the nose and throat, but it provides no precise numbers. It is not known whether this benefit translates into less infection transmission, and the story should have made that clear. The news release issued by Genentech about the FDA’s decision to grant priority review describes baloxavir marboxil’s most common side effects: diarrhea, bronchitis, nausea and sinusitis. The news release also states that overall incidence of adverse events seen in patients taking baloxavir marboxil were lower than those seen in both the placebo group and the group taking Tamiflu. The STAT News story does not mention any potential harms. This evidence comes from the randomized phase III Capstone-1 study the FDA will review, which included 1,436 people in the US and Japan. It excluded people older than 64. The news story does not note this exclusion, nor does it state a key problem with this study: It has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal (instead, a study abstract was released as part of ID Week 2017). This means the full data analysis has never been seen by anyone other than the researchers. We explained why this is important in February 2018, when we discussed news coverage of the drug’s approval in Japan. The 2017-2018 flu season was the worst the US had experienced in nearly a decade. The flu impacted the entire country, and was responsible for 172 pediatric deaths. The news article did not use these or any other flu-related statistics to increase fear about the flu and, in turn, the need for this medication. The article includes two sources: Mark Eisner, Genentech’s VP of product development for immunology, infectious diseases and ophthalmology and Richard Webby, head of the World Health Organization’s influenza collaborating center at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis. Eisner’s affiliation with Genentech, the drug’s manufacturer, is clearly noted. Webby does not appear to have any conflicts of interest. The article would have been stronger if it had included a third source who commented on what–if anything–is known about whether reducing the duration of symptoms leads to reduced levels of transmission that result in fewer people contracting the flu and fewer deaths. The story explains that the only other drug approved to treat the flu is Tamiflu, which is not widely used. The writer explains that both drugs need to be taken within 48 hours of symptom onset and that baloxavir marboxil is a single one-time dose, while Tamiflu must be taken twice daily for five days. It is clear from the story that the FDA is expected to decide by the end of the year whether to approve this new flu medication. The story explains that it’s been more than 20 years since a new class of flu drug has been developed and marketed. (It is available in Japan.) The catalyst for the story was a news release issued by Genentech about the FDA granting priority review of baloxavir marboxil, but the story does not use direct quotes from the news release.

A: A flu drug — shown to reduce the duration of symptoms — could upend treatment in U.S.
****
Q: The Southeast Asian island nation, which is under partial lockdown to try to curb a recent surge in infections, also reported its ninth death from the disease. A large number of the new cases are linked to outbreaks in migrant workers’ dormitories. Singapore has quarantined thousands of workers in dormitories after they were connected to several cases of the COVID-19 respiratory disease. To date, a total of 586 people have fully recovered from the infection, the health ministry said.

A: Singapore confirms 386 more cases of coronavirus in biggest daily jump.
****
Q: Given that the premise of the story is explaining there is no benefit to taking these supplements, we’ll rate this N/A. That said, it would have been interesting to explore the cost-savings for people if they decide to stop buying calcium and vitamin D. The story does a good job of letting readers know that there was no statistically significant benefit to taking calcium and vitamin D, based on the researchers’ systematic review of the evidence. The story cited one instance of harms, saying: “… for people who started out with at least 20 nanograms of vitamin D per milliliter of blood, adding more vitamin D through supplements was associated with a greater risk of hip fractures.” We also wanted to see a mention of potential harms of calcium, such as kidney stones. Another common side effect is excess gas and one potential harm of high doses is cardiovascular complications such as heart attack. The story hits some key points including the number of studies reviewed, potential confounding factors accounted for, and details about selection criteria. For instance, women on hormone replacement therapy, for whom there’s evidence for the benefits of supplementation were excluded from the current analysis. That’s a key point for postmenopausal women reading the story. Also the story makes clear that this study examined older adults who live in their own homes and therefore does not apply to older adults who live in nursing homes or similar institutions. Well done. The story does not engage in disease-mongering. It correctly states the risk of broken bones in people over age 50 and the risk of death in older people who break a hip. This story will also help reduce over-treatment and over-medicating of older adults, which is common. The only source quoted for the article is the study itself. There are no quotes from independent expert sources. The story references getting calcium from one’s diet and getting vitamin D from sun exposure. We think it’s safe to presume that readers know that vitamin and mineral supplements are widely available. The story does a good job of making clear previous claims of benefit from calcium and vitamin D supplementation. This large meta-analysis will provide some clarity of the questions surrounding using these supplements for bone health. The story does not appear to rely on a news release.

A:
Do you take calcium and vitamin D to protect your bones? A new study says it doesn't help
****