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:
Actual occurrences can sometimes take on folkloric lives of their own, making the shift from news stories to cautionary tales through emotional responses to elements of those events. That was the case with the 4 June 1999 death of 12-year-old Catherine “Casey” Fish, who did indeed die while playing the marshmallow-stuffing game known as “Chubby Bunny” — descriptions of her death have become part of the cautionary lore spread among parents. The rules of “Chubby Bunny” require competitors to enunciate that phrase with marshmallows stuffed in their mouths. No swallowing or chewing is allowed, and any participant who gags, coughs, or spits is “out” of the game. The winner is whichever child manages to utter the expression through the largest number of marshmallows. Casey Fish choked on four marshmallows and collapsed during the annual Care Fair held at Hoffman Elementary School, a grade school in Chicago’s North Shore area, and died at the Glenbrook Hospital a few hours later. The “Chubby Bunny” competition was to have been part of the day’s activities and would have been supervised by a teacher. However, Casey began playing the game with some of her friends when her teacher momentarily left the area ten minutes before the scheduled start of the “Chubby Bunny” competition to have a word with a janitor. As Casey choked, the teacher was summoned back to the room, but he arrived too late to head off the youngster’s death. Casey’s death was reported by the media at the time of the incident. But, unlike many news stories about the death of a child, the deceased sixth-grader’s story was told and retold in ensuing months, primarily via The Oprah Winfrey Show, which talked about the case (including airing interviews with the distraught parents) in January, March, and June 2000. The tale of how Casey’s life ended continued to surface in the news as her parents pursued a civil suit against the school district, asserting that a failure to properly supervise the children led to the death of their daughter. (In 2005, her parents settled their lawsuit for $2 million.) All of this additional attention served to keep the story in circulation. The folkloric shift this real-life tragedy has taken involves the mode of death. While a very real youngster did indeed lose her life through playing “Chubby Bunny,” she did so through choking on the intact confections in her mouth, not (as developing lore would have it) via the marshmallows’ somehow breaking down to form a windpipe-clogging glue. In the example quoted above, the bonbons were said to have “emulsified” — that is, turned into a liquid mass. Another Internet-spread description of the death says “The marshmallows were heated in the mouth and throat and effectively turned into a sticky enough substance that it could not be removed by conventional attempts at first aid.” Yet another version claims that “The marshmallows, warming-up to body temperature, took on the form of her air passage, and choked her to death.” We know the marshmallows did not eventually turn into a sticky, fatal mass after Casey held them in her mouth for a while because, during the lawsuit brought by Casey’s parents, Casey’s best friend testified seeing her pal’s lips turn purple just a few seconds after she had put the marshmallows into her mouth. While marshmallows can be quickly melted into a thick liquid, goopy substance in a pot on the stove (as anyone who has made Rice Krispies squares will attest), the temperature inside the human mouth is not sufficient to reduce them to that state. Absent chewing or licking, a marshmallow can be held in one’s mouth approximately 15 minutes before it entirely disappears, its bulk gradually dissolving and being swallowed across the span of that quarter hour. At no point in that process does the resultant fluid become thick or gluey — it is thin, watery, and easily swallowed. The danger presented by the game comes not from the marshmallows being rendered into a suffocating goo in the human mouth by the heat of that environment, but from their bulk. In the zeal to best others, a child may stuff more of the confections into his mouth than he can cope with, potentially lodging one in his throat where it will block his windpipe the way a cork would. It is not any special “melting” property inherent to marshmallows that makes the game hazardous, but rather that the marshmallows take up so much space, and their consistency makes them difficult to remove either via the Heimlich maneuver or with medical instruments. On 13 September 2006, another “Chubby Bunny” death occurred when a 32-year-old Janet Rudd choked on a marshmallow and collapsed while participating in the game at a fair in London, Ontario. Emergency crews were unable to remove the blockage from her throat at the scene; she was taken to a hospital where she was revived, but she died later that evening.
answer:
"A child suffocated while playing a ""Chubby Bunny"" marshmallow-stuffing game.  "


question:
Social networks like Facebook and Twitter are often where the public expresses concern and even outrage over perceived miscarriages of justice. In recent years, internet users have been especially prolific in promoting awareness of a perceived tendency among some judges and prosecutors to seek and accept insufficient punishments for sexual crimes particularly against women and children. One such case emerged in 2018 and 2019 and involved the prosecution of Justin Schneider of Anchorage, Alaska who, according to one internet meme, served no jail time despite having seriously assaulted a woman he picked up outside a gas station in August 2017. On October 2018, Facebook user Ed Stonick posted a widely shared meme that contained a photograph of Schneider along with the following text, which some readers might find disturbing: GENOCIDE JUSTIN SCHNEIDER This is Justin Schneider, he is 34 years old and lives in Anchorage, Alaska. He is a white male who picked up a hitch-hiking indigenous female. He strangled her unconscious, masturbated over her body, and left her to die. This week he pled guilty in an Anchorage District Court. Because his victim survived he was given a plea deal. The kidnapping and sexual assault charges were dropped. He was given no time in jail and only received one year of probation. This is the face of American justice. This is the face of white privilege. This is the face of genocide. This fact check won’t examine the broader cultural issues raised by the meme and in other coverage of the Schneider case, namely the extent to which the American criminal justice system is relatively indifferent to crimes experienced by indigenous women, such as the woman at the center of this case. Rather, our article will evaluate the factual claims made in the meme. Much of the content of the meme is quite accurate, though it contains some errors. On 8 August 2017, Schneider pulled up in his vehicle and approached a woman who was standing outside a gas station in Anchorage. She entered his van and some time later, he attacked her, strangled her, masturbated over her and ejaculated on her, acts that Schneider later admitted in a subsequent civil case brought against him by the woman. Using a license plate number provided by the woman, police tracked down Schneider and arrested him on suspicion of first-degree kidnapping, first-degree harassment and second-degree assault. Schneider initially pleaded not guilty to all three charges. The woman claimed that Schneider had invited her into his vehicle under false pretenses, calling himself “Dan” and claiming to be an acquaintance of hers, allegations Schneider continues to deny. She also claimed that he had strangled her to the point of unconsciousness. Schneider has admitted strangling her, but denies doing so to the point of her losing consciousness. Despite facing three criminal charges, Schneider and his attorneys were able to persuade the office of Anchorage District Attorney Rick Allen to drop the charges of kidnapping and harassment, in exchange for Schneider pleading guilty to second-degree assault. On 19 September 2018, Alaska Superior Court Judge Michael Corey sentenced Schneider to two years in prison, with one year suspended, and three years of probation, as a result of the plea agreement with prosecutors. However, because Alaska law allows for time spent under house arrest to effectively be regarded as “time served,” Schneider was not required to serve the 12 months remaining on his prison sentence. After the sentencing, the state of Alaska’s Department of Law provided the following explanation for the plea agreement and sentence: Although Mr. Schneider received one year of jail time, Alaska law allows an offender to receive credit for any time spent on an ankle monitor or under house arrest against any jail sentence imposed. The Department of Law heard from a number of concerned citizens that the sentence imposed was too lenient. Criminal Division Director John Skidmore independently reviewed the case and concluded the sentence was consistent with, and reasonable, under current sentencing laws in Alaska. Mr. Schneider plead guilty to one count of assault in the second degree, a class B felony in Alaska, in exchange for the State’s dismissal of the remaining charges – notably, first-degree kidnapping and first-degree harassment. The State dismissed the most serious charge based on the conclusion that the State would be unable to prove the kidnapping at trial. Kidnapping requires that the victim be “restrained” or moved against his or her will. Additional investigation determined that the victim willingly got into Mr. Schneider’s vehicle and willingly drove with him to the location of the assault. Under these circumstances, the criminal charge of kidnapping (as defined under Alaska law) could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Schneider was convicted of the remaining most serious crime: second-degree assault. Based on Mr. Schneider’s lack of criminal history, the sentencing range for the offense was zero to two years in jail. “Though it is understandable that some feel his sentence was not sufficiently harsh,” Director Skidmore explained, “All prosecutors are ethically required to follow the law, no matter how disturbing the facts may be.” While the facts of this case were particularly disturbing, Mr. Schneider’s offensive physical contact with bodily fluid such as semen is not categorized as a sex crime under Alaska law. Despite this limitation, the prosecutor felt Mr. Schneider needed sex offender treatment. The only way to achieve that result was to have Mr. Schneider agree to the probation conditions. Thus, the prosecutor required Mr. Schneider to undergo sex offender treatment and comply with other monitoring conditions as a condition of the plea agreement. In November 2018, Alaskans voted to recall Corey from the bench, after a campaign that criticized his sentencing of Schneider. Speaking in March 2019, Corey said he and the prosecutors in the case were constrained by sentencing guidelines and Alaska state law, and described the outcome of the case as “a horrible result.” Also in November 2018, the woman filed a lawsuit against Schneider, seeking damages, compensation and legal fees and accusing him of assault and battery, negligence and inflicting emotional distress. In his response to the civil complaint, Schneider requested the case be dismissed but admitted to “tackling, strangling and ejaculating on” the woman, and accepted that he had “intentionally or recklessly caused  physical injury or emotional distress.” He denied having tricked the woman into entering his vehicle, and denied that she lost consciousness as a result of his strangling her. As of March 2019, the woman’s civil case against Schneider was still before the Alaska Superior Court. The meme was accurate in stating that Schneider had assaulted, strangled and masturbated over the woman — the core allegations against Schneider, all of which he has admitted. However, Schneider disputes the specific claim that the woman lost consciousness as a result of his strangling her, so we cannot definitively rule on the veracity of that particular allegation. While the meme claimed that Schneider was given one year’s probation, in fact Judge Corey gave him three years’ probation. That’s a significant discrepancy, even if it does not change the view, held by many observers, that Schneider’s punishment was woefully inadequate. Finally, Schneider did serve some jail time in August 2017, after his arrest and before his release on bail, but the principal claim in relation to his case is that his punishment did not include jail time. So the meme’s claim that “he was given no time in jail” is mostly accurate, since Corey did sentence Schneider to two years in prison, but he suspended one year and credited the remainder of the prison sentence with the time Schneider spent under house arrest while on bail. Thus, the actual effect of Schneider’s sentencing was that he did not have to go to jail as part of his punishment.
answer:
"Justin Schneider was ""given no jail time,"" despite having strangled and assaulted a hitchhiker in Anchorage, Alaska, in 2017."


question:
"The story provides a range of the costs of the procedure for cosmetic purposes and also notes cost of additional surgeries that may be needed to correct for fat-grafting that did not survive after an initial procedure. This procedure may not be approved by health insurance for reconstruction due to the lack of evidence for safety and long-term outcomes. The story provides one surgeon’s average fat-grafting and stem cell survival rate, about 54%. The story notes current research on this new fat-grafting to determine short and long-term health and cosmetic outcomes. The story clearly and carefully explains the procedure and the rationale for the addition of stem cells to a transfer of a woman’s fat to her breast tissue. The story notes that the makers of a machine that would mix fat and stem cells more effectively is sponsoring tests in Europe and is proposing tests in the U.S. The story does an excellent job listing the potential harms of the procedure. The story gives appropriate caveats that this stem cell and fat grafting is relatively unstudied in women with a history of breast cancer, a population possibly more vulnerable to long-term harms of fat injections in the breast area. The story notes the potential need for multiple revision surgeries if the fat transfer does not take. The story notes that women looking for increased bresat volume beyond 1 cup size would likely not be candidates. The story appropriately lists potential long-term harms, including obscured mammograms due to nercrosis and calcifications from the fat. The story notes the lack of evidence for this procedure. The story notes that plastic surgeons are currently enrolling women in clinical trials so this procedure can be studied for safety and positive cosmetic outcomes. The story lists notes an average fat-grafting survival of 54%, which means a high likelihood for additional surgeries. The story does not engage in disease mongering. The story is quite balanced in the description of this relatively new cosmetic and reconstructive technique that is being used by some cosmetic and plastic surgeons. The story does an excellent job citing varied sources to provide the reader with multiple perspectives on this new breast augmentation technique. The story provides both positive and cautious testimonials from a range of cosmetic and reconstructive specialists, researchers and a patient who had the procedure. The story notes that this procedure is largely for cosmetic purposes, but it has been used as a reconstructive technique. Fat transfer has been used without stem cells for reconstruction for about 10 years. The story also notes the more common silicone and saline implants as options for breast reconstrution and augmentation. The story focuses on this fat injection with stem cells as a procedure for cosmetic augmentation or reconstruction following breast cancer surgery. The story notes that while some plastic and cosmetic surgeons are experimenting with this procedure, it is a ""biologic product"" (due to mixture of a person’s own fat w. additional stem cells) which is not currently approved by the FDA. The story notes that this is a newer procedure for breast augmentation and possibly breast reconstruction. Fat grafting is not new in cosmetic and reconstructive surgery. The additional of stem cells to a person’s own fat is new and the story notes that long-term outcome of fat and stem cells in breast tissue is not known. The story has a great deal of independent reporting and does not rely solely on a press release for information about this procedure."
answer:

Stem Cells and Breast Surgery