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.

[Q]: While the story does describe the cost of stenting, it does not provide the cost of the medication for comparison. The story does give the rate of heart attack or death as 19% within 7 years for both the stent and the medication group. Although the study mentions the risk of clotting with drug-coated stents, this is not adequate information on harms. Furthermore, the study does not mention any possible harms of medication. The story adequately describes the design of the current study. The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of heart disease. Furthermore, the story clearly states that this study was done on patients at low risk, that is, those with stable heart disease. The story only quotes one cardiologist not associated with the study and gives no rationale for why he was chosen. (Is it because he's in New York and readily available?) The story could have quoted other clinicians or experts who could have provided some valuable perspective on the impact of this new development on the management of heart disease. The story does mention medication as the alternative to stenting. The story clearly states that stenting is very common in the U.S. The story clearly states that stenting is not a new idea. Because the story quotes the lead author of the study and one physician who is not related to the study, the reader can assume the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
[A]: Heart study: Most angioplasties not needed


[Q]: The researchers who conducted the review said their findings suggest most people can eat red and processed meat at current average intake, typically three or four times a week for adults in North America and Europe, without significant health risks. “Based on the research, we cannot say with any certainty that eating red or processed meat causes cancer, diabetes or heart disease,” said Bradley Johnston, an associate professor at Dalhousie University in Canada who co-led the review published on Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine journal. However, in what amounts to a scientific food fight, experts from Harvard, Yale, Stanford and elsewhere, including one of the review authors, said guidelines that could lead people to eat more red and processed meats were irresponsible. They asked in a letter to the journal that it “pre-emptively retract publication” of the papers pending further review. A statement by the Harvard School of Public Health, shared with Reuters by Frank Hu, a doctor and chair of the nutrition department, said: “From a public health point of view, it is irresponsible and unethical to issue dietary guidelines that are tantamount to promoting meat consumption, even if there is still some uncertainty about the strength of the evidence.”  The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) both say red and processed meat may or can cause cancer. The WCRF advises eating “little, if any” processed meat and only “moderate amounts” of red meat, such as beef, pork and lamb - with a weekly limit of 500 grams (17.6 ounces) cooked weight. Giota Mitrou, the WCRF’s director of research, said people should not misinterpret the review as saying meat is risk-free. “The public could be put at risk if they interpret this new recommendation to mean we can continue eating as much red and processed meat as they like without increasing their risk of cancer,” she said. “This is not the case.”          In the analysis published on Monday, researchers from Canada, Spain and Poland conducted a series of reviews of both randomized controlled trials and observational studies looking at the possible health impact of eating red and processed meat. Among the randomised trials they selected for analysis, which included around 54,000 people, they found no statistically significant link between eating meat and the risk of heart disease, diabetes, or cancer. Among the observational studies, which covered millions of people, they did find “a very small reduction in risk” in those who ate three fewer servings of red or processed meat a week, but said this association “was very uncertain.”  “Our bottom line recommendation ... is that for the majority of people, but not everyone, continuing their red and processed meat consumption is the best approach,” Johnston said. David Katz, director of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center at the Yale University School of Medicine, said he had “grave concerns” about the potential of the new review “for damage to public understanding, and public health”. But other experts said the work was a comprehensive, well-conducted analysis of the available evidence on eating meat and human health. “This study will, I hope, help to eliminate the incorrect impression ... that some meat products are as carcinogenic as cigarette smoke, and to discourage dramatic media headlines claiming that ‘bacon is killing us’,” said Ian Johnson, a nutrition expert at Britain’s Quadram Institute of bioscience. Christine Laine, editor in chief of Annals of Internal Medicine, noted that nutrition studies are challenging. “To be honest with our patients and the public, we shouldn’t be making recommendations that sound like they’re based on solid evidence,” she said. “There may be lots of reasons to decrease meat in your diet, but if you’re decreasing it to improve your health, we don’t have a lot of strong evidence to support that.”
[A]: Steak is back on the menu, if a new red meat risk review is to be believed.


[Q]: On March 6 2020, an Imgur post with the title “Thank god for unions, but damn” appeared, purportedly showing a statement “by a quarantined nurse from a northern California Kaiser facility”:The statement was dated March 5 2020, and the text in the image read:As a nurse, I’m very concerned that not enough is being done to stop the spread of the coronavirus. I know because I am currently sick and in quarantine after caring for a patient who tested positive. I’m awaiting “permission” from the federal government to allow for my testing, even after my physician and county health professional ordered it.I volunteered to be on the care team for this patient, who we knew was positive. I did this because I had all the recommended protective gear and training from my employer. I did this assuming that if something happened to me, of course I too would be cared for. Then, what was a small concern after a few days of caring for this patient, became my reality:I started getting sick.When employee health told me that my fever and other symptoms fit the criteria for potential coronavirus, I was put on a 14-day self-quarantine. Since the criteria was met, the testing would be done. My doctor ordered the test through the county.The public county officer called me and verified my symptoms and agreed with testing. But the National CDC would not initiate testing. They said they would not test me because if I were wearing the recommended protective equipment, then I wouldn’t have the coronavirus.What kind of science-based answer is that? What a ridiculous and uneducated response from the department that is in charge of our health in this country.Later, they called back, and now it’s an issue with something called the “identifier number.” They claim they prioritize running samples by illness severity and that there are only so many to give out each day. So I have to wait in line to find out the results.This is not the ticket dispenser at the deli counter; it’s a public health emergency! I am a registered nurse, and I need to know if I am positive before going back to caring for patients.I am appalled at the level of bureaucracy that’s preventing nurses from getting tested. That is a health care decision my doctor and my county health department agree with. Delaying this test puts the whole community at risk.I have the backing of my union. Nurses aren’t going to stand by and let this testing delay continue; we are going to stand together to make sure we can protect our patients—by being protected ourselves.Claims made in the letter were not uncommon in late February and early March 2020 reporting on the novel coronavirus strain (COVID-19), the public health response protocols, and a shortage of tests. On March 6 2020, NPR reported limited ability to test for COVID-19 in at least six states:More laboratories around the U.S. are finally gaining the ability to test for the coronavirus disease, after what Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, calls “missteps” in the federal government’s plan to create, produce and distribute tests.Six U.S. states — Alabama, Maine, Ohio, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Wyoming — currently have no labs with the verified ability to run COVID-19 diagnostic tests, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on Thursday afternoon.“We’re not there yet, but soon,” Fauci said of the effort to make testing more widely available.As NPR’s Allison Aubrey reports, “Some academic hospitals are developing their own tests and commercial options are expanding really quickly.” The results, she adds, “can take three or four days” before they’re reported to local health officials and the CDC … Vice President Pence acknowledged a shortage of tests on [March 5 2020], saying, “We don’t have enough tests today to meet what we anticipate will be the demand going forward.”A March 6 2020 article published by The Atlantic also focused on insufficient availability of tests for COVID-19 across the United States. Former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Thomas Frieden compared the CDC’s testing response to COVID-19 with that of previous outbreaks:On [March 2 2020], Stephen Hahn, the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, estimated that “by [March 6 2020], close to a million tests will be able to be performed” in the United States. On [March 4 2020], Vice President Mike Pence promised that “roughly 1.5 million tests” would be available [that] week.But the number of tests performed across the country has fallen far short of those projections, despite extraordinarily high demand, The Atlantic has found.“The CDC got this right with H1N1 and Zika, and produced huge quantities of test kits that went around the country,” Thomas Frieden, the director of the CDC from 2009 to 2017, told us. “I don’t know what went wrong this time.”Testing-related coronavirus news and rumors were themselves endemic in the first week of March 2020, with one thread on Twitter about the subject of COVID-19 tests in Seattle spreading virally. We also examined claims that the CDC removed figures to do with testing from their website between March 1 and 2 2020 — which the agency did.According to The Atlantic, discerning how many Americans had been tested for the novel coronavirus strain was not a straightforward undertaking. However, the report managed to verify that only a few thousand Americans had been tested for coronavirus. At the time the information was removed from the CDC’s site, that number was just under 500:Through interviews with dozens of public-health officials and a survey of local data from across the country, The Atlantic could only verify that 1,895 people have been tested for the coronavirus in the United States, about 10 percent of whom have tested positive. And while the American capacity to test for the coronavirus has ramped up significantly over the past few days, local officials can still test only several thousand people a day, not the tens or hundreds of thousands indicated by the White House’s promises.To arrive at our estimate, we contacted the public-health departments of all 50 states and the District of Columbia. We gathered data on websites, and we corresponded with dozens of state officials. All 50 states and D.C. have made some information available, though the quality and timeliness of the data varied widely. Some states have only committed to releasing their numbers once or three times a week. Most are focused on the number of confirmed cases; only a few have publicized the number of people they are capable of testing.By and large, news stories about COVID-19 testing strongly suggested that states were profoundly underprepared to test individuals exposed to or exhibiting symptoms of the novel coronavirus strain, a claim echoed in the statement reproduced above.As for the statement purportedly made by a quarantined California nurse exposed to and exhibiting symptoms of COVID-19, it was correctly attributed. A March 4 2020 press release on NationalNursesUnited.org announced a press conference the following day, March 5 2020. The document was available verbatim on their site as a PDF, also titled “Statement by a quarantined nurse from a northern California Kaiser facility.” In the release, the organization urged the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to step in, asserting that data showed that “hospitals are unprepared [and] confirm little planning, poor communication, and shortage of equipment” around the COVID-19 outbreak.
[A]:
A statement issued by a quarantined nurse in California describes what they believe are insufficient testing protocols.