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: A photograph supposedly showing the gravestone of a woman named Kate McCormick, who passed away in the 1870s from a fatally botched abortion, has been circulating online for several years. In May 2019, the Facebook page “American News X” revived interest in the image:  This is a genuine photograph of a tombstone marking the grave of a woman who passed away in the 1870s after claiming she took abortion-inducing drugs, and we were able to corroborate many of the details of the inscription via contemporaneous news reports. Our one caveat with this Facebook post is the stated date for when the tombstone was erected. While McCormick passed away in the 1870s, it wasn’t until more than a century after her death, in 1997, that an anonymous donor placed the pictured gravestone on her final resting place. The Story of Kate Simpson (AKA Kate McCormick) McCormick’s story can be gleaned from various articles published by newspapers in Tennessee in 1876 concerning an inquiry into her death, the death of her child, and the doctor who was charged with (and ultimately acquitted of) providing her with abortion-inducing drugs. While these reports contained a fair amount of detail such as eyewitness testimonies, a few facts of the case are still a bit unclear. We have done our best to piece together the events that led to McCormick’s death, the trial of the man who reportedly killed her, and the circumstances of her burial below. Katie’s story starts in Humboldt, Tenn., where she was seduced and impregnated by a shoemaker named George Burgess. After becoming pregnant, Burgess sent McCormick to Memphis to have the child with the promise that he would soon follow to marry her. But Burgess never followed. In late January 1876, a stillborn child was discovered at what news accounts referred to as “Mrs. Widrig’s boarding house.” Police arrived and found that the child’s mother, Kate Simpson (alias Kate McCormick), was also deathly ill. She passed away the following day: Katie McCormick Page 1 Wed, Feb 2, 1876 – Page 3 · Public Ledger (Memphis, Tennessee) · Newspapers.com The Trial of Dr. D.S. Johnson Dr. D.S. Johnson was arrested and indicted on three charges related to the death of McCormick and her child. The Memphis Public Ledger described the charges against Johnson in a 9 February 1876 article, stating that the doctor was indicted for administrating “large quantities of deadly, dangerous, unwholesome, deleterious and penicious pills, herbs, drugs, potions, teas, liquids powders and mixtures” with the intent of causing an abortion, for causing said abortion, and for “feloniously, willfully, deliberately, premeditated and with malice aforethought kill[ing] and murder[ing] the said Kate McCormick.” A number of witnesses who were with McCormick in her final days provided testimony to authorities. Widrig, the woman who ran the boarding house where the bodies were discovered, told authorities that McCormick had paid Dr. Johnson $25 to terminate her pregnancy. A woman named Mollie Brown provided similar testimony: Mrs. Widrig was sworn and stated that the girl came to her house some time before Christmas, but only stayed one night that she came back three weeks ago, and on Saturday night, or, rather, Sunday morning, she was delivered of a dead child; that Dr. Johnson had been attending her; that her suspicions were aroused and she asked Katie to tell her the whole truth; on Sunday Dr. Frayser had been sent to see Katie by Chief Athy and told her that the girl would die; this she told to Katie, who seemed much affected and made a confession; she said: “Mrs. Widrig, I think my time is short,” and then she added: “Dr. Johnson gave the medicine to destroy my child; tell Dr. Johnson that I promised not to deceive him or tell any person but the time has come when I can keep the secret no longer; I paid Dr. Johnson twenty-five dollars for the medicine; he gave me the medicine some three weeks ago, and said if it did not do its work in six days it would be a failure; I took the medicine from Dr. Johnson to kill my child and paid him twenty-five dollars for it.” Mollie Brown sworn: Katie told me last night that Dr. Johnson sent her medicine by express; she said to me she was satisfied she was going to die, and that Dr. Johnson was the cause of it. Wed, Feb 2, 1876 – Page 3 · Public Ledger (Memphis, Tennessee) · Newspapers.com Dr. Johnson’s version of events differed. Johnson, as well as two other doctors who visited McCormick before her death, testified that McCormick had been treated only for diarrhea: Dr. Marable testified as follows: On Sunday morning was called by Dr. Johnson to make a call; he told me about the case, and said he had prescribed for diarrhea; the treatment was correct as stated by Dr. Johnson; he said that he had discovered that she had a baby last night, but that she was in danger of dying from the afterbirth; I attended to her immediately, and gave her the necessary remedies to stop the flooding, and the remedies resulted successfully; the girl appeared very weak; Dr. Johnson and I went to see Chief Athy at once with reference to the dead child, and at my instigation Dr. Johnson called upon coroner Spelman to hold an inquest on the dead infant, which inquest was held on Sunday; I advised Dr. Johnson as to the necessary treatment to place the girl under with a view to her recovery; the girl had diarrhea and I prescribed with Dr. Johnson for its treatment; the girl was nervous and troubled in mind; she said she was out of money and had no friends; trouble of mind and excitement very often cause abortions or miscarriages, and the greatest trouble physicians have in such cases is to keep the patients quiet; I think flooding and mental anxiety was the cause of her death. Johnson testified as follows: Three weeks ago I first saw the deceased; she came to my office and told her story, and wanted to hide her disgrace; I advised her not to commit abortion as it was against the law; I called to see her at Mrs. Widrig’s boardinghouse and prescribed for diarrhea; on Sunday morning I called and found that she had a miscarriage; I then called on Dr. Marable; the prescription given her by me was ascitate of lead and morphine; the girl seemed troubled and said she would sooner die than live; she said this both before and after the abortion had taken place. Johnson was eventually acquitted of the charges against him. The Burial of Kate McCormick The story of McCormick did not end with her death. While McCormick’s mother traveled to Memphis after learning of her daughter’s death, she left the city without making arrangements for burial. Similarly, Burgess, the man who reportedly impregnated McCormick, didn’t undertake a visit to view the body. A particularly depressing passage published by the Public Ledger on 4 February 1876 (which contains some racial language common to the era) noted that McCormick’s body was stored in a “pauper’s coffin” in a stable that served as a morgue for the impoverished in Shelby County:  Fri, Feb 4, 1876 – Page 3 · Public Ledger (Memphis, Tennessee) · Newspapers.com The reporter who found McCormick’s body sought to remedy the situation by obtaining the help of a Capt. George W. Miller of the Cut Off Saloon. Miller agreed to finance a proper burial, and McCormick’s body was taken to Elmwood Cemetery:  Fri, Feb 4, 1876 – Page 3 · Public Ledger (Memphis, Tennessee) · Newspapers.com McCormick was interred at Elmwood Cemetery sometime in 1876, but the gravestone shown above was not originally present at her final resting place. This tombstone was erected in 1997 and was paid for by an anonymous person who was apparently moved by McCormick’s sad tale.
Example Output: A photograph shows a tombstone from 1875 that marks the resting place of Kate McCormick, who reportedly died after a botched abortion.

Example Input: Biotechnology company Alkermes said earlier in the day that  it expected Lilly to drop out of their program to develop an  inhaled insulin treatment for diabetes, sending Alkermes shares  down more than 9 percent. Lilly’s decision marks the third setback in recent months  for inhaled insulin formulations, once deemed potential  blockbuster products because of their greater convenience than  standard injectable insulin. Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Alkermes, which makes the  alcohol addiction drug Vivitrol, said Lilly has the right to  terminate its license to the inhaled treatment, Air Insulin, at  its discretion. “While Lilly may elect not to commercialize Air Insulin,  Alkermes believes that the phase 3 safety and efficacy trials  should be completed,” Alkermes said in a statement. After Lilly’s announcement, the company said it was  evaluating the impact of the termination, which will become  effective in 90 days. Indianapolis-based Lilly said its decision was not due to  safety concerns, “but rather was a result of increasing  uncertainties in the regulatory environment, and a thorough  evaluation of the evolving commercial and clinical potential of  the product compared to existing medical therapies.”    Lilly Chief Operating Officer John Lechleiter said in a  statement that the company is beginning the process of halting  ongoing clinical studies. Lilly said it will record a first-quarter 2008 charge of  around $90 million to $120 million, or 5 cents to 7 cents per  share. The company said its adjusted earnings per share outlook  remains unchanged at $3.85 to $4.00, while net earnings will  range from $3.73 to $3.90. Lilly’s action comes just five months after Pfizer Inc  abandoned Exubera, the first approved inhaled form of insulin,  and returned rights to the product to longtime partner Nektar  Therapeutics. Exubera had dismal sales because patients were turned off  by the clumsy device used to administer the powdered insulin  and because doctors were concerned by the drug’s tendency to  slightly impair lung function. Alkermes Chairman Richard Pops, in an interview with  Reuters in October, said Air Insulin may have similar effects  on lung function. “We’re assuming that pulmonary insulins in that regard are  all pretty much the same,” he said, although a conclusive  picture of Air Insulin’s safety will not emerge until two-year  safety trials of the product end later this year. A second setback for inhaled insulin came in January, when  Novo Nordisk said it was halting development of its AERx  product, meant to deliver inhaled droplets. The Danish  drugmaker said AERx did not have adequate sales potential,  given the limited commercial success seen with Exubera. Morgan Stanley analyst Jami Rubin said on Friday Lilly’s  abandonment of AIR Insulin made good business sense. “We are not (at) all surprised, and have never been strong  advocates of the pulmonary insulin agents, following the poor  launch and ultimate demise of Pfizer and Nektar’s Exubera and  Novo Nordisk’s termination of its AERx program,” Rubin said in  a research note. Rubin said Alkermes, known for its drug-delivery  technology, is unlikely to continue development of Air Insulin  without Lilly, “given that this represents the third  termination of a pulmonary insulin drug.”    But she said the sharp drop in Alkermes shares represented  a buying opportunity for investors because Air Insulin had only  paltry sales potential. She said investors should be focused instead on another  product Alkermes is developing with Lilly: a long-acting  formulation of Lilly’s Byetta diabetes treatment called Byetta    “We estimate that Byetta LAR could be worth $11 to $12 for  the (Alkermes) stock,” Ryan said. Alkermes shares fell $1.14 to close at $11.26 on Nasdaq. Lilly, a far larger company with an array of big-selling  products, rose 2 cents to end at $49.70 on the New York Stock  Exchange, and was slightly lower at $49.67 in after-hours  trading.
Example Output: Eli Lilly drops inhaled insulin program.

Example Input: The article does not discuss the costs associated with inoculation. However, it’s implied that vaginal microbial transfer is very inexpensive (it only requires a piece of gauze, saline, and a sterile bottle – all standard hospital supplies) so we won’t ding the story for this omission. With that being said, there is a tacit assumption in the article that the transfer of bacteria from the mother’s vaginal fluids to the newborn is always in the best interest of the newborn. Clearly this is not the case as we will articulate later. If there is a risk of the transfer of less than desirable bacteria, it is reasonable to assume that bacterial screening of vaginal secretions might be undertaken (which would add cost). The transfer of pathogens to the newborn inducing infection would also have a cost. While it is beyond the scope of this report, we think that thinking about the potential downsides of a new intervention is in order. The article does a nice job of detailing the potential benefits of the microbial transfer and the results seen in the study, while giving the caveat that longer follow up studies are needed to understand the implications of various microbiome make-ups. But to be fair, the results are from a total of 4 newborns, hardly a number on which to base any strong conclusions. The story says that thus far the procedure “has proved entirely safe,” but we’re talking about only four babies here! The article assumes that all the bacteria in the mother’s vaginal secretions are “friendly.”  This is clearly not the case in all patients. Significant infections can be transmitted to the newborn from bacteria resident in the mothers vaginal secretions from less than friendly bacteria including Chlamydia, Listeria and group B Strep to name a few. Suggesting that the procedure is not recommended but then pointing out that Dr. Brubaker had the procedure done for her newborn supports the notion that this is a harmless procedure — a potentially dangerous message. The story describes the study as small and proof-of-principle, although it arguably should have made more out of the fact that only four babies underwent the swabbing procedure. That’s a very small number. Nevertheless, we think the story injects enough caution to earn a Satisfactory rating. We liked that it spelled out the next phase of study to provide readers with a realistic sense of the scientific process. This article appropriately addresses the issue of increasing C-section use in U.S. and its potential repercussions. The article quotes several outside sources with the comments of Drs. Gilbert and Khoruts. We’ll rate this as Not Applicable. There is an outstanding hypothesis that colonization of the newborn with ‘friendly” bacteria from the mother’s vaginal secretions confers some advantages. This study merely test the ability to colonize a newborn delivered by cesarean delivery artificially. There aren’t really any alternatives to discuss here. The article mentions that this is not widely used among medical professionals but that women are sometimes doing it on their own or “arranging” to have it done. Given the potential risks of colonizing a newborn with less than friendly bacteria, we think that the story’s suggestion (and implicit encouragement) for women to do this on their own are unfortunate. The study was intended to determine if newborns could be colonized artificially and not to study the effects in later life. The article places this concept in proper context. The article clearly goes beyond the news release.
Example Output:
Bacteria From Mother May Colonize Cesarean Births