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: One new study found that heart attack survivors benefited from a medicine long used to treat gout. Several experimental drugs also showed early promise for interfering with heart-harmful genes without modifying the genes themselves — in one case, with treatment just twice a year. The research was featured at an American Heart Association conference ending Monday in Philadelphia. “There’s a lot of excitement” about the new gene-targeting medicines, especially because they seem to last so long, said Dr. Karol Watson, of the University of California, Los Angeles. Scientists have been exploring gene therapy — altering DNA — to attack the root cause of many diseases. The new drugs essentially accomplish the same thing without tampering with genes, said the University of Pennsylvania’s Dr. Daniel Rader, who has consulted for some makers of these drugs. The medicines work by silencing or blocking messages that genes give to cells to make proteins that can do harm, such as allowing cholesterol to accumulate. The first few of these “RNA-interference” drugs recently were approved for other conditions, and research is also targeting heart disease. Farthest along is inclisiran, tested in 1,561 people with heart disease from clogged arteries who still had high LDL, the bad form of cholesterol, despite taking standard drugs. They were given a shot of inclisiran or a dummy drug when they joined the study, three months later and then every six months. The drug lowered LDL by 56% without serious side effects. More testing will show whether it also lowers heart attacks and other problems, not just cholesterol. Inclisiran’s maker, The Medicines Company, plans to seek federal approval for it later this year. Two other RNA interference drugs aim at a different target — triglycerides, another fat in the blood that’s elevated in one quarter of Americans. Treatments include very low-fat diets, weight loss, fish oil and drugs, but doctors say more and better therapies are needed. Each RNA interference drug was tested at various doses in 40 people. A single shot lowered triglycerides by 30% to 67%, and the benefit lasted for at least four months. The studies were just intended to show safety; Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals is developing both drugs. Other research found new benefits from older drugs. AstraZeneca’s Farxiga, originally developed to treat diabetes, also lowered the risk of heart problems in heart failure patients who did not have diabetes. Among 2,605 of such patients treated for 18 months, about 9% of those on Farxiga had worsening heart failure or heart-related death versus nearly 13% of those not given the drug. That worked out to a 27% lower risk, without extra serious side effects. Surprising benefits also were seen in a Canadian study of the decades-old gout drug. The anti-inflammatory drug colchicine — sold as Colcrys, Mitigare and in generic form — was tested in 4,745 people who recently had a heart attack. After about two years, colchicine users had a 23% lower risk of suffering a new heart attack, heart-related death, stroke, cardiac arrest or urgent need for an artery-opening procedure compared with a group given dummy pills. The benefit came mostly from preventing strokes and artery-opening procedures, and some heart doctors would rather have seen more difference in heart attacks and deaths. Colchicine is being tested in several other studies, and more evidence is needed before using it routinely to lower heart risks, Dr. L. Kristin Newby of Duke University wrote in a commentary published with the study in the New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Donald Lloyd-Jones, a Northwestern University cardiologist and program chief for the heart conference, was more supportive. “When you have a safe drug that’s easily available, it’s going to be hard to hold this one back,” he said. ___ Marilynn Marchione can be followed on Twitter at http://twitter.com/MMarchioneAP ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Output: New, old drugs may offer fresh ways to fight heart disease.


Input: Consider Input: Even before the new figures, the official British death toll was the fifth-highest globally and a senior scientific adviser to the government has said the country risks becoming the worst-hit in Europe. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said 5,979 people in England had died by April 3 with COVID-19, the respiratory disease caused by the virus, mentioned on their death certificates - 15% more than numbers published by the health service. “I am not remotely surprised there would be an undercounting,” Bill Hanage, associate professor of epidemiology at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told Reuters. “The UK hospital death toll that you are seeing - the one on the news each night - is a composite of things that have been trickling in over a period of time. It is not an exact number and does not include the numbers dying in places such as nursing homes.”   The new numbers, which reflect both deaths caused primarily by COVID-19 and where it is mentioned as a factor, show how limited official data has been so far. Daily figures published by the health ministry record only COVID-19 deaths in hospitals. Public Health England Medical Director Yvonne Doyle said the government was working with the ONS to speed up the information. “We just need to be absolutely clear that the cause of death that is attributed is correct and that is what takes time on the death certificate to get right,” she said, adding the government hoped to produce more rapid data, preferably on a daily basis. Compared with the ONS figures, the daily hospital counts had understated the true death toll for England and Wales by 52% as of April 3, although this had narrowed from 70% a week earlier. Still, it raises the likelihood that the latest death toll for the UK as a whole - 12,107 as of April 13 - is in reality thousands higher when deaths outside hospitals are included. “These new figures ... clearly show the impact of COVID-19 for the first time,” said Martin Hibberd, professor of emerging infectious disease at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. London was hit particularly hard in the week to April 3, when the ONS said nearly half (46.6%) of deaths in the capital involved COVID-19. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who is now recuperating from COVID-19 complications that almost cost him his life, initially refrained from imposing the same stringent controls as other European leaders to counter the outbreak. But as projections showed 250,000 Britons could be lost to the virus, Johnson moved to shutter the world’s fifth-largest economy and told people to stay at home. “The UK response was fractured and it was too late, and allowed a large number of people to become infected who didn’t need to become infected,” said Hanage at Harvard. “This is the start of the pandemic, not the end, and people need to understand that.”  Hanage suggested a focus on testing, using new digital technologies to give targeted advice to the population, or even detecting the virus in sewage. Government scientists have said the United Kingdom will do well if it manages to keep the coronavirus death toll below 20,000. Italy has reported a death toll of more than 20,000. Including Wales, some 6,235 people had died by April 3, the ONS said. Separate data from Scotland last week showed 354 deaths involved COVID-19 as of April 5. In Northern Ireland, the toll stood at 79 as of April 3. Across England and Wales, deaths mentioning COVID-19 accounted for 21.2% of all deaths, compared with 4.8% in the previous week. The broader reading of total deaths showed that 16,387 people died in the week ending April 3 — the highest total since weekly death data started to be compiled in 2005.

Output: UK coronavirus death toll could be far higher than previously shown.


Input: Consider Input: An October 11 2019 Imgur repost of a Bernie Sanders tweet appeared alongside the caption “this is how you know he would fight for the people if he is elected our president”:That tweet read:It’s not coincidental that the top health care CEOs made $1.1 billion last year while 4 in 10 cancer patients lose their life savings due to treatment.Our system is designed to take money from sick people and put it in the pockets of rich executives.We need Medicare for All.The claim was originally tweeted by Sanders on October 10 2019, and it was accurately reflected by the screenshot. However, Sanders did not include a citation.A second portion of the tweet claimed that this was not an accident, but rather was an intentional transfer of wealth from individual Americans to those profiting from cancer treatment. That portion of the tweet was more opinion, making it more difficult to definitively fact-check.However, the first part, about four in ten cancer patients, was verifiable. An October 2018 press release for a study that appeared in the American Journal of Medicine explained:Researchers assessed how patients’ net worth and debt changed two and four years post-diagnosis. The study authors controlled for demographic and clinically related variables, economic factors, mortality, and cancer-specific characteristics. Across the population, the average patient saw a loss of $92,098. Financial insolvency extended to 38.2 percent after four or more years.An October 18 2018 Big Think item with the headline “42% of new cancer patients lose their life savings” reported:Of the 9.5 million cancer diagnoses studied between 2000–2012, researchers discovered that 42.4 percent of patients (median age 68.6±9.4 years) spent all of their money, averaging $92,098. This follows disturbing news from earlier this year that 40 percent of Americans can’t afford to pay $400 in case of an emergency. The math is not adding up.Insider.com reported that almost half of cancer patients went bankrupt due to treatment:After tracking 9.5 million cancer patients from 2000 to 2012, researchers also learned that 62% of all cancer patients are in debt because of their treatment, and 55% of them owe at least $10,000.Overall, the total medical costs for cancer are $80 billion in the US.That article noted that insurance was not a complete failsafe against financial disaster for people diagnosed with cancer:From high deductibles to large copayments, cancer patients can end up with a huge stack of bills.In addition, 40% to 85% of all cancer patients have to quit working while undergoing treatment, which creates a financial burden that can last for six months or longer.In the same month, Advisory.com featured a story with a similar headline: “42% of cancer patients their spent entire life savings in 2 years after diagnosis.” The article went on to note that researchers had estimated that patients’ average net worth “fell by $92,098 after two years and by $51,882 after four years.” The claim was also discussed on YCombinator, where one commenter detailed the experiences of a family member:I recently watched a family member go through this. A few things that were sobering to see:– Three weeks in she was buried in paperwork. One chemo treatment would turn into 4-5 invoices from different subcontractors at a single hospital, some covered by her insurance, others not covered. Her insurer denied claims arbitrarily and made her go through a bunch of invasive and unnecessary procedures to prove her illness.– Her insurer started calling her incessantly, insisting that she join some sort of program where they would “help” her make decisions about her care. It undermined the confidence she had in her doctors and the decisions she was trying to make, which is a terrible feeling for anyone to go through when they are sick with cancer and trying to survive.– There were a series of insurance “land mines” on the horizon – forget to renew this thing on this random date 2 months from now? You’ve lost your insurance.The whole healthcare and insurance system is a dark pattern, even for working adults who are fully covered.Many of the articles referenced the same aforementioned study, which was published in the American Journal of Medicine in October 2018. Titled “Death or Debt? National Estimates of Financial Toxicity in Persons with Newly-Diagnosed Cancer,” the research examined the financial effects on Americans undergoing cancer treatment:Across 9.5 million estimated new diagnoses of cancer from 2000–2012, individuals averaged 68.6±9.4 years with slight majorities being married (54.7%), not retired (51.1%), and Medicare beneficiaries (56.6%). At year+2, 42.4% depleted their entire life’s assets, with higher adjusted odds associated with worsening cancer, requirement of continued treatment, demographic and socioeconomic factors (ie, female, Medicaid, uninsured, retired, increasing age, income, and household size), and clinical characteristics (ie, current smoker, worse self-reported health, hypertension, diabetes, lung disease) (P<.05); average losses were $92,098. At year+4, financial insolvency extended to 38.2%, with several consistent socioeconomic, cancer-related, and clinical characteristics remaining significant predictors of complete asset depletion.That study began by referencing Breaking Bad, a popular drama about a mild-mannered teacher diagnosed with cancer who goes on to become a drug kingpin in order to finance his treatment:Breaking Bad is a critically acclaimed American television show about Walter White, who is diagnosed with lung cancer. Even though Walter worked two jobs and had health insurance, he still could not afford his medical care. To pay for his cancer treatment and to protect his family from financial burden, Walter illegally synthesized and sold methamphetamine. Although this is a fictional story, it highlights the reality of the economic burden of cancer in America.Numerous confounding factors are referenced in the study. Among them was the exclusion of cancer patients who do not recover, in which case the costs of end-of-life care are not tallied:Depending on cancer type and stage, costs range between 20-100k during the first year after diagnosis, but the average cost increases to over 60k at the end of life. This evidence suggests that terminally ill patients experience worse financial toxicity. Notably, [study authors] did not assess the financial toxicity experienced during end of life care because they omitted the ~30% of the cancer patients who died during the study. Consequently, the study does not examine the significant financial toxicity associated with fatal cancers.Differences made by the 2010 passage of the Affordable Care Act (also known as the ACA or Obamacare) did not seem to dramatically affect the findings, despite its passage during the years researchers examined in the study. The law is mentioned once, in the course of referencing various disenfranchised groups, although researchers noted that having insurance had a protective effect:Additionally, by relying on the HRS, Gilligan et al. were not able to comment on financial toxicity in disenfranchised groups, such as homeless or undocumented patients. Undocumented immigrants have the lowest rate of health insurance in America, thus increasing their risk of financial toxicity due to cancer. This is because they are not eligible for Affordable Care Act exchanges or Medicaid benefits. Undocumented immigrants can get health coverage through their employers, however most take low paying jobs that do not offer health insurance. Similarly, 60% of the homeless people in the U.S. are uninsured … Multiple reports, including the Gilligan et al. study, show that private insurance is protective against financial toxicity.Insurance also posed different risks to the insured patients whose data appeared in the study:Among patients enrolled in copayment assistance programs, 20% took less medication than prescribed, 19% filled half of their prescriptions, and 24% did not fill prescriptions. Over 7% of the patients in these programs delayed procedures, testing, chemotherapy or clinic visits.Finally, the study found that costs were increasing and that the myriad difficulties cited were likely to worsen:Unfortunately, direct medical costs are expected to increase by 40% for patients by 2020, thus exacerbating the financial burden of medical care for cancer patients in the United States.The key finding upheld Sanders’ tweet:[Researchers] reported that over 42% of patients fully depleted their assets and over 30% incurred debt (consumer, mortgage or home equity) by the second-year of their diagnosis.That 42 percent of patients in the study represented the four in ten cancer patients that Sanders referenced — although technically it might be more accurate to say 4.2 out of ten patients would “deplete their assets” (in other words, “lose their life savings”) to pay for the necessary treatments. Thirty percent of study participants incurred debt, and the study omitted the 30 percent of patients who did not recover and died — presumably patients who incurred end of life costs and who certainly became unable to financially contribute to their households. Sanders’ claim was based on peer-reviewed research published in a medical journal, not polling or broad estimates, a claim which was thus quite well-supported.


Output: Four in ten cancer patients lose their life savings after starting treatment.