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.

Ex Input:
The evacuations of workers in Guangzhou followed medical testing that revealed they might have been affected. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said “a number of individuals” had been brought to the U.S. but didn’t say how many were affected or evacuated. A previous case in Guangzhou, disclosed last month, prompted the tests. Nauert also said that remaining U.S. government personnel and their families in Guangzhou would also be able to request testing if they “noted concerning symptoms or wanted baseline screening.” The incidents have raised fears the unexplained issues that started in Cuba in 2016 have expanded. The U.S. government has deemed those incidents “specific attacks” on American workers but hasn’t publicly identified a cause or culprit. Most of the incidents were accompanied by bizarre, unexplained sounds that initially led U.S. investigators to suspect a sonic attack. Symptoms have included dizziness, headaches and an inability to concentrate. The American government worker who previously was removed from China reported “subtle and vague, but abnormal, sensations of sound and pressure,” the Guangzhou consulate reported last month Security guards outside the Guangzhou consulate on Thursday told reporters to leave the area and not attempt to talk to consulate staff. Asked about the latest incidents, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said the U.S. had not formally raised the matter with Beijing. “If the U.S. makes formal contact with us, China will continue necessary investigations in an earnest and responsible manner and maintain close communication and cooperation with the U.S.,” Hua said at a regularly scheduled news conference. China earlier said it had looked into the case announced last month but came up with no clues about the cause of the symptoms. The New York Times identified the latest American employee evacuated as Mark A. Lenzi, a security engineering officer at the consulate who left Wednesday night with his wife and two children. Lenzi told the Times he resided in the same apartment tower as the officer evacuated in April and suffered in recent months from what he called “neurological symptoms.” Lenzi’s apartment was in one of several high-rise buildings in The Canton Place featuring restaurants and galleries spaced around a central plaza. Another diplomat who reported symptoms was at a different upscale building near the consulate, the paper said. A U.S. official, who wasn’t authorized to discuss the situation publicly and requested anonymity, said the evacuated American government workers were being brought from China for testing to the University of Pennsylvania. That’s where doctors have been treating and studying patients previously evacuated from the U.S. Embassy in Havana. The preliminary findings of the medical reports on the 24 personnel affected in Cuba showed they had sensory and memory problems similar to the brain dysfunction seen with concussions. The Penn team said the patients from Cuba experienced persistent disability though rehabilitation therapy customized for them seemed to help. Canada in April also ordered families of diplomatic staff in Cuba to return home after mysterious health symptoms were detected in 10 Canadians stationed on the island. Canada said the 10 continued to show unexplained brain symptoms and that “medical information raised concerns for a new type of a possible acquired brain injury.” In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month about the first case in China, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said China had “said all the right things and have demonstrated their willingness to help us identify the vector which led to this medical incident.” The China incidents affect one of the most important of the seven U.S. diplomatic outposts in the country. The Guangzhou consulate opened months after the establishment of diplomatic relations between Beijing and Washington in 1979 and moved to its new purpose-built facility in 2013. It serves four southern provinces with a combined population of more than 204 million and processes more than 1 million visa applications of all types annually. It is also the only U.S. diplomatic installation in China authorized to process immigrant visas and handle adoptions. People working in The Canton Place complex, a few kilometers (miles) from the consulate, said they were just hearing about the incidents, reflecting a lack of coverage in China’s entirely state-controlled media. Aled Williams, a British teacher at a kindergarten said Thursday that the reports sounded “sci-fi-ish.” “Hard to get my head around how it works,” he said. “Better watch myself.” Linda Chen, who runs a coffee shop in the area, said she was mystified as to why only certain people seemed to have been affected in an area known for its comfort and safety. “For me I feel it’s very strange. But I don’t feel that there’s something to be very afraid of because it’s probably a very special case,” Chen said. ___ Associated Press writer Josh Lederman in Washington, D.C. contributed to this report.

Ex Output:
US screens more staff in China over mystery health issues.


Ex Input:
"The Republican Party of Texas marveled — not in a good way — at an admission of sorts by U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi about the long-stalled health care overhaul before Congress. According to an e-mail the GOP sent Friday, Pelosi said “the Democrats have to pass their terrible health care bill so that the American people can actually find out what's in it.” Talk about a banana-peel moment. Did Pelosi improbably denigrate her party’s promised legislation and say people can find out what’s in it after it passes? GOP spokesman Bryan Preston pointed us to the text of Pelosi’s March 9 speech in Washington to the National Association of Counties. We learned, for starters, that while the Texas GOP thinks the legislation is terrible, Pelosi clearly doesn't. Instead, Pelosi's remarks celebrate aspects such as a ban on denying health coverage because of a pre-existing conditions, “robust support for public health infrastructure,” more spending on community health centers and reductions in uncompensated care by hospitals. Pelosi also says in the speech that the plan won't require anyone to pay a deductible for preventive health care doctor visits. She summarizes: “It’s going to be very, very exciting.” Yet there’s heft to the GOP's claim that Pelosi said the legislation has to pass so people can find out what’s in it. Pelosi adds: “But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.” Pelosi's words stirred critics from the right including Marguerite Higgins, a senior editorial services associate at The Heritage Foundation. In a blog, Higgins named the moment the video of the week and called Pelosi’s statement a “stunning demonstration of political condescension.” Separately, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly offered this interpretation of Pelosi's comment: ""She meant there was so much talk about process (in Congress) that people have lost sight of what’s actually in the bill. Once it’s passed, we can remind them of all the good things that are in it."" Capital fusses aside, we wondered if Pelosi spoke accurately; will the plan need to pass before people know what's in it? We called the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation, which has posted side-by-side comparisons online of health care plans approved by the House and Senate. Its spokesman, Craig Palosky, reminded us that Congress posts the entire legislation online. Of course, that's not to say the final deal is settled — or, it stands to reason, open to public view. Palosky declined to comment precisely on Pelosi's forecast, saying her comment seemed more about politics than policy. ""It’s not our role to police such comments,"" he said. ""If you want to know what members of Congress are doing, you have to speak to members of Congress.” His nudge led us to call U.S. Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Lewisville, among a handful of physicians in Congress and an opponent to the Democrats' proposal. Burgess told us it's often true that the ins and outs of legislation aren't widely known until after a measure passes into law; that held true, for instance, for the Republican-steered measure providing government aid toward prescription drugs for seniors. Pelosi's ""right,"" Burgess said, though ""I don’t think that’s a good strategy (to declare as much). I wouldn’t recommend anyone actually broadcasting that."" So how does the GOP's statement shake out? The party's e-mail errs when it makes it sound as if Pelosi thinks the health-care measure is terrible. It's very much the opposite. But it accurately quotes Pelosi as saying people will find out what's in the plan after it passes."

Ex Output:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this week that the Democrats have to pass their terrible health care bill so that the American people can actually find out what's in it.


Ex Input:
The story does not describe the costs of uterine artery embolization or how they compare to costs of surgery. The cost of UAE is quite high and for some women may not be covered by insurance. The story provides adequate quantification of some of the most important things for consumers to know, such as the fact that after a year, there were no differences in the quality of life of the women assigned to uterine artery embolization compared to those assigned to surgery and that 13% of those who underwent UAE had a repeat hospitalization, mostly for surgical intervention because of failure of UAE to achieve the desired results. The story could have provided more quantification of other pieces of information that women would want to know, such as length of hospital stay, time to return to work, or risk of serious adverse events. The story does mention some of the potential harms of uterine artery embolization, such as the need for repeat procedures for treatment of recurrent symptoms and the fact that there are questions about safety of pregnancy after the procedure. The story should have also mentioned the potential for ovarian failure, causing infertility, infection, delayed complications and a small risk of emergency hysterectomy. The story adequately describes the design of the current study. The story accurately describes the prevalence and symptoms of uterine fibroids. The story only uses quotes from the original article and accompanying editorial. It doesn't appear that the authors were even interviewed. The story should have quoted other clinicians/researchers who were not related to the study who could have provided some perspective on what this new information means for clinical practice. The story does mention alternative options such as myomectomy (surgical removal of the fibroids), hysterectomy (surgical removal of the uterus) in addition to uterine artery embolization. The story could have mentioned other treatments such as watchful waiting, pain medications or birth control pills. The story does not state whether uterine artery embolization (UAE) is available and if so, how widely. And availability is a real issue. It requires expertise in interventional vascular radiology and an interest in the female pelvic anatomy. Facilities offering the procedure would need strong links between gynecologists and radiologists to provide coordinated assessment and care. This is not explained in the piece. The story implies that uterine artery embolization is a new procedure. The story could have mentioned that the procedure has been performed for more than 10 years in Europe and the US, although it has been limited to mostly academic hospitals. There is no way to know if the story relied on a press release as the sole source of information, although it is noteworthy that the story only uses quotes lifted from the published study and from an accompanying editorial. It doesn't appear that these people were actually interviewed.

Ex Output:

Treating fibroids without surgery