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.

In his private practice, Ian Paterson lied to exaggerate risks that patients would develop breast cancer, performing needless surgery and in some cases mastectomies for which patients paid, judge Jeremy Baker said. “The physical, and particularly, psychological effect upon each of them, has been profound,” the judge told Nottingham Crown Court. The trial had heard that patients trusted the doctor who was charming and reassuring, but were later left feeling violated and vulnerable, with some having suffered prolonged psychological distress. The 59-year-old surgeon’s motives were not clear, the judge said, but he had shown a “complete lack of remorse” during the trial. “I have no doubt that in pursuit of your own self-aggrandizement and the material rewards which it brought from your private practice, you lost sight of the fact that you were carrying out significant surgical procedures,” Baker said. “Without any regard for the long-term effects which it had on them, you deliberately played upon their worst fears,” he said. Speaking after the sentencing, Patricia Welch, one of Paterson’s victims, said she felt justice had been done but called for an inquiry so that patients had full protection when seeking private medical care. “We will never know the real reason he has acted in such an evil way,” she told reporters outside the court. “It will never go away because you just see it in the mirror every morning.”
UK doctor jailed for 15 years over unnecessary breast surgery.

"In a show of Republican muscle, Florida lawmakers passed several bills relating to abortion during this year’s legislative session. One proposal awaiting the signature of Gov. Rick Scott requires young women who want a judge to waive the parental-notification requirement to obtain the waiver in a circuit court closer to their home rather than a wider-reaching appeals court. Opponents insist HB 1247 violates the privacy of young women who live in small communities and know most people in their area, including people who work at the courthouse. But supporters say it prevents teens from crossing the state to find a sympathetic judge in order to get an abortion without their parents’ knowledge. Sen. Steve Oelrich, a Republican from Gainesville and cosponsor of the Senate version, had an interesting take during a May 5, 2011, debate on the Senate floor. ""You can’t give a child an aspirin in school without permission,"" he said. ""You can’t do any kind of medication, but we can secretly take the child off and have an abortion. We should support it (HB 1247) with all our hearts and souls if parental responsibility means anything to us."" Oelrich’s claim left us wondering: Is it really that hard for students to get over-the-counter medication at school? We should explain that we're not ruling on Oelrich's statement that young women can ""secretly"" have abortions. We already know this is legal in certain cases under Florida law. Implementation of HB 1247 would limit which courts can make the decisions for women who seek waivers of the parental notification law, not strip their ability to have secret procedures. Florida law The Florida Statutes have straightforward directions for handling prescription medication at school. The law requires a student’s parent to submit a written statement with the medicine that permits a trained school official to administer a dose. The note must also explain why the medicine must be taken during the school day. The prescription medicine must be administered at school by a qualified official and then be counted, stored in the original container, and kept in a secured place. Beyond that, the law does not address the use of over-the-counter medication. The statutes leave that decision up to local school districts. We set out to check each one to learn if Oelrich's claim is . We tracked down policies for 62 of 67 counties. Most were available online. It took time to be sure, but Oelrich is right. Every district requires parental consent for non-prescription medication, sometimes in writing and sometimes by phone. Notifying a parent is the minimum step for many other districts, including Charlotte, Baker and Miami-Dade. These districts require a physician's note, too. ""We don’t administer anything in Charlotte County without doctors' orders,"" said Gail Buck, supervisor of the county’s school health services. ""No cough drops, no Tylenol."" Aspirin warnings There's another part to this claim: Oelrich specifically invoked aspirin on the Senate floor. Some of the school nurses we interviewed practically shuddered at the word. The reason? Aspirin use among children is linked to the development of Reye's Syndrome, a lethal disease that sets in after a viral infection and affects all organs of the body, according to the National Reye's Syndrome Foundation. The National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are among entities that recommend not using aspirin, or combination medicine containing aspirin, for children under 19 during fever-causing illnesses. ""We stay away from all aspirin products and stuff,"" said Catherine Reckenwald, student health specialist for Citrus County Schools. ""You don’t know if a child has an allergy, so you need to have very specific instructions for each student."" Reckenwald said Tylenol is more appropriate for children, but she does not keep a supply in her clinic. This is standard practice at most of the school health centers we contacted. ""We do not have what is called 'standing orders,' "" said Janice Karst, St. Lucie County School Board director of communications. In case you were wondering, students are allowed to self-administer epinephrine auto-injectors, metered dose inhalers, pancreatic enzyme supplements and diabetic supplies if they have a doctor's note and parental consent. Our ruling The thrust of Oelrich's point is correct: You can’t give a child an aspirin in school without permission. To administer any non-prescription medication, school officials must have approval from the parent. And in some cases, the schools also need a note from a doctor -- even for cough drops. While Oelrich is right about the permission part, he specifically mentioned aspirin so we should add that giving aspirin to children is considered risky because of the medicine's connection to a deadly disease. But that wasn't exactly Oelrich's point in a debate over abortion and a minor's right to privacy."
You can't give a child an aspirin in school without permission. You can't do any kind of medication, but we can secretly take the child off and have an abortion.

"President Donald Trump and top health officials in his administration are now openly at odds over hydroxychloroquine. Both Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Deborah Birx, coronavirus response coordinator for the White House task force, have said careful studies show the drug doesn’t speed recovery from COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. Still, at an Aug. 3 White House event, Trump said he has taken hydroxychloroquine and it is ""very highly thought of."" Trump said the drug is politically toxic because he supports it. On NBC’s Meet the Press, Adm. Brett Giroir, the assistant secretary of health and overseer of the virus testing effort, said it is time to ""move on."" ""There have been five randomized controlled, placebo controlled trials that do not show any benefit to Hydroxychloroquine,"" Giroir said Aug. 2. ""So, at this point in time, we don't recommend that as a treatment. "" We asked Giroir’s office to name the five studies he referenced in that interview. Not all of them used placebos, but they all randomly assigned patients to hydroxychloroquine treatment and conventional treatment groups. The drug proved itself in none of them. Before we summarize the studies, a brief word about why this sort of study matters. If you want to know if a drug works, ideally the only difference between a patient who gets it and one who doesn’t is — no surprise — the drug itself. That’s harder to do than meets the eye. People aren’t identical. You can weigh them, look at their medical histories, check their blood oxygen levels and temperature, and yet, you still might miss something. That’s where randomly assigning patients to treatment and non-treatment groups comes in. ""You don’t know all the possible things going on in the background and all that noise is what  randomizing helps filter out,"" said Boston University infectious disease modeler Brooke Nichols. ""It’s the best way to be sure that the only effect is the effect of the drug."" Letting a computer program assign patients also prevents any subconscious choices by doctors from distorting the results. The whole approach is designed to take human foibles out of the picture. To really minimize the human factor, not only do you randomly assign patients to groups, but the patients and the health care workers themselves don’t know what group they are in. So everyone gets a pill, but for half of them, the pill might be just sugar or something equally neutral. That neutral pill is a placebo. ""That’s the gold-gold standard of research,"" said Nichols. ""And just one one small notch below that is the randomized controlled trial without a placebo."" Nichols said that the lack of a placebo takes on more importance when a non-placebo study comes up with different results than one with a placebo. ""When the results are in agreement, it doesn’t matter as much,"" Nichols said. Giroir’s office sent us a list of the studies he had in mind. All of them used the randomized control approach. Two of them used placebos, and three did not. They all found the drug ineffective. Here’s Giroir’s list (plus a couple more we found ourselves): A Cluster-Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Prevention of Covid-19 Transmission and Disease, MedRxIV, July 26, 2020. No placebo. This study out of Spain aimed to see if the drug prevented the disease. It involved about 2,300 people who had been exposed to someone who tested positive for the virus. After random assignment, one group got a dose of hydroxychloroquine for a week, and the other didn’t. The differences were small, too small to be statistically significant. In the treatment group, 5.7% caught the virus. In the non-treatment group, 6.2% did. ""Post-exposure therapy with hydroxychloroquine did not prevent SARS-CoV-2 disease and infection,"" the authors wrote. Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin in Mild-to-Moderate Covid-19, New England Journal of Medicine, July 23, 2020. No placebo. This study from Brazil assigned 665 patients (504 with testing-confirmed COVID-19) to three groups: standard care, hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine alone. ""Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care,"" the authors wrote. Hydroxychloroquine in Nonhospitalized Adults With Early COVID-19, Annals of Internal Medicine, July 16, 2020. Placebo used. This study of 491 patients in the United States and Canada used two groups: one receiving hydroxychloroquine and the other a placebo. Participants either tested positive, or had the symptoms of COVID-19 and lived or worked with someone who had tested positive. They could not have had symptoms for more than four days. ""We hypothesized that starting hydroxychloroquine therapy within the first few days of symptoms could alter the course of COVID-19 by reducing symptom severity and duration and preventing hospitalizations,"" the authors wrote. They found that the severity of symptoms after 14 days ""did not differ between the hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups."" No clinical benefit from use of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, Recovery Trial - University of Oxford, June 5, 2020. No placebo. This study out of the United Kingdom randomly assigned over 4,600 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 to a hydroxychloroquine treatment group and a standard care group. Researchers measured the death rate and symptoms after 28 days. Among the treatment group, 25.7% died, compared to 23.5% for the standard care group. That was not statistically different. And there were no ""beneficial effects on hospital stay duration or other outcomes."" ""Although it is disappointing that this treatment has been shown to be ineffective, it does allow us to focus care and research on more promising drugs.,"" the researchers wrote. The data has yet to be released. A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19, New England Journal of Medicine, June 3, 2020. Placebo used. This study focused on hydroxychloroquine as a way to avoid getting the disease. They randomly assigned 821 people with no symptoms — but who had spent time close to a person who tested positive — to a treatment or placebo group. The hydroxychloroquine group was slightly less likely to test positive after two weeks, 11.8% compared to 14.3% in the placebo group, but the numbers were too small to pass statistical muster. We found two other randomized controlled studies in addition to those Grigoir referenced. One out of Spain worked with 293 people with confirmed infections, but who were not hospitalized. There was no placebo. They found that hydroxychloroquine did not cut the risk of hospitalization, or help people recover more quickly. An early study in May in Shanghai, China, assigned 75 COVID-19 patients to a hydroxychloroquine treatment group, and another received typical care. It also found no difference in the speed of recovery. There has been one large study in Detroit that concluded that the drug worked. However, patient data in that study was collected after the fact and there was no randomized control process. Giroir said there were five ""randomized controlled, placebo controlled trials that do not show any benefit to hydroxychloroquine."" He is largely correct. There have been more than five randomized controlled trials that found hydroxychloroquine ineffective, either at preventing people from catching the virus, or helping them recover if they become ill. He exaggerated the number of studies that used placebos — out of his list, two did and three did not. The infectious disease modeler we reached said placebos improve the quality of a study, but the lack of one matters less if the results are in line with placebo-driven trials."

“There have been five randomized controlled, placebo controlled trials that do not show any benefit to hydroxychloroquine.”