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.

Input: Consider Input: U.S. scientists said the infection in a 49-year-old Pennsylvania woman “heralds the emergence of truly pan-drug resistant bacteria” because it could not be controlled even by colistin, an antibiotic reserved for “nightmare” bugs. In Japan, British Prime Minister David Cameron said leading countries needed to tackle resistance by reducing the use of antibiotics and rewarding drug companies for developing new medicines. “In too many cases antibiotics have stopped working. That means people are dying of simple infections or conditions like TB (tuberculosis), tetanus, sepsis, infections that should not mean a death sentence,” he told a news conference at a summit in Japan. “If we do nothing about this there will be a cumulative hit to the world economy of $100 trillion and it is potentially the end of modern medicine as we know it.”  A review commissioned by the British government and published last week said a reward of between $1 billion and $1.5 billion should be paid for any successful new antimicrobial medicine brought to market. If the problem is not brought under control, antimicrobial resistance could kill an extra 10 million people a year by 2050, the review warned. The U.S. case is a further wake-up call for the world, although it is not the first time that colistin resistance has appeared. Medics around were alarmed last year by the discovery in China of a new gene that makes bacteria highly resistant to the medicine. Since then, the deadly strain has also been detected in Europe and Canada. The development of colistin resistance is linked to the drug’s widespread use in livestock and the European Medicines Agency on Thursday called for a 65 percent cut in the amount of the medicine used in farming. “The more we look at drug resistance, the more concerned we are,” Thomas Frieden, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told reporters in Washington. “The medicine cabinet is empty for some patients. It is the end of the road for antibiotics unless we act urgently.”  The problem is aggravated by drugmakers’ reluctance to invest in developing new antibiotics, preferring to focus on more profitable disease areas, although recently there has been some increase in investment, prompted by the superbug threat. In January, 83 companies, including Pfizer (PFE.N), Merck & Co (MRK.N), Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N) and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK.L), signed a declaration urging governments to support work on new antibiotics.

Output: G7 told to act on antibiotics as dreaded superbug hits U.S.


Input: Consider Input: "In a Dec. 15, 2015, interview with actress and writer Lena Dunham in Lenny Letter, Dunham’s feminist email newsletter, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards discussed testifying to Congress, running Planned Parenthood in the wake of the shooting in Colorado Springs and her experiences fighting for reproductive rights. Their conversation came as Republicans in Congress continued to seek an end to any federal aid to Planned Parenthood in the same year videos released by an anti-abortion group purported to show Planned Parenthood officials discussing the use of fetal tissue in medical research. Federal funding to Planned Parenthood does not go toward abortions and is instead used to fund the organization’s other services, such as sexually transmitted disease testing and treatment, mammograms and contraceptive services. In the interview, Dunham asked Richards about changes in the politics of abortion rights over Richards’ nine years as president of Planned Parenthood. Richards, eldest daughter to Ann Richards, the late former Texas governor, replied by mentioning the partisan realignment of legislatures in 2010, which mostly benefited Republicans, and the Republican Party’s national shift to the right. ""But if you look at the people in this country,"" Richards continued, ""they are supportive of safe and legal abortion. They support Planned Parenthood. I was just looking at the recent numbers. More than 60 percent of people in America support Planned Parenthood, and only 11 percent approve of Congress."" Those numbers, Richards said, show that ""just because the politics are going one way, it’s not because that’s where the people are."" Where the people are is a pretty broad assessment. We focused on whether Richards was right about the relative popularity of Planned Parenthood and unpopularity of Congress. Congressional approval Congress hasn’t been widely admired very often. As we noted in a December 2014 story, the Gallup polling organization started inquiring into attitudes toward Congress in 1974. Its results show Congress never proving very popular, except after the 9/11 attacks, when there was a spike to 84 percent of respondents approving of the job Congress was doing. The most recent Gallup poll available at the time of Richards’ interview placed public approval of Congress at 11 percent. (After that, according to Gallup, support edged up to 13 percent.) The poll, conducted from Nov. 4 to Nov. 8, 2015, asked respondents, ""Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job?"" A whopping 86 percent disapproved, and 3 percent had no opinion. Eleven percent approval was a low point for Congress in 2015. Twenty percent approved of Congress in February 2015, and 19 percent approved in May 2015. Approval of Congress declined starting in May 2015, reaching 14 percent in August 2015 and 13 percent in October 2015, before hitting 11 percent the next month. A poll released Dec. 3, 1015, by Rasmussen Reports placed public support for Congress even lower: 9 percent of likely voters said Congress was doing a good or excellent job according to Rasmussen’s methodology, which in 2015 often returned lower favorability numbers than Gallup’s polls. Support for Planned Parenthood funding In reviewing the other end of Richards’ claim, we recognized two ways to gauge ""support"" for Planned Parenthood. Polls in 2015 inquired into U.S. attitudes about ending federal aid to the group and about general feelings about the group which, we’ve noted, provides family planning and other women’s health services, including abortions. Planned Parenthood, asked for the factual backup to Richards’ statement, pointed us to several surveys showing support for the group itself and support for its funding as well as opposition to shutting down the government rather than continuing its aid. An Oct. 14, 2015, PolitiFact Wisconsin fact-check found True this September 2015 claim by Wisconsin Democrat Gwen Moore: ""60 percent of all Americans do not want to see Planned Parenthood defunded."" Three September 2015 surveys--similarly cited by Planned Parenthood when we made our recent inquiry--seemed to back Moore’s claim: • A NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll of adults asked: ""Would you favor or oppose totally eliminating federal funding to Planned Parenthood for family planning and preventative health services?"" Sixty-one percent of respondents opposed eliminating federal funding to Planned Parenthood. • A USA Today/Suffolk University poll of likely voters asked: ""Do you think all federal funding for Planned Parenthood should be cut off: yes or no?"" Sixty-five percent said no. A similar poll conducted in December 2015 saw that number down slightly at 58 percent. • A Pew Research Center poll tied Planned Parenthood funding to a possible government shutdown in its question but got a similar result: 60 percent of adults said any federal budget agreement to avert a government shutdown would have to maintain funding for Planned Parenthood. Another survey, however, did find support for eliminating Planned Parenthood’s funding. Released Dec. 2, 2015, the poll from the Robert Morris University Polling Institute found that 53.3 percent of respondents supported defunding Planned Parenthood, and 31.5 percent opposed it. The RMU polling institute speculated in its news release that the starkly different response stemmed from the wording used in the polling question. The RMU poll asked respondents: ""Congressional Republicans favor shifting Planned Parenthood federal funds to community clinics that perform the same services, but do not perform abortions. Would you say you support or oppose this plan?"" Other polls generally asked a version of the question, ""Do you think all federal funding to Planned Parenthood should be cut off?"" without mentioning clinics, services, or abortions. The RMU poll stood alone in finding support for defunding Planned Parenthood. Support for Planned Parenthood Survey questions asking directly about support for Planned Parenthood in itself — rather than its government backing — had positive responses, at lower numbers than the 60 percent mark. These polls all asked a version of the simple question, ""Is your opinion of Planned Parenthood favorable or unfavorable?"" An Oct. 6, 2015, poll by Rasmussen Reports, which Planned Parenthood also shared with us, found that 53 percent of likely voters had a favorable opinion of Planned Parenthood, with a margin of error of 3 percent. A Bloomberg National Poll in November 2015 got 50 percent favorability for the organization, with the same margin of error. A Sept. 28, 2015, poll from Quinnipiac University delivered lower numbers: it found that 44 percent of Americans had a favorable opinion of Planned Parenthood, compared with 39 percent unfavorable, with a 2.5 percent margin of error. The lowest favorability ratings came from a September 2015 CBS News/New York Times poll, which found 40 percent in favor and 27 percent not in favor. Thirty-one percent in that poll said they did not know enough to answer the question. By email, Planned Parenthood media relations assistant Claire Barnes pointed to an Aug. 5, 2015, NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll that put Planned Parenthood’s favorability ratings in context. The poll found Planned Parenthood’s 45 percent favorability rating was higher than favorability ratings for the NRA, the Supreme Court, Bernie Sanders, President Barack Obama and several Republican presidential candidates included in the survey. Our ruling Richards said that more than 60 percent of people in America support Planned Parenthood, and only 11 percent approve of Congress. Richards had a bead on Congress, which was wallowing in 11-percent approval territory in November 2015. In addition, most polls suggested more than 60 percent of Americans opposed the federal defunding of Planned Parenthood. Still, there’s clarification missing. While more people look favorably on Planned Parenthood than not, polls indicated, that was the opinion of 40 percent to 53 percent of Americans--not more than 60 percent. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information."

Output: More than 60 percent of people in America support Planned Parenthood and only 11 percent approve of Congress.


Input: Consider Input: Using the lead researcher as a source, the article states that most insurers cover oxybutynin; that a month’s supply can range from $21 to $42; and that the cost could be less, depending on the type of insurance a patient has. Kudos to HealthDay for explicitly addressing cost. The article reports that the study found the women on oxybutynin had an average of five fewer hot flashes per week, while those on the placebo had three fewer. It’s not clear if the benefit was the same for both doses. The story explains that this was from a group 150 women who experienced at least 28 hot flashes a week. This is enough information to glean the magnitude of benefit. But, the story could have used more context: The drug resulted in five fewer hot flashes a week. That’s not even one less hot flash per day. And those on the placebo, which costs nothing and has no side effects, has three fewer hot flashes a week. That’s a difference of two hot flashes a week–which seems like a really low bar. The article says that side effects included constipation, mild diarrhea, dry mouth, dry eyes, episodes of confusion and difficulty urinating. It’s not noted if these side effects were seen in both the low-dose and high-dose groups. There is also no indication of which side effects were most common or how many women experienced them. Importantly, though, the article does note that the long-term effects of the drug aren’t known and that oxybutynin is in a class of drugs that “have been linked with mental decline” and that previous studies have found “the drugs may raise the risk for problems with short-term memory, reasoning and confusion, and may also hike the risk for dementia among older patients.” Information on ClincalTrials.gov about the trial suggests this study evaluated two doses in an effort to find an effective dose with fewer side effects. The concluding paragraph of the article states that the study was scheduled to be presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium and that “studies presented at meetings are usually considered preliminary until peer-reviewed for publication in a medical journal.” It’s important to note this. But the wording also indicates that the article was written before the presentation was even given and the the reporter never saw the researcher’s data or slides or heard any questions the audience may have asked regarding the findings. It’s indisputable that many women going through menopause experience hot flashes and that side effects of many breast cancer treatments include hot flashes, in some cases because the treatment puts a woman into immediate menopause. They result from fluctuations in women’s hormones. The article quotes Dr. Alice Police, regional director of breast surgery at the Northwell Health Cancer Institute in Sleepy Hollow, NY, who was not affiliated with the study. We did not detect any conflicts of interest that should have been disclosed. The article makes it sound like the only option for treating hot flashes is menopausal hormone therapy. But, in fact, there are other ways to treat hot flashes that are currently recommended. These include drugs used for other purposes as well as non-drug options like mind-body approaches. The article states that the drug, which is approved to treat incontinence, is readily available. This is the first time that a drug is this class has been shown to have an effect on hot flashes, and so is newsworthy for this reason. That could have been more explicit in the story, though. The article included original comments not found in the news release.


Output: Incontinence Drug May Cut Hot Flashes in Breast Cancer Survivors