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.

"Veterans groups in Pennsylvania typically prepare for Memorial Day by placing small American flags beside the headstones where fallen service members have been laid to rest. When a state lawmaker from Erie County learned that the coronavirus might scuttle that sacred tradition, he posted about it on Facebook. ""Gov. Wolf is not allowing companies that distribute U.S. flags to ship out orders to be placed at veteran’s graves for Memorial Day,"" Pa. House Rep. Brad Roae posted on Facebook on May 11. We wondered whether Wolf had really blocked Pennsylvania-based American flag distributors from operating during the pandemic. Roae, a Republican, did not return a call seeking comment on his Facebook post, which has now been shared more than 7,000 times. But it looks like he was right. Not only did Wolf exclude FlagZone, a manufacturer located in Gilbertsville, from his original list of life-sustaining businesses permitted to operate during the pandemic, his administration doubled down and rejected the company’s application for a waiver. FlagZone is one of the only American flag manufacturer in Pennsylvania and one of only a half dozen across the country. The company typically distributes more than six million small stick flags annually. Casey Smith, a spokesperson for the Pennsylvania Department of Community & Economic Development, told The Reading Eagle that the Wolf administration’s top priority is protecting the health and well-being of Pennsylvanians, and that flag-making, while patriotic, simply wasn’t ""life-sustaining."" ""Memorial Day celebrations and ceremonies are a staple in our nation, and many Pennsylvanians will need to adjust their routine this year to accommodate our new normal,"" Smith said. ""We encourage all Pennsylvanians to honor our nation’s fallen in their own special way."" Turns out the flags had already been manufactured and were sitting in a warehouse. FlagZone President Daniel Ziegler said it would only take a few workers to ship 400,000 flags that had been ordered by 24 different Pennsylvania counties in anticipation of Monday’s federal holiday. Bucks, Chester and Delaware counties were among those waiting to receive their orders. When State Sen. Scott Hutchinson learned about FlagZone’s woes, he also called on Wolf to ease restrictions imposed on the company. ""I see no reason why the time-honored and solemn tradition of placing flags at veterans’ graves could not be continued this year,"" Hutchinson, a Republican who represents Butler and other Western Pennsylvania counties, said in a statement sent to reporters via email. ""Certainly placing the flags in cemeteries could be done while practicing the social distancing Gov. Wolf recommends."" On Monday, FlagZone got some good news. The state cleared the way for the company to ship some flag orders even as it held firm that flag manufacturing is not essential during the pandemic. ""We’re just excited to get these flags out after months of being shut down,"" Ziegler told The Reading Eagle. ""Hopefully, when a family goes to the gravesite of a loved one who was a veteran they will now see that they were not forgotten."" Smith, of the community and economic development department, said in an interview that special approval from the state is not required for limited shipping activities and communicated  that to FlagZone. Roae posted on Facebook that Gov. Wolf had blocked companies that distribute American flags from shipping orders ahead of Memorial Day. Wolf initially blocked FlagZone from operating during the pandemic and then rejected the company’s request for a waiver. A state official later said the company did not need special permission to ship limited numbers of flags. However, the company didn’t understand this until the state said so, especially since the clarification came days after the Wolf administration rejected FlagZone’s application to resume operations."
“Gov. Wolf is not allowing companies that distribute U.S. flags to ship out orders to be placed at veteran’s graves for Memorial Day.”

"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."
Topical Gel Catches Up With Pills for Relief

"Costs and the cost-effectiveness of this strategy are not discussed. Any discussion of a preventive strategy should include comments on cost. Avandia and metformin, at the doses used in the study, cost about $195 a month, according to drugstore.com. We get absolute benefits, relative benefits, and the all-important number needed to treat (NNT). Very nice. While harms weren’t quantified, the story provided a good amount of detail, context, and caveat about the safety of this regimen. We get many important details about the study: the number of patients, the enrollment criteria, randomization, placebo control, half doses, and the length of follow-up. It also describes some limitations of the study, such as its inability to detect rare adverse events due to its size. It’s an important caveat, particularly with a cardiovascular cloud hanging over rosiglitazone. The author also points to the editorial’s observation that the approach didn’t affect the problems in the pancreas that underly diabetes and which must be addressed by such a strategy. The author is very specific about the thresholds for the patient population, and who was considered at high risk to progress to diabetes. We note that it was judiciously limited in its use of the term ""prevention."" Props to the author for citing the editorial written by two independent experts and published in the same issue of the Lancet. This article selects several of their many cogent comments. Ideally, another independent source outside the publication would’ve been consulted, too. The story describes how GSK has a dog in this fight, funding the study and manufacturing Avandia. The story also provides the institutional affiliations of Zinman and the two editorialists. While it’s probably covered in the GSK funding source, we’ll point out that several investigators had other financial ties to GSK, too. The article talks about the effectiveness of lifestyle changes and the challenge of implementing them. It also reviews the barriers to using full-dose rosi because of adverse events. It’s clear Avandia and metformin are currently available. We’re told of similar prior studies and the novelty of attempting a low-dose regimen to block progression. We don’t see evidence that the article relied on any news releases."

Low-dose combination of Avandia and metformin decreases progression to diabetes by two-thirds with few side effects