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.

Example Input: This release makes no mention of the costs of the drugs compared in this study, even though the drugs have been in use for years and are widely available. Since the study is a comparison of various treatments for this form of cancer, it seems relevant to offer a cost comparison as well as a comparison of efficacy. It appears that the high dose methotrexate is given over a 24-hour period, presumably in the hospital, while the standard methotrexate is given as a single dose. Also, the high dose methotrexate is followed by leucovorin administration while the standard dose is not. According to the site GoodRx, the cost for methotrexate in low-dose (2.5 mg) pill form averages out to about $50 for a month’s supply. Newer, injectable variations of the drug cost upwards of $500 a month for the 25 mg dose. The release states that patients receiving high doses of the drug methotrexate “had a significantly better outcome, by 5 to 6 percent” than did patients receiving the current standard of care, which is gradually escalating doses of the drug. The release also explains that patients nine years old or younger who were also treated with a steroid called decadron (dexamethasone) for half as long as normal (14 versus 28 days) benefited from the treatment while patients 10 and older did not. We’re not sure of the meaning behind these results as portrayed in the release. Which outcome was better by 5 or 6 percent? The study has several. Does that mean the relapse rate was reduced or is it the event free survival that was better? It would be more meaningful to readers if the release had included the actual relapse and event free survival rates for each group analyzed in terms most people can understand. For example: “relapse rates were 5 percent lower in Group X compared to Group Y.” We’ll give this category a satisfactory rating largely due to the release including information that patients 10 and older receiving dexamethasone “were at much higher risk for a debilitating bone condition called osteonecrosis,” although we would have been happier if that greater risk would have been quantified. However, the published study explains that there were toxicity problems beyond that of dexamethasone and the release would have been stronger including that information as well. The release stated the study was randomized and controlled, and provides a broad overview of the study design, for which we give the release a borderline satisfactory under this criteria. However, these are the superficial results. On deeper delving into the study methodology, the statistical significances of the results were very close to not statistically significant. This is due to their planned interim stopping of the treatment and the fact that they were looking at multiple outcomes in multiple groups. This release doesn’t demonstrate disease-mongering. While the release does say that this clinical trial was run by the Children’s Oncology Group, which is funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health, it makes no mention of possible conflicts of interest. Compounding that is the fact that the published study says, “Disclosures provided by the authors are available with this article at www.jco.org,” but that information is behind the journal’s paywall for most readers, so it’s unknown if there is, or is not, a conflict. It appears as though five of the authors (out of a total of about 20) have some conflicts of interest, mostly from several types of drug company payments. The release is comparing the efficacy of treatment regimens using different drugs so alternative treatments for B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia are noted. The release makes clear at the end that the treatment of this disease is improving thanks to refinement of the use of existing drug treatments, meaning that they are readily available for patient use. The release suggests the study findings could change the way childhood leukemia is treated. Modifying existing treatments to enhance a patient’s survival is certainly novel enough to warrant a release. There is no use of unjustifiable language in this release. However, the tone may be a bit overly optimistic given the study findings.
Example Output: Relapses of childhood leukemia improve with high doses of common chemo drug

Example Input: Republicans on the GOP-majority Senate Environment and Public Works Committee mostly had praise for Andrew Wheeler, who has served as the agency’s acting head since Scott Pruitt’s resignation in July amid ethics scandals. The committee chairman, Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., called Wheeler “very well-qualified” to take the job. But Democrats pressed Wheeler about his work as a lobbyist helping an influential coal magnate meet with Trump administration officials before his nomination to the EPA and his moves on deregulation and on what they said was his inattention to the growing dangers of climate change. “You seem to be consistently doing things that undermine the health and safety of this nation,” Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., told Wheeler. Markey asked him why he was pulling back on regulations that proponents say protect human health and the environment. “I believe we are moving forward” on protections, Wheeler responded. Wheeler cited changes he had initiated to roll back future mileage standards for cars and autos and to ease Obama-era clampdowns on dirtier-burning coal-fired power plants. He said EPA staff, whom he did not identify, had concluded that those rollbacks would ultimately lead to health gains. Environmental groups and formal assessments from the EPA and other agencies have contested that, saying the changes would increase pollution and increase harm to people and the climate. Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., said the rollbacks in car mileage standards and toxic mercury emissions under Wheeler were examples of unsafe deregulation and went beyond what industries themselves wanted. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., noted Wheeler had failed to mention climate change in his initial remarks to lawmakers. “Do you agree that climate change is a global crisis?” Sanders asked, shouting at times. “I would not call it the greatest crisis,” Wheeler said. “I would call it a huge issue that has to be addressed globally.” Wheeler told lawmakers that he had yet to read a massive government climate change report released late last year that emphasized man-made climate change was already underway. Wheeler said he had received one staff briefing so far on the climate change report. The work of the EPA and other government agencies, the report stresses the massive economic toll expected from increasingly severe wildfires, hurricanes and other extreme weather under climate change. Wheeler said the news media had seized upon “worst-case scenarios” of the climate report. “You are a former coal industry lobbyist that is sitting here,” Markey responded. “That’s the worst-case scenario, what you are proposing here” for easing Obama-era rules meant to clamp down on climate-changing fossil fuel emissions. Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa and other Republican lawmakers, by contrast, praised Wheeler for a move to remove federal protections for millions of miles of wetlands and waterways and other proposals. Republican lawmakers said the protections had burdened farmers and others. The grandson of a coal miner, Wheeler worked for the EPA in the 1990s and later as a longtime Republican Senate staffer. Democrats pressed Wheeler about his lobbying before joining the EPA, saying his work for coal companies should disqualify him from leading an agency that regulates coal. Wheeler’s lobbying clients included coal magnate Bob Murray, who pushed hard on the Trump administration after the 2016 elections to grant a series of breaks for the sagging domestic coal industry. Wheeler accompanied Murray to a March 2017 meeting to pitch Murray’s list of desired rule rollbacks and other breaks for coal to Energy Secretary Rick Perry. Wheeler told senators that his main work for Murray had been on health benefits and pensions. “I did not work on the plan. I do not have a copy of it. I saw it briefly,” Wheeler said, referring to Murray’s wish list. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., displayed a blown-up version of a photo taken of the meeting with Perry, showing Wheeler at Murray’s side. A second photo showed Murray’s rollback plan in Wheeler’s hands. Murray had sought some of the coal breaks that the EPA under Wheeler has since acted on. That included Wheeler signing a rule easing federal regulation of toxic coal ash, redoing an Obama rule that pushed electricity providers to move away from dirtier-burning coal plants and targeting an Obama rule limiting emissions of toxic mercury from coal plants. A watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, filed an ethics complaint Tuesday with the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General alleging that Wheeler’s oversight of those and other rollback proposals at EPA may have violated his government ethics pledge to abstain from regulatory decisions affecting his former lobbying client for at least two years. EPA spokesman John Konkus called the accusation “baseless” and “wrong” and said Wheeler works with EPA ethics officials and follows their guidance.
Example Output: Democrats hit Trump EPA nominee on coal lobbying, rollbacks.

Example Input: "An Austin legislator talking up her proposal to exempt feminine hygiene products from the state sales tax asserted that condoms were sold tax-free in Texas for a spell. Democratic state Rep. Donna Howard, speaking to reporters for the Dallas Morning News during a Facebook Live presentation, brought up condom tax history just after suggesting that ever-costly diapers also should not be subject to the state sales tax of 6.25 percent; local governments are allowed to levy up to 2 percent more of sales tax. Condoms, Howard went on, ""used to be tax-exempt here in Texas until we changed something in the statute; the wording was such that it ... put them back out there where they were taxed."" We wondered about that, ultimately finding changes in law against a governor’s wishes resulted in a type of condom not being subject to sales tax for more than seven years--though no longer. To gauge this claim, we mostly relied on the Texas state comptroller’s office, which oversees state tax collections. By email, spokeswoman Lauren Willis pointed out that a tax-cut package signed into law by Gov. George W. Bush in 1999 included language exempting condoms from the Texas sales tax. Bush’s desire, comptroller’s ruling That’s what was reported at the time, we confirmed, though the tax details rest on a medical angle. Willis emailed us a web link to a March 2000 news story stating that contrary to Bush’s campaign-trail intentions, condoms would soon rank among products not subject to the state sales tax. Starting April 1, 2000, the Morris News Service story said, ""Texans won't have to pay sales tax on non-prescription medications, ointments to treat sunburns, laxatives or condoms."" Before his re-election in 1998, the story said, Bush had proposed a $400 million tax-cut package including a sales tax break on over-the-counter health items although Bush, an advocate of abstinence education for teenagers, had said the cut wouldn’t apply to condoms. Seeking re-election, Bush said in September 1998 that his proposed tax cut would not extend to nonprescription contraceptives, including condoms, the Morning News reported. ""The governor is being touted by some in the GOP has a potential presidential candidate in 2000,"" the story said, ""and some social conservatives have taken a strong stand against promiscuity and premarital sex."" But in March 2000, State Comptroller Carole Keeton Rylander announced she had no choice but to include condoms among items made tax-exempt in the tax-cut measure passed into law the year before. Calling her decision a ""matter of law,"" Rylander pointed out the new law required a drug, medicine or health care product to be exempt from taxes if it has a drug code number issued pursuant to FDA regulations. National drug codes, or NDCs, are three-digit segments that serve as universal product identifiers, the FDA says. Condoms as medicinal A March 2000 Houston Chronicle news story said the legislated tax exemption would apply to all 100,000 nonprescription products carrying an NDC. That story noted that the original legislation, Senate Bill 441 by Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, would have exempted only children’s nonprescription medicines from the sales tax but was expanded in Senate-House negotiations to include adult over-the-counter medicines--with the FDA code limitation intended to preclude tax breaks for herbal and folk remedies not sanction by that agency. We confirmed, from SB 441 signed into law by Bush, the inclusion of language exempting from the sales tax any drug or medicine with an FDA-issued ""national drug code."" We suspect, though, that not all condoms had the codes. When we checked with the FDA about condoms having NDCs, spokeswoman Deborah Kotz replied by email that the agency considers condoms to be ""devices"" that don’t need NDCs, unlike medicines. Kotz later emailed that regardless, some condom manufacturers have put NDCs on condoms sold over the counter, ""often for reimbursement purposes."" Some condoms, Kotz said, still have the numbers. Meantime, Willis shared a December 2000 letter from Rylander to a Victoria resident outlining another reason condoms became tax-exempt. Rylander wrote that as agency staff pinned down what would be exempt from the sales tax due to the 1999 law, they recognized that some drugs and medicines didn’t have NDCs. So in building the list of exempt items, Rylander advised, agency staff relied on an FDA list of drugs and medicines and also included items, such as condoms, that fit the state’s statutory definition of a drug or medicine as ""an article or substance applied to, ingested, or inhaled by humans marketed for the use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease, illness, injury, or pain."" Rylander’s conclusion: The ""medicated prophylactic devices, which aid in the prevention of disease, qualify for the exemption. However,"" she wrote, ""prophylactic devices that are not medicated are not exempt."" Willis confirmed, when we asked, that only condoms containing medication ended up being tax-exempt. No longer Lawmakers didn't immediately restore taxation of all condoms. Willis said, and we confirmed, that the NDC language was removed by a 2001 law yet Senate Bill 1125 left spermicidal condoms tax-exempt by simultaneously adding language exempting products ""labeled or required to be labeled with a ‘Drug Facts’ panel in accord"" with FDA regulations. By email, Klot separately told us condoms, mostly regulated as devices and not medicines, might have ""facts"" panels, but the FDA hasn’t required as much. A 2007 change in law limited items exempt from the sales tax to products required to have the ""Drug Facts"" panels, Willis told us by email, which ended the condom tax exemption as of September 2007. In the fiscal year through August 2016, Willis said, the state sales tax on condoms yielded an estimated $7 million in revenue. Our ruling Howard said condoms ""used to be tax-exempt here in Texas."" Under a tax-cut measure approved by lawmakers and Bush in 1999, condoms containing spermicide were exempt from the state sales tax starting in April 2000. Another change in law ended that exemption as of September 2007. – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing.
Example Output:
"Donna Howard Says condoms ""used to be tax-exempt here in Texas."