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.

A photograph supposedly showing the gravestone of a woman named Kate McCormick, who passed away in the 1870s from a fatally botched abortion, has been circulating online for several years. In May 2019, the Facebook page “American News X” revived interest in the image:  This is a genuine photograph of a tombstone marking the grave of a woman who passed away in the 1870s after claiming she took abortion-inducing drugs, and we were able to corroborate many of the details of the inscription via contemporaneous news reports. Our one caveat with this Facebook post is the stated date for when the tombstone was erected. While McCormick passed away in the 1870s, it wasn’t until more than a century after her death, in 1997, that an anonymous donor placed the pictured gravestone on her final resting place. The Story of Kate Simpson (AKA Kate McCormick) McCormick’s story can be gleaned from various articles published by newspapers in Tennessee in 1876 concerning an inquiry into her death, the death of her child, and the doctor who was charged with (and ultimately acquitted of) providing her with abortion-inducing drugs. While these reports contained a fair amount of detail such as eyewitness testimonies, a few facts of the case are still a bit unclear. We have done our best to piece together the events that led to McCormick’s death, the trial of the man who reportedly killed her, and the circumstances of her burial below. Katie’s story starts in Humboldt, Tenn., where she was seduced and impregnated by a shoemaker named George Burgess. After becoming pregnant, Burgess sent McCormick to Memphis to have the child with the promise that he would soon follow to marry her. But Burgess never followed. In late January 1876, a stillborn child was discovered at what news accounts referred to as “Mrs. Widrig’s boarding house.” Police arrived and found that the child’s mother, Kate Simpson (alias Kate McCormick), was also deathly ill. She passed away the following day: Katie McCormick Page 1 Wed, Feb 2, 1876 – Page 3 · Public Ledger (Memphis, Tennessee) · Newspapers.com The Trial of Dr. D.S. Johnson Dr. D.S. Johnson was arrested and indicted on three charges related to the death of McCormick and her child. The Memphis Public Ledger described the charges against Johnson in a 9 February 1876 article, stating that the doctor was indicted for administrating “large quantities of deadly, dangerous, unwholesome, deleterious and penicious pills, herbs, drugs, potions, teas, liquids powders and mixtures” with the intent of causing an abortion, for causing said abortion, and for “feloniously, willfully, deliberately, premeditated and with malice aforethought kill[ing] and murder[ing] the said Kate McCormick.” A number of witnesses who were with McCormick in her final days provided testimony to authorities. Widrig, the woman who ran the boarding house where the bodies were discovered, told authorities that McCormick had paid Dr. Johnson $25 to terminate her pregnancy. A woman named Mollie Brown provided similar testimony: Mrs. Widrig was sworn and stated that the girl came to her house some time before Christmas, but only stayed one night that she came back three weeks ago, and on Saturday night, or, rather, Sunday morning, she was delivered of a dead child; that Dr. Johnson had been attending her; that her suspicions were aroused and she asked Katie to tell her the whole truth; on Sunday Dr. Frayser had been sent to see Katie by Chief Athy and told her that the girl would die; this she told to Katie, who seemed much affected and made a confession; she said: “Mrs. Widrig, I think my time is short,” and then she added: “Dr. Johnson gave the medicine to destroy my child; tell Dr. Johnson that I promised not to deceive him or tell any person but the time has come when I can keep the secret no longer; I paid Dr. Johnson twenty-five dollars for the medicine; he gave me the medicine some three weeks ago, and said if it did not do its work in six days it would be a failure; I took the medicine from Dr. Johnson to kill my child and paid him twenty-five dollars for it.” Mollie Brown sworn: Katie told me last night that Dr. Johnson sent her medicine by express; she said to me she was satisfied she was going to die, and that Dr. Johnson was the cause of it. Wed, Feb 2, 1876 – Page 3 · Public Ledger (Memphis, Tennessee) · Newspapers.com Dr. Johnson’s version of events differed. Johnson, as well as two other doctors who visited McCormick before her death, testified that McCormick had been treated only for diarrhea: Dr. Marable testified as follows: On Sunday morning was called by Dr. Johnson to make a call; he told me about the case, and said he had prescribed for diarrhea; the treatment was correct as stated by Dr. Johnson; he said that he had discovered that she had a baby last night, but that she was in danger of dying from the afterbirth; I attended to her immediately, and gave her the necessary remedies to stop the flooding, and the remedies resulted successfully; the girl appeared very weak; Dr. Johnson and I went to see Chief Athy at once with reference to the dead child, and at my instigation Dr. Johnson called upon coroner Spelman to hold an inquest on the dead infant, which inquest was held on Sunday; I advised Dr. Johnson as to the necessary treatment to place the girl under with a view to her recovery; the girl had diarrhea and I prescribed with Dr. Johnson for its treatment; the girl was nervous and troubled in mind; she said she was out of money and had no friends; trouble of mind and excitement very often cause abortions or miscarriages, and the greatest trouble physicians have in such cases is to keep the patients quiet; I think flooding and mental anxiety was the cause of her death. Johnson testified as follows: Three weeks ago I first saw the deceased; she came to my office and told her story, and wanted to hide her disgrace; I advised her not to commit abortion as it was against the law; I called to see her at Mrs. Widrig’s boardinghouse and prescribed for diarrhea; on Sunday morning I called and found that she had a miscarriage; I then called on Dr. Marable; the prescription given her by me was ascitate of lead and morphine; the girl seemed troubled and said she would sooner die than live; she said this both before and after the abortion had taken place. Johnson was eventually acquitted of the charges against him. The Burial of Kate McCormick The story of McCormick did not end with her death. While McCormick’s mother traveled to Memphis after learning of her daughter’s death, she left the city without making arrangements for burial. Similarly, Burgess, the man who reportedly impregnated McCormick, didn’t undertake a visit to view the body. A particularly depressing passage published by the Public Ledger on 4 February 1876 (which contains some racial language common to the era) noted that McCormick’s body was stored in a “pauper’s coffin” in a stable that served as a morgue for the impoverished in Shelby County:  Fri, Feb 4, 1876 – Page 3 · Public Ledger (Memphis, Tennessee) · Newspapers.com The reporter who found McCormick’s body sought to remedy the situation by obtaining the help of a Capt. George W. Miller of the Cut Off Saloon. Miller agreed to finance a proper burial, and McCormick’s body was taken to Elmwood Cemetery:  Fri, Feb 4, 1876 – Page 3 · Public Ledger (Memphis, Tennessee) · Newspapers.com McCormick was interred at Elmwood Cemetery sometime in 1876, but the gravestone shown above was not originally present at her final resting place. This tombstone was erected in 1997 and was paid for by an anonymous person who was apparently moved by McCormick’s sad tale.
A photograph shows a tombstone from 1875 that marks the resting place of Kate McCormick, who reportedly died after a botched abortion.

"The story says gum costs ""a few pennies."" The study itself puts the cost at 4 cents per stick. The report does a good job of handling the statistics, with proper caveats. The story reports: The story does include a comment from a physician who warns that someone chewing gum after surgery may swallow air, which can create problems. The story explains that the findings come from an analysis of five studies, alluding to the fact that this was a meta-analysis. The story could have given a line about the quality of such evidence. The story does not exaggerate the complications following colon surgery. The story is based on a credible meta-analysis published in a top-shelf journal. The report includes comments from both a study co-author and a skeptical independent expert. The independent expert interviewed offers an alternative to chewing gum to speed recovery–introducing liquids and then foods after surgery. He also recommends avoiding the use of pain killers to speed recovery time. The availability of sugarless chewing gum is not in dispute. The story makes no claims for the novelty of the treatment. By indicating the meta-analysis is based on five previous studies, the article implies it’s been used before. The story does not draw excessively from the press release."
Study: You can chew gum and get well at same time

We’ll give the story a minimally passing grade on this criterion as well, because it does note that an earlier version of a test that uses some of the same principles costs several hundred dollars. The story would have been better if it more clearly differentiated between tests used to monitor treatment (where a new test might be compared to biopsies or imaging scans) and tests used to screen healthy people, where even relatively low-cost tests could lead to substantial individual and national expenditures on follow-up testing and treatment. The story does point out that this sort of test for circulating cancer cells is just entering clinical trials. However, the repeated emphasis on the potential benefits obscures the lack of actual evidence. The amount of attention given to possible use to screen healthy people for cancer is out of balance with the more likely scenario that this sort of test will be used initially as a research tool to help track the effects of experimental treatments… and then in conjunction with conventional methods to monitor treatment in people with cancer. The lead sentence promise that this sort of test will be coming to “your doctor’s office” is out of step with the available evidence. This story glosses over the substantial harms that tests can cause. The story could have referred to examples from PSA to mammography to remind readers that detecting cancer does not always improve outcomes and that generally many people are subjected to the harms of invasive follow-up testing and treatment for each one who benefits. As Dr. Susan Love noted on the ABC News website: “Having the cells in the bloodstream does not necessarily mean that the cancer will spread and kill you. Just because you find them does not mean you know what to do with the information….We all have cancer cells in our body that are dormant,” Love said. “We need to be careful not to over react to the presence of cancer cells when the treatment may actually be worse than the cure.” Here again, this story does tell readers that this type of test is just entering clinical trials. But as mentioned before, it tends to minimize the amount of research and investment of time and money that will be required before this sort of test could be considered for use outside of experimental settings. This story does not exaggerate the threat of consequences of cancer. However, readers are likely to get the impression that the detection of circulating cancer cells means the person would benefit from early treatment, when actually researchers don’t yet know whether such a test result actually predicts the future health of an individual. The story quotes an expert who was not involved in the development of this test, though he is going to be involved in upcoming clinical trails. The story makes clear that the developers of the test have struck a deal with Johnson & Johnson to do move toward marketing their invention. The story would have been stronger if it had included comments from experts who have written about the substantial hurdles and obstacles that face developers of this test. We would have liked to see a comment like one included in the article by Martin et al. mentioned above:  “Although fluid-based biomarkers seem promising, their reliability has not been determined. Assay sensitivity and specificity need to be improved, techniques must be standardized and validated, and biomarkers are not yet closely legally regulated. Pressing financial, political, and cultural issues have the potential to derail anticipated benefits.” Or some of the cautious analysis offered by Dr. Len Lichtenfeld of the American Cancer Society, also mentioned above. Finally, we notice that AP profiled the same patient that ABC News profiled. Did the hospital or the company provide their best case scenario? Where is the data on this test to date? The story suggests that this test is inherently superior to existing tests that detect and monitor cancer. While developing a better test is the goal of this line of research, it has a long way to go to reach that goal. As Dr. Len Lichtenfeld wrote on his blog: “…we are seeing many tests that are being touted as important in answering various questions about the future behavior of an individual’s cancer but we are not seeing the type of validation we need to know whether or not such claims are in fact clinically relevant. There are so many markers and genetic tests out there that even the most knowledgeable experts in the clinical treatment of patients with cancer are having a hard time separating the proverbial wheat from the chaff.”  This story sneaks by because it says only that experiments are set to begin and it doesn’t promise that this cancer test will be available within any specific timeframe. However, the overall tone of the story minimizes the difficult challenges ahead. The story started on a confusing note, mixing within the first two sentences phrases that the test is “moving one step closer to being available at your doctor’s office” – yet it’s “experimental” – yet big names are “joining forces to bring it to market.” We think readers heads would be spinning about the state of the research after that lead. The authors of a recent journal article on this concept described the kind of research needed to know if this sort of test really has clinical benefits, ”Determining whether a program is effective could require large (i.e., multithousand patient) clinical trials lasting many years and requiring great expense.” Reference: A Need for Basic Research on Fluid-Based Early Detection Biomarkers Katherine J. Martin, Marcia V. Fournier, G. Prem Veer Reddy, and Arthur B. Pardee. Cancer Research July 1, 2010 70:5203-5206; Published OnlineFirst June 29, 2010; doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-0987 http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/70/13/5203.abstract  The story points out that this test builds on an earlier technology that counted circulating tumor cells and it refers to research articles that have appeared in several medical journals. However, the news (as the story points out) is the business deal between John & Johnson and Massachusetts General Hospital; not any specific research revelation. Readers are likely to infer that there is some scientific advance being announced, when actually all of the facts about the test mentioned in the story were announced over the course of several years. The work was summarized in a Massachusetts General Hospital newsletter article last summer: “Advancers at the Mass General Cancer Center”, Summer 2010.  http://www.mgh.harvard.edu/cancer/assets/pdfs/FINAL_Advances at the MGCancer Center.pdf The story does not appear to rely on a news release.

J&J joins development of blood test that can spot 1 cancer cell in a billion healthy ones