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.

Ex Input:
Jennifer Hope Mikesell, of Northwood, is charged with ongoing criminal conduct, fraudulent practices and forgery. Her attorney didn’t immediately return a call Tuesday from The Associated Press. Authorities said more charges might be filed later. The Worth County Sheriff’s Office said the 43-year-old Mikesell had told people she was diagnosed with cancer and was receiving cancer treatments at Mayo Clinic Health System in Rochester, Minnesota. Iowa court records say Mayo had no record of Mikesell being diagnosed or treated there. Mikesell received multiple donations of money, food and other supplies, as well as a bedroom makeover from My Happy Haven, the court records say. In a media interview about the makeover, Mikesell said she been fighting liposarcoma since 2016. She also said it had spread to her heart and brain. “You do so much to try to do what you can with the energy you have,” Mikesell told KIMT-TV in October. “I have five kids. You still have to try to cook, you still have to make it to their activities. When you come home, you have no energy left. You’re done.”

Ex Output:
Woman accused of faking cancer to reap donations.


Ex Input:
A still image provided by KPIX TV and taken from the broadcaster's video footage shows Timothy Ray Brown during an interview at his home in San Francisco. Timothy Ray Brown, was a young HIV-positive American living and working in Berlin who had developed leukaemia and suffered a relapse after initial treatment. REUTERS/Courtesy KPIX TV/Handout Dramatic scientific advances since HIV was first discovered 30 years ago this week mean the virus is no longer a death sentence. Thanks to tests that detect HIV early, new antiretroviral AIDS drugs that can control the virus for decades, and a range of ways to stop it being spread, 33.3 million people around the world are learning to live with HIV. People like Vuyiseka Dubula, an HIV-positive AIDS activist and mother in Cape Town, South Africa, can expect relatively normal, full lives. “I’m not thinking about death at all,” she says. “I’m taking my treatment and I’m living my life.”   Nonetheless, on the 30th birthday of HIV, the global scientific community is setting out with renewed vigor to try to kill it. The drive is partly about science, and partly about money. Treating HIV patients with lifelong courses of sophisticated drugs is becoming unaffordable. Caring for HIV patients in developing countries alone already costs around $13 billion a year and that could treble over the next 20 years. In tough economic times, the need to find a cure has become even more urgent, says Francoise Barre Sinoussi, who won a Nobel prize for her work in identifying Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). “We have to think about the long term, including a strategy to find a cure,” she says. “We have to keep on searching until we find one.”   The Berlin patient is proof they could. His case has injected new energy into a field where people for years believed talk of a cure was irresponsible. Timothy Ray Brown was living in Berlin when besides being HIV-positive, he had a relapse of leukemia. He was dying. In 2007, his doctor, Gero Huetter, made a radical suggestion: a bone marrow transplant using cells from a donor with a rare genetic mutation, known as CCR5 delta 32. Scientists had known for a few years that people with this gene mutation had proved resistant to HIV. “We really didn’t know when we started this project what would happen,” Huetter, an oncologist and haematologist who now works at the University of Heidelberg in southern Germany, told Reuters. The treatment could well have finished Brown off. Instead he remains the only human ever to be cured of AIDS. “He has no replicating virus and he isn’t taking any medication. And he will now probably never have any problems with HIV,” says Huetter. Brown has since moved to San Francisco. Most experts say it is inconceivable Brown’s treatment could be a way of curing all patients. The procedure was expensive, complex and risky. To do this in others, exact match donors would have to be found in the tiny proportion of people — most of them of northern European descent — who have the mutation that makes them resistant to the virus. Dr Robert Gallo, of the Institute of Virology at the University of Maryland, puts it bluntly. “It’s not practical and it can kill people,” he said last year. Sinoussi is more expansive. “It’s clearly unrealistic to think that this medically heavy, extremely costly, barely reproducible approach could be replicated and scaled-up ... but from a scientist’s point of view, it has shown at least that a cure is possible,” she says. The International AIDS Society will this month formally add the aim of finding a cure to its HIV strategy of prevention, treatment and care. A group of scientist-activists is also launching a global working group to draw up a scientific plan of attack and persuade governments and research institutions to commit more funds. Money is starting to flow. The U.S. National Institutes of Health is asking for proposals for an $8.5 million collaborative research grant to search for a cure, and the Foundation for AIDS Research, or amfAR, has just announced its first round of four grants to research groups “to develop strategies for eradicating HIV infection.”   Until recently, people in HIV and AIDS circles feared that to direct funds toward the search for a cure risked detracting from the fight to get HIV-positive people treated. Even today, only just over five million of the 12 million or so people who need the drugs actually get them. HIV first surfaced in 1981, when scientists at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention discovered it was the cause of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). An article in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of that June referred to “five young men, all active homosexuals” from Los Angeles as the first documented cases. “That was the summer of ‘81. For the world it was the beginning of the era of HIV/AIDS, even though we didn’t know it was HIV then,” says Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who has made AIDS research his life’s work. In the subsequent three decades, the disease ignorantly branded “the gay plague” has become one of the most vicious pandemics in human history. Transmitted in semen, blood and breast milk, HIV has devastated poorer regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, where the vast majority of HIV-positive people live. As more tests and treatment have become available, the number of new infections has been falling. But for every two with HIV who get a chance to start on AIDS drugs, five more join the “newly infected” list. United Nations data show that despite an array of potential prevention measures — from male circumcision to sophisticated vaginal or anal microbicide gels — more than 7,100 new people catch the virus every day. Treatment costs per patient can range from around $150 a year in poor countries, where drugs are available as cheap generics, to more than $20,000 a year in the United States. The overall sums are huge. A recent study as part of a non-governmental campaign called AIDS2031 suggests that low and middle-income countries will need $35 billion a year to properly address the pandemic by 2031. That’s almost three times the current level of around $13 billion a year. Add in the costs of treatment in rich countries and experts estimate the costs of HIV 20 years from now will reach $50 to $60 billion a year. “It’s clear that we have to look at another possible way of managing of the epidemic beyond just treating everyone forever,” says Sharon Lewin, a leading HIV doctor and researcher from Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. In some ways, we have been here before. Early AIDS drugs such as AZT came to market in the late 1980s, but within a decade they were overtaken by powerful cocktail treatments known as HAART, or highly active antiretroviral treatment. HAART had a dramatic effect — rapidly driving the virus out of patients’ blood and prompting some to say a cure was just around the corner. But then scientists discovered HIV could lie low in pools or reservoirs of latent infection that even powerful drugs could not reach. Talk of a cure all but died out. “Scientifically we had no means to say we were on the way to finding a cure,” says Bertrand Audoin, executive director of the Geneva-based International AIDS Society. “Scientists ... don’t want to make any more false promises. They didn’t want to talk about a cure again because it really wasn’t anywhere on the horizon.”   The ultimate goal would allow patients to stop taking AIDS drugs, knocking a hole in a $12 billion-a-year market dominated by Californian drugmaker Gilead and the likes of Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Merck. It’s unlikely to happen anytime soon, but Brown’s case has opened the door to new ideas. “What it proved was that if you make someone’s cells resistant to HIV...then all the last bits of HIV, that hang around for a long time in patients on treatment, did in fact decay and disappear,” says Lewin. Now scientists working on mimicking the effect of the Berlin patient’s transplant have had some success. One experimental technique uses gene therapy to take out certain cells, make them resistant to HIV and then put them back into patients in the hope they will survive and spread. At an HIV conference in Boston earlier this year, American researchers presented data on six patients who had large numbers of white blood cells known as CD4 cells removed, manipulated to knock out the existing CCR5 gene, and then replaced. “It works like scissors and cuts a piece of genetic information out of the DNA, and then closes the gap,” says Huetter. “Then every cell arising from this mother cell has this same mutation.”   Early results showed the mutated cells managed to survive inside the bodies of the patients at low levels, remaining present for more than three months in five. “This was a proof of concept,” says Lewin. Another potential avenue is a small group of patients known as “elite controllers”, who despite being infected with HIV are able to keep it under control simply with their own immune systems. Researchers hope these patients could one day be the clue to developing a successful HIV/AIDS vaccine or functional cure. Scientists are also exploring ways to “wake up” HIV cells and kill them. As discovered in the late 1990s, HIV has a way of getting deep into the immune system itself — into what are known as resting memory T-cells — and going to sleep there. Hidden away, it effectively avoids drugs and the body’s own immune response. “Once it goes to sleep in a cell it can stay there forever, which is really the main reason why we can’t cure HIV with current drugs,” says Lewin. Her team in Melbourne and another group in the United States are about to start the first human trials using a drug called SAHA or vorinostat, made by Merck and currently used in cancer treatment, which has shown promise in being able to wake up dormant HIV. As scientists begin to talk up a cure, the old question of whether that’s the right goal has re-emerged. Seth Berkley, a medical epidemiologist and head of the U.S.-based International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) is concerned. An HIV-positive person holds a placard during a programme organized to mark World AIDS Day in Kathmandu December 1, 2010. To match Special Report AIDS/ REUTERS/Deepa Shrestha “From a science point of view, it’s a fabulous thing to do. It’s a great target and a lot of science will be learned. But from a public health point of view, the primary thing you need to do is stop the flow of new infections,” says Berkley. “We need a prevention revolution. That is absolutely critical.”   Vuyiseka Dubula agrees. The South African activist finds talk of a cure for HIV distracting, almost disconcerting. “This research might not yield results soon, and even when it does, access to that cure is still going to be a big issue,” she says. “So in the meantime, while we don’t have the answer on whether HIV can be cured or not, we need to save lives.”

Ex Output:
Special Report: An end to AIDS?.


Ex Input:
"Washington and the nation were captivated a week ago by the controversy over Shirley Sherrod, a once-obscure U.S. Agriculture Department official who became a villain, and then a victim, over the course of 24 hours. Because the story began and ended so quickly, we were unable to fact-check it at the time, but here's a recap of what happened. Andrew Breitbart, a conservative provocateur, started things off July 19, 2010, when he posted a video on one of his websites, BigGovernment.com, that seemed to show Sherrod, who is black, telling an NAACP audience that she had discriminated against a white farmer. After conservative bloggers raised an outcry about Sherrod's apparent revelation, the NAACP moved to condemn Sherrod, and senior Agriculture Department officials quickly pressured Sherrod to resign. But within hours, it came out that the video had been selectively edited, and the uncut version made clear that Sherrod had actually been telling the story about the white farmer to explain how she had overcome her own prejudices. She ended up helping save the family's farm, and the farmer and his wife took to the airwaves to defend Sherrod. The Agriculture Department then reversed itself, with Secretary Tom Vilsack making a heartfelt apology and asking Sherrod to return to the department. Sherrod also received a personal call from President Barack Obama. This whirlwind of charges and counter-charges prompted a round of soul-searching by most of those involved in the episode, including those in government, advocacy groups, the blogosphere and the media. One question that quickly emerged was how culpable Fox News was. In the past, Fox news commentators have often beaten the drum on stories critical of Democrats, liberals and the Obama Administration, so to some who were sympathetic to Sherrod, Fox seemed like a plausible villain. They took as evidence a July 20, 2010, CNN interview with Sherrod, in which she explained how, while driving through Georgia, she was forced out by Cheryl Cook, the deputy undersecretary. When Cook called her cell phone, Sherrod recalled telling Cook, ""'Cheryl, I've got a three-and-a-half-hour ride to get into Athens.' She called me a second time, (saying,) 'Where are you now?' I said, 'I'm just going through Atlanta.' She called me again and I said, 'I'm at least 45 minutes to an hour from Athens. She said, 'Well, Shirley, they want you to pull over to the side of the road and do it (formally resign), because you're going to be on Glenn Beck tonight.'"" Beck, of course, is an outspoken conservative commentator with popular talk show on Fox. The question of Fox's role came up during the July 25, 2010, edition of ABC's This Week. Host Jake Tapper cited a commentary by Josh Marshall of the liberal website Talking Points Memo. ""Breitbart got a piece of video he knew nothing about and published it with a central claim that he either made up or made no attempt to verify,"" Tapper quoted Marshall as writing. ""To use terminology of infectious disease, Fox was the primary vector of this story. And to the best of my knowledge, there's been not only no disciplining of anyone in the newsroom, but as far as I can see, no retraction, apology, or even discussion of their primary role in an obvious smear. This is a journalistic felony, really, the worst kind of thing that journalists can ever do, a reality only compounded by the fact that they refuse to admit not only culpability but even that they did anything wrong."" For a reaction, Tapper turned to Stephen Hayes, a senior writer with the Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine, who was a member of the show's roundtable that week. ""Stephen, do you think that ... liberals are unfairly using this to try to discredit conservative journalists?"" Hayes responded, ""Yes, of course, they are. Look, the timeline doesn't work. I mean ... Howard Kurtz, at CNN and the Washington Post wrote that the timeline simply doesn't work. She actually resigned before or was forced to retire before anybody on Fox said a word about this."" We thought it would be worthwhile to check the transcripts and see whether it's correct that Sherrod ""actually resigned before or was forced to retire before anybody on Fox said a word about this."" The earliest on-air comment we could find came the toward the end of the 8 p.m. hour, during an airing of The O'Reilly Factor, a talk show hosted by pugnaciously conservative host Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly told viewers that ""speaking at an NAACP event in March, Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod was caught on tape saying something very disturbing. Seems a white farmer in Georgia had requested government assistance from Ms. Sherrod."" He then showed a clip of Sherrod saying, ""I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farmland. And here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So I didn't give him the full force of what I could do."" When the clip ended, O'Reilly said, ""Wow. Well, that is simply unacceptable. And Ms. Sherrod must resign immediately. The federal government cannot have skin color deciding any assistance. We are requesting an explanation from the agriculture secretary, Tom Vilsack, and will keep you posted. By the way, the full transcript of Ms. Sherrod's remarks is posted on BigGovernment.com."" While it's safe to assume that O'Reilly was unaware of Sherrod's ouster at the time he aired those comments -- why would he call for her ouster if it had already happened? -- his producers apparently found out as the segment was underway, because as O'Reilly was speaking, Fox aired an on-screen notice that said, ""Sec. Vilsack has accepted Sherrod's resignation."" A few minutes later, during the 9 p.m. hour of Fox, O'Reilly's fellow conservative host, Sean Hannity, began his show with an alert that Sherrod had resigned. So, based on the Fox transcripts as well as Sherrod's own account in the CNN interview, Hayes appears to be correct that Sherrod ""was forced to resign before anybody on Fox said a word about this."" Indeed, Howard Kurtz, the Washington Post's media critic, reported that ""after a news meeting Monday afternoon (July 19), an e-mail directive was sent to the news staff in which Fox Senior Vice President Michael Clemente said, 'Let's take our time and get the facts straight on this story. Can we get confirmation and comments from Sherrod before going on-air. Let's make sure we do this right.'"" But we think it's worth mentioning two additional points. First, it's clear from O'Reilly's on-air comment that at least one Fox commentator was preparing to make hay over the Sherrod controversy before she resigned -- it's just that the Agriculture Department beat Fox to the punch by ousting her first. If officials above Sherrod had spent more time reviewing her case instead of forcing her to the side of the road, O'Reilly at least, and possibly other Fox hosts, were ready to take up the call for her to be ousted. Second, Fox's television network may not have discussed Sherrod before she was ousted, but there's evidence that two of its web affiliates did mention the story. Media Matters for America -- a liberal group that tracks alleged media bias and regularly spars with both Fox and Breitbart -- located a FoxNews.com story posted around noon on July 19 that began, ""Days after the NAACP clashed with Tea Party members over allegations of racism, a video has surfaced showing an Agriculture Department official regaling an NAACP audience with a story about how she withheld help to a white farmer facing bankruptcy."" Media Matters wrote that FoxNews.com credited BigGovernment.com with posting the video, and added that ""FoxNews.com is seeking a response from both the NAACP and the USDA."" While Media Matters said that the article is no longer available on FoxNews.com, it provided a screenshot. Not long after that post went up at FoxNews.com, Media Matters said, Fox Nation -- an online community for news and commentary that's affiliated with Fox News -- posted the link to the Sherrod clip on BigGovernment.com under the headline, ""Caught on Tape: Obama Official Discriminates Against White Farmer."" All told, it seems clear to us that the USDA ousted Sherrod in order to forestall the possibility that commentators on Fox's cable channel would start calling for her resignation, not because Fox commentators had actually begun to do so. Still, two Fox web affiliates mentioned the controversy before Sherrod's ouster, and the fact that O'Reilly called for her resignation without knowing that she was already out of a job suggests that Fox was already beginning to pounce. On balance, these two caveats persuade us to drop Hayes' otherwise accurate statement that Shirley Sherrod ""was forced to resign before anybody on Fox said a word about this"" by a notch to ."

Ex Output:

"Shirley Sherrod ""was forced to resign before anybody on Fox said a word about this."