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:
She’s disappointed not to have been able to claim ultimate victory in the battle against the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) that causes the killer disease AIDS, but also proud that in three decades, the virus has been beaten into check. While a cure for AIDS may or may not be found in her lifetime, the 68-year-old says, achieving “remission” - where infected patients control HIV in their bodies and, crucially, can come off treatment for years - is definitely within reach. “I am personally convinced that remission...is achievable. When? I don’t know. But it is feasible,” she told Reuters at her laboratory at Paris’s Pasteur Institute, where she and her mentor Luc Montagnier discovered HIV in 1983. “We have ‘proof of concept’. We have...the famous Visconti patients, treated very early on. Now it is more than 10 years since they stopped their treatment and they are still doing very well, most of them.”   Sinoussi is referring to a study group of 14 French patients known as the Visconti cohort, who started on antiretroviral treatment within 10 weeks of being infected and stayed on it for an average of three years. A decade after stopping the drugs, the majority have levels of HIV so low they are undetectable. These and other isolated cases of remission, or so-called “functional cure”, give hope to the 37 million people worldwide who, due to scientific progress, should now be able to live with, not have their lives cut short by, HIV. In developed countries at least - and in many poorer ones too - an HIV positive diagnosis is no longer an immediate death sentence, since patients can enjoy long, productive lives in decent health by taking antiretroviral drugs to control the virus. It’s a long way from the early 1980s, when Sinoussi remembers sick, dying HIV-positive patients coming to the doors of the Pasteur and pleading with scientists there for answers. “They asked us: ‘What we are going to do to cure us’,” she says. At that time, she says, she knew relatively little about HIV, but what she was sure of was that these patients would never live long enough to see a treatment developed, let alone a cure. “It was very, very hard.”  Yet this interaction with real patients, and with their doctors and later their advocates, gave Sinoussi an important insight into what was needed to make her life in science one with meaning and impact — collaboration. Working across barriers - be they scientific disciplines, cultural, religious and political divides, international borders or gender distinctions, has been and remains Sinoussi’s driving force. In her earliest days, feeling disengaged while working on her PhD and itching for action in a real-life laboratory, she hustled her way in to working at the male-dominated Pasteur Institute for free with a virologist researching links between cancers and retroviruses in mice. While viruses are her thing, she has throughout her career worked with, cajoled and learned from immunologists, cancer specialists, experts in diseases of aging, pharmaceutical companies, AIDS patients, campaigners, and even the pope. “When you work in HIV, it’s not only working in HIV, it’s working far, far beyond,” she said. Freshly armed with her Nobel award and fired up about a lack of support for proven methods of preventing HIV’s spread, Sinoussi wrote an open letter to then-Pope Benedict XVI in 2009 criticising him for saying that condoms can promote the spread of AIDS. In what was widely seen as a modification of his stance in response to such criticism, Benedict said in a book a year later that use of condoms could sometimes be justified in certain limited cases as a way to fight AIDS. Sinoussi says: “HIV has shown the way to go in the field of science. You can’t be isolated in your laboratory. You need to work with others.”  And this, she adds, is the “all together” spirit with which she advises her successors to continue after she’s gone. Many will be sad to see her leave, but she has faith that her chosen field will deliver for the people who need it. “Of course, I would love to have stopped and to see we had a vaccine against HIV and another treatment that could induce remission – but that’s life. I encourage the new generation of scientists today to continue our work. “Science never stops,” she says. “Just because a scientist stops, the science should not stop.”

Ex Output:
Science won't stop until it beats AIDS, says HIV pioneer.


Ex Input:
"The story says that the average copayment for a month’s supply of some of the topical NSAID medications is around $30. It would have been nice to include the cost of comparable oral medications. Although the story explains the available evidence comparing topical NSAIDs to oral pain relievers, highlights the limited number of direct comparisons, and carefully states the general consensus of experts, all of this solid reporting is undermined by a focus on personal anecdotal evidence over quantifiable benefits. Indeed, the reporter claims one medication provided immediate relief, a statement at odds with clinical trials that conclude that it usually takes hours for patients to feel the pain-relief effects of topical NSAIDs. The story summarizes the reported side effects of topical NSAIDS. What’s more, the reporter points out that the potential risks in people who have other health problems or are taking other drugs have not been well studied. That insight is something we see too rarely. The story refers to a number of clinical trials and systematic reviews of the evidence. It highlights areas where evidence is lacking or inconclusive. It would have been helpful to point out that in placebo-controlled trials, almost as many people who received the placebo reported pain relief as did those who got the active medication. The story could have mentioned that the systematic review it referred to was published by the Cochrane Collaboration and also the sources of the other clinical trial reports, so that interested readers could more easily locate the original articles. The story does not exaggerate the common pains these drugs are intended to treat, but the personal anecdotes and opinions highlighted at the beginning and ending of the story are unrepresentative of the typical experiences reported by participants in clinical trials and create a powerful impression that is at odds with the evidence. The story includes quotes from several experts and points out that two of them have accepted consulting fees or research support from pharmaceutical companies. The essence of this story is an attempt to compare topical NSAIDs with pills and other pain treatments. As noted above, though, the story does not mention that most people with minor pains feel better after awhile even if they don’t take any pain relief medication. It also should have mentioned that the difference between placebo and active treatment groups in the clinical trials is often slim. The story reports that only three topical NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) are approved for sale with a prescription in the United States, while several brands are sold over the counter in Europe. Part of the focus of the story is that NSAIDS have been around for a long time but only recently are being given a more serious scientific reassessment. As the story says, ""But a number of new controlled trials and meta-analyses like Dr. Moore’s suggest that topical Nsaids are as effective as their oral counterparts for treating osteoarthritis in the knee and hand as well as musculoskeletal injuries like soreness and tendinitis."" The story includes several experts and mentions multiple studies."

Ex Output:
Topical Gel Catches Up With Pills for Relief


Ex Input:
The cost of treatment is provided in a side bar: raloxifene is about $75 for a month’s supply, while tamoxifen is about $100. Story notes that medication is taken daily for 5 years. Provides relative risk reduction of chemoprevention with hormone therapy for high-risk women, however, no absolute risk reduction provided. No quantitative risks mentioned for taking hormone therapy for chemoprevention. Incomplete discussion of reduced rate of side effects in raloxifene group. Mentions harms of hormone therapy, such as an increased risk of blood clots and uterine cancers. Notes that there were “fewer side effects” (i.e. blood clots and uterine cancers) in the raloxifene group, but does not mention that the difference in side effects was not statistically significant for uterine cancer and blood clots. This information was not readily available on the National Cancer Institute (NCI) website or in reports of the study, the story presents caveats on the drugs. Mentions reduction in the risk of cataracts with raloxifene, which was statistically significant. Does mention that raloxifene, like tamoxifen, has bothersome side effects such as hot flashes and vaginal discharge, which are reported as comparable and mild to moderate in the NCI press release of the initial results of this trial. The story discusses study design and notes that results have not yet been peer-reviewed in a medical journal. Story also notes that tamoxifen protects women from DCIS (ductal carcinoma in situ) and LCIS (lobular carcinoma in situ) better than raloxifene. However, no quantitative evidence is presented on benefits or side effects of either drug, and no mention that the study was unblinded early. Chemoprevention is for a small number of women and tamoxifen should only be offered to women with a 5-year projected risk for breast cancer of 1.6% in order to reduce their risk. The side bar is helpful, providing a clearer understanding of who might be at higher risk. Also, this medication is for women with estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer. This article does a good job of explaining that this drug is only for postmenopausal women with a greater chance of malignancy and the benefit of the drug must be weighed against the health risks for each woman. This study was partially funded by Eli Lilly and AstraZenaca, makers of Evista and tamoxifen, though this is not mentioned. There is also no mention of whether the breast cancer expert cited from the American Cancer Society has financial ties with these drug companies. The story does mention another chemoprevention hormone drug, tamoxifen. It also mentioned aromatase inhibitors as options being investigated for chemoprevention. Does not mention need for mammograms (screening as early detection shown to improve outcomes) in post-menopausal women at a higher risk of breast cancer. It should be noted that the results presented in this story are initial findings after 4 years of raloxifene. Tamoxifen is usually taken for 5 years and there is much more long-term clinical data on safety and efficacy for this drug. The study was unblinded early due to the improved side effect profile for raloxifene, which was not statistically significant. The story mentions that raloxifene is currently available for use in post-menopausal women to prevent osteoporosis and that use in chemoprevention has only been in clinical trials–more data is needed prior to FDA approval for use as chemoprevention. Use as chemoprevention would be off-label and only women with an increased risk of breast cancer. Notes that use of raloxifene (Evista) as chemoprevention is new. Evista is already approved to prevent osteoporosis. Does not appear to be directly from a press release and there is a link for more information on study at NCI website. Breast cancer experts not affiliated with the NCI trial provide perspective in interpreting the results.

Ex Output:

A Better Option? A trial of cancer drugs yields a surprise–and questions