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.
--------
Question: He’s not sure when the second-year starter will be healthy enough to be cleared to play. Allen was placed in the NFL’s concussion protocol after taking a helmet-to-helmet hit by Patriots defensive back Jonathan Jones in the opening minute of the fourth quarter of a 16-10 loss to New England on Sunday. Putting aside the three interceptions Allen threw, McDermott’s biggest question was why Jones wasn’t ejected. “There’s no room in football for that,” McDermott said. “I thought he should have been thrown out. But other than that, I’m not going to get into that. That’s for the league to get into.” The hit occurred when Allen scrambled out of the pocket and burst through a hole up the middle while facing third-and-8 at the New England 45. He gained 7 yards before Jones closed in on him, lowered his helmet and struck the quarterback in the crown of his helmet. Jones was flagged for a personal foul for unnecessary roughness. Allen lay on the field for several minutes before hopping up on his own. He was briefly evaluated on the sideline before being escorted up the tunnel. Allen was spotted in the locker room chatting with teammates following the game. NFL officiating chief Al Riveron told a pool reporter the decision to not eject Jones came because the hit did not rise to the level of the league standard for disqualification. “There was a foul called and obviously the penalty stood, but we did not feel this contact rose to that level,” Riveron said, who also noted Jones was turning his head just before hitting Allen. Bills safety Micah Hyde questioned the official’s judgment saying he or any of his teammates would have been ejected for a similar hit on New England’s Tom Brady. “That’s our quarterback. We ride or die with him,” Hyde said. “To see that happen, Josh didn’t slide, but at the end of the day it doesn’t matter if you’re a running back, you can’t head to the head.” Jones defended the hit saying it was never his intent to hurt Allen. “No malice or intent. Just a part of football,” Jones said. “We’re just running around playing football. I hope he’s OK. I’m going to check on him.” Allen finished going 13 of 28 for 153 yards, and scored on a 1-yard touchdown dive. Allen’s uncertain status leaves Buffalo with veteran backup Matt Barkley the only quarterback on the active roster in preparing to play at Tennessee next weekend. Buffalo then enters its bye week. The loss prevented Buffalo (3-1) from getting off to its first 4-0 start since 2008. Though the Bills defense held Brady in check, their offense was busy coughing up the ball at critical moments for the third time in four games. Allen threw three interceptions, two of which translated into a touchdown and a field goal. Punter Corey Bojorquez also had a punt blocked by J.C. Jackson, which led to Matthew Slater returning it 11 yards for a touchdown to put the Patriots up 13-0 in the first quarter. McDermott was unhappy with Allen’s continuing string of committing turnovers. He’s now thrown six interceptions and lost two fumbles in four starts this season. “He’s a young quarterback and sometimes they have to learn those lessons. Those are hard lessons and we have to continue to coach it up,” McDermott said. The game was decided on Buffalo’s fourth turnover with 1:27 left. Facing third-and-9 on the New England 39, Barkley was pressured by linebacker Kyle Van Noy, who got his hand on the quarterback’s chest. That forced Barkley to throw the ball up into the air, and have it easily picked off by Jamie Collins. The loss spoiled a stout effort by a Bills defense which limited the Patriots to just 11 first downs and 224 yards. Brady finished 18 of 39 for 150 yards and an interception. He was picked off by Hyde in the end zone on third-and-goal from the 2 in the second quarter. Brady’s 45.9 passer rating was the sixth lowest of his career and lowest since finishing with a 34 rating in a 27-20 loss to Indianapolis on Nov. 5, 2006. Barkley lamented how the Bills let the Patriots off the hook. “Especially with the way our defense played and where we had the ball at the end of the game, it’s tough,” Barkley said. “This is a tough one.” ___ More AP NFL: https://apnews.com/NFL and https://twitter.com/AP_NFL

Answer: Bills fall to Pats, and lose QB Josh Allen to head injury.


Question: "There’s a new sheriff in charge of the U.S. Senate, and he’s eager to show how he’s shaking up the law of the land. We’re talking, of course, about new Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who took over the Senate’s top slot after the midterm elections bounced Democrats from power. And in this new world, Republicans are touting an eye-catching factoid as evidence of a functional Senate, one they say runs on fairness and order under GOP control. ""Amazing fact: Senate has already voted on more amendments in 2015 than Reid allowed ALL YEAR last year,"" tweeted Phil Kerpen, opinion-writer and president of conservative 501(c)(4) American Commitment, on Jan. 22, 2015. Kerpen, formerly of Americans for Prosperity, the Club for Growth and the libertarian Cato Institute, told us he heard the statistic from McConnell himself. We wanted to know if it was true that the Senate has already allowed more votes on amendments in less than one month than all of 2014. And why? On Senate stoppage and filled ‘trees’ The simple answer on the number of votes is that Kerpen is correct. But the reason behind it varies depending on your particular political lens. A simple search of Senate roll call votes on amendments in 2014 and 2015 backs up Kerpen’s statement. In 2014, there were 15 roll call votes on amendments. As of Jan. 22, 2015, the date of Kerpen's tweet, there were 16 roll call votes on amendments. There have since been 17 more votes on amendments to the bill to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, which passed a week later but will likely face President Barack Obama’s veto pen. Kerpen came at the tally a different way, counting ""real"" votes on amendments, a distinction that also includes roll call votes on motions to table amendments, which effectively kills them. By his math, there were 16 votes allowed on amendments in 2014 and 26 so far in 2015. By either count, the numbers work. What changed? In 2014, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., relied on a funny-sounding procedure called ""filling the amendment tree."" Basically, Reid filled the docket allowed for amendments by adding amendments with inconsequential changes that no one else could override. The procedural tactic prevented Republican-sponsored amendments from being heard on the floor. ""He did that more than any of his predecessors,"" Donald Ritchie, Senate historian, told PunditFact. Reid wasn’t doing this just to be a not-so-nice guy. To Democrats, it was to counter Republican tactics. Unlike the House, the Senate does not have strict rules for the substance of amendments that can be attached to bills (i.e., you could add a health care amendment onto a defense spending bill). And that’s exactly what happened in years past. Republicans began introducing off-topic amendments that, for example, cut off U.S. aid to Egypt or, a favorite of Sen. David Vitter, R-La., to eliminate health care subsidies for Senate staffers. No matter what the topic of the bill. Sometimes this was in effort to force difficult votes for Democrats back home. To Republicans, Reid’s style of blocking amendments emulated an uncooperative and off-the-rails leadership style -- one that is tremendously well-documented -- that stymied policymaking. To Democrats, it was necessary to get anything accomplished. Republicans were filibustering votes on the underlying bills and not committing to a vote in exchange for allowing some amendments, said Steven S. Smith, a political science professor at Washington University in St. Louis. ""Reid saw they were filibustering everything, bringing the place to a standstill,"" Smith told us. ""So he wondered why he should give them votes at all."" Reid’s office does not dispute the number of votes on amendments, but they do take issue with what they deem an ""empty talking point"" that neglects Republican responsibility for the gridlock. His spokesman argues that Republicans blocked their own share of amendments by not compromising on potential amendments to be heard on the floor and refusing to come to an agreement about when a bill should come to a vote. ""(Reid) makes no apologies for blocking what we all consider to be extremely pointless political amendments that were just designed not to improve the bills we were working on but to run 30-second political ads against Democratic senators,"" said spokesman Adam Jentleson. ""Republicans are entirely culpable in that number being what it is."" Reid’s style of blocking amendments irritated Republicans, sure, but it also flared up during the 2014 midterms with Republicans using it to attack Democrats. The GOP pounced on Alaska Democratic incumbent Sen. Mark Begich, for instance, for his lack of roll-call votes on his amendments. McConnell, conversely, said he would allow open amendments on the Keystone XL bill, hence the GOP celebrating its ""new management"" style. As political experts told us to expect, there have already been clashes with McConnell’s methods a few days after the initial celebration. During the Keystone debate, Democrats objected to McConnell tabling Democratic amendments and not letting Democrats debate their amendments for a minute. Reid, perhaps ironically, tweeted, ""I've never seen debate shut down as aggressively as when Sen. McConnell refused to allow Dems to debate their own amendments for just 1 min. ... and that’s saying something."" What the experts tell us Bottom line, experts said, voters shouldn’t take the new tactics as evidence that McConnell’s ""return to normal order"" will give the Democrats an easy path to voting on the amendments of their choice. ""It’s not going to happen,"" said Roy Meyers, University of Maryland, Baltimore County affiliate professor of public policy. University of Kansas political science professor Burdett Loomis agreed, saying, ""The overall idea isn’t trivial (‘regular order’), but the exact number isn’t very significant, especially if McConnell, as expected, runs the Senate almost completely to the (Republicans’) advantage."" It’s too early to know whether we have a ""sea change"" of order on our hands in the Senate, said Sarah Binder, George Washington University political science professor. ""In other words, the intense partisanship of the Senate that led Sen. Reid to all-but shut down the amendment process last year has not dissipated,"" Binder said. ""I think the question going forward is whether McConnell can find a way to conduct the Senate such that senators from both parties believe their legislative needs are being met."" Our ruling Kerpen, among others, tweeted, ""Amazing fact: Senate has already voted on more amendments in 2015 than (Harry) Reid allowed ALL YEAR last year."" On the numbers, that is right. But experts cautioned us that the claim falls more in the interesting factoid category than a sign of a different or more cooperative Senate leadership. The statement is accurate but needs clarification and additional information. That meets our definition of . Correction: An earlier version of this fact-check incorrectly described Sen. David Vitter's amendment."

Answer: Amazing fact: Senate has already voted on more amendments in 2015 than Reid allowed ALL YEAR last year.


Question: While the story included a calculation that suggested that the intervention was as cost effective as strategies screening for elevated LDL, the story failed to indicate the actual cost to the consumer. Although the story mentioned the number of people in the two study groups who had heart-related death, heart attacks and other serious cardiac problems during the course of the study, it could have a done a better job at clarifying that this represented a small percentage of affected individuals. A more direct statement an juxtaposition of absolute versus relative risk reduction would have been helpful. The story indicated that there was an increased number of people taking Crestor who developed diabetes during the study. The story mentioned that the results of the study were presented at a recent meeting and that the results of the study had been published. It described that the study population was a group of 17,802 individuals, all of whom had elevated levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and that it was a randomized study of individuals given 20 mg of rosuvastin (Crestor) compared with a placebo group. The story did temper the enthusiasm for more testing and more treatment by including skeptical comments from editorial writer Hlatky. The story included comments from several individuals who were not involved in the study and provided some cautionary perspective about the implications of the study. And while this piece relied heavily on comments from Dr. Ridker, the story did mention that he was an inventor of the test for CRP was also the recipient of funding from the manufacturer of the study drug. The two main issues in the study reported on was the use of CRP to identify candidates who could benefit from lipid lowering  and then the use of Crestor to lower lipids in these individuals to lower cardiovascular disease risk. In terms of treatment options,the story indicated the uncertainty about whether the outcomes observed were the result of the specific drug study or could be obtained with the use of any in the statin class of drugs. It also mentioned that the reduction in CRP was not associated with the decrease in LDL levels seen in the study participants. There was no discussion, however, about what, if any, other means for lowering CRP were available. The story did mention that there was little known about what the long term impact of maintaining very low levels of LDL cholesterol. From the story, it was clear that Crestor, the medication reported on, was currently available. In addition, the story indicated that it did not have FDA approval for use in the way it was employed in the study. The story reported that the study indicated a new target population for a medication that was currently approved for use. However, the story failed to note that other studies (e.g. AFCAPS) have found benefit from lipid lowering in patients with no history of heart disease and non-elevated LDL levels, using the statin lovastatin, a drug with is now available as generic. The reductions reported were somewhat smaller, but not radically different. Does not rely exclusively on a press release.

Answer:
Cholesterol Drug Cuts Heart Risk in Healthy Patients