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.

Dr. Nelson Teich, an oncologist and health care consultant, took the job April 17 faced with the task of aligning the ministry’s actions with the president’s view that Brazil’s economy must not be destroyed by restrictions to control spread of the virus. Teich’s predecessor, Luiz Henrique Mandetta, also had rejected the use of chloroquine, which also had been touted by U.S. President Donald Trump as a treatment. Four government ministers who spoke after Teich’s resignation defended the idea of patients being allowed to use the drug if they want to, including Economy Minister Paulo Guedes and the Cabinet chief of staff, Gen. Walter Braga Netto. Officials say almost 15,000 people have died in Brazil from COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, though some experts say the figure is significantly higher due to insufficient testing. The peak of the crisis has yet to hit Latin America’s largest nation, experts say. Gen. Eduardo Pazuello, who had no health experience until he became the Health Ministry’s No. 2 official in April, will be the interim minister until Bolsonaro chooses a replacement. Brazilian media have said that Teich’s ability to do his job had been weakened by the appointment of dozens of military personnel to jobs in the ministry. “Life is made up of choices and today I decided to leave,” Teich told journalists in capital Brasilia. He did not explain why he left the job and refused to answer questions. Braga Netto, the Cabinet chief, said Teich left the job “for personal reasons.” Bolsonaro did not comment. Teich’s resignation came one day after Bolsonaro told business leaders in a videoconference he would ease rules for using chloroquine to treat people infected with the coronavirus. Teich has frequently called use of the drug “an uncertainty,” and this week warned of its side effects. The Health Ministry previously allowed chloroquine to be used in coronavirus cases only for patients hospitalized in serious condition. At Bolsonaro’s urging, the country’s Army Chemical and Pharmaceutical Laboratory boosted chloroquine production in late March. Researchers last month reported no benefit in a large analysis of the drug or a related substance, hydroxychloroquine, in U.S. hospitals for veterans. Last month, scientists in Brazil stopped part of a study of chloroquine after heart rhythm problems developed in one quarter of people given the higher of two doses being tested. Governors who have recommended quarantine measures and refrained from touting the drug’s unproven potential said Teich’s resignation reflects Bolsonaro’s failure to manage the pandemic. Rio de Janeiro Gov. Wilson Witzel, a former ally of Bolsonaro, said “no one can do serious work with interference in ministries.” “That is why governors and mayors need to lead the pandemic crisis, and not you, Mr. President,” Witzel said on Twitter. The governor of Ceara, one of Brazil’s most hard-hit states, said Teich’s exit “brings enormous insecurity and concern.” “It is unacceptable that in the face of this serious health crisis, the focus of the government is still on political and ideological discussions. That is an affront to the nation,” Camilo Santana said. On April 16, Bolsonaro fired Teich’s predecessor, Mandetta, who had become the embodiment of challenges to the president’s opposition to governors’ quarantine recommendations and restrictions on businesses. Bolsonaro was eager to resume economic activity and warned failure to do so would cause Brazil to descend into “chaos”. Teich took office pledging to balance health care concerns and the president’s economic worries. He did not openly challenge the president’s views, but did defend stay-at-home measures. Miguel Lago, executive director of Brazil’s non-profit Institute for Health Policy Studies, which advises public health officials, said Teich wasn’t able to build his own team, didn’t have Mandetta’s political strength and wasn’t willing to violate the scientific recommendations. “He clearly had limitations,” Lago said. “He would not challenge what has been consensus among the scientific community. He would never accept the chloroquine thing that Bolsonaro wanted him to do, to recommend publicly that chloroquine was a remedy to be used in the public health system.”  Hours after Teich left the job, the Health Ministry began listing figures on chloroquine distribution as part of its main charts about government initiatives against the pandemic, alongside intensive care unit beds, personal protection equipment, tests and flu vaccines. Risk consultancy Eurasia Group analyst Filipe Gruppelli Carvalho said that the Health Ministry’s capacity for ”an effective coordinating role looks to have dropped with Mandetta’s exit,” . “Ultimately, Teich’s dismissal reinforces our view of increasing risks from the government’s poor response to the pandemic, which could contribute to a weaker presidency and decline in support for Bolsonaro in the post-pandemic phase,” he said. The newspaper Folha de S.Paulo published an editorial after Teich’s exit saying Bolsonaro is trying to “put his own survival above state policies and national interest.” “The resignation of another health minister — in less than a month and during the most serious sanitary emergency of contemporary history — exposes the downfall of a president that doesnt’t even pretend to govern the country,” the newspaper said. “As if the economic and sanitary calamities were not enough, he turned himself into a crisis to be faced.” After Teich’s resignation was announced, pot-banging protests were heard in different regions of Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. _____ Associated Press writers David Biller and Diane Jeantet in Rio de Janeiro contributed to this report.
Brazil’s health minister resigns after one month on the job.

The announcement by the world’s largest fast-food chain comes as more companies respond to government and consumer pressure to address the global obesity epidemic. McDonald’s, which often bears the brunt of criticism over the restaurant industry’s penchant for tempting diners with indulgent and often high-calorie food, said it would offer the option in all of its 20 major global markets by 2020. McDonald’s also vowed to promote and market only water, milk and juice as the beverages in its popular Happy Meals for children as part of its announcement at the Clinton Global Initiative annual meeting in New York on Thursday. Waist sizes around the world are increasing, setting off alarms in public health circles. In recent years, the U.S. food industry has begun yielding to pressure from government, parents and consumers seeking to slim down adults and children. Sugary sodas have been yanked from public schools; sugar, sodium and calorie levels have been reduced in products, and calorie counts have been posted on some restaurant menus. The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit that has tangled with McDonald’s over everything from fattening food to the marketing of Happy Meals, approved of the company’s move to add more fruits and vegetables to the menu. Still, it says the company and its rivals have a long way to go in terms of offering healthier options. “McDonald’s slow march toward healthier meals made a major advance today, but a long road lies ahead for the company,” CSPI said in a statement. McDonald’s is seen as something of a trend setter among restaurant chains, but like many of its peers, it has tended to resist external efforts to force change. About one year ago McDonald’s said it would begin listing calorie information on menus in some 14,000 U.S. restaurants and drive-throughs — ahead of a national rule that would require larger restaurant chains to make such disclosures but months after other chains embraced the idea. In July 2011 it tweaked its popular Happy Meals for children - reducing the french fries portion by more than half and adding apples to every order. The move came after pressure from CSPI, parent groups and others. More than one-third of Americans are obese, and about 10 percent of the nation’s healthcare bill is tied to obesity-related illnesses, such as Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and hypertension, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. McDonald’s said its announcement is part of a plan developed with the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, which was founded by the Clinton Foundation and American Heart Association, to increase customers’ access to fruit and vegetables and help families and children to make informed eating and lifestyle choices.
Want fruit with your burger? McDonald's expands anti-obesity push.

The several facets of costs are addressed, including the rationing charge. The story gets a shout out for talking about both sides of this third-rail issue with Avastin. It would have been nice to explain Dr. Sparano’s important comment that doctors will still be able to use Avastin for breast cancer for patients who can afford it. It’s because insurance companies, including Medicare, tend not to pay for drugs when used for reasons the FDA hasn’t approved. So if Avastin does lose its indication for breast cancer, docs can still prescribe it “off-label” for that use, but patients will need to step in and pay for it all. The article meets the standard here by presenting data for progression-free survival and explaining that none of the trials showed a survival benefit for Avastin compared to standard chemo. (The quantity 0 seems implied.) While it’s notoriously difficult to explain the ins and outs of cancer studies in such a short space, we nonethless criticize the article on this criterion because, although most of the messages were generally accurate, readers could’ve benefited from more clarity on one of them and a little help overall in squaring up some potentially contradictory messages. We’ll explain in 3 acts. Act I: Story Highlights. One of these summary bullets states that “Subsequent studies showed no greater survival benefit.” In isolation this statement may be misleading. It seems they mean it to refer to progression-free survival. But that doesn’t jibe with the practical meaning of the term “survival benefit” as actually used in the body of this article: overall survival. And in fact, as we learn, all 4 studies showed no survival benefit compared to standard chemo. Act II: Dr. Sparano’s zinger. In his opposition to the FDA decision, the source notes that one-year survival for Avastin was consistently better in all studies. How is a reader to reconcile that message with the message that survival was not better for Avastin in ANY study? What was needed was not just quantification but qualification. Perhaps it would’ve been as simple as giving us the timeframe for Dr. Woodcock’s conclusion that there was no survival benefit in all studies, or more context about Dr. Sparano’s point. Without some explanation somewhere, we think Dr. Sparano’s line should not have been quoted, since it’s essentially out of context and it somewhat throws the messages up in the air for a reader, perhaps with consequences on the balance of the story. Act III: Mixed messages? The story gives us 2 messages that, taken together, may also seem contradictory for lay readers: 1. Later trials showed that Avastin offers a small increase in progression-free survival compared to standard chemo — but still an increase. 2. The 4 studies together shown no survival benefit. How is a non-clinician to make sense of these messages? How can it slow tumor growth — and lengthen the time people lived without progression — but not lengthen the time people lived? These head-butting messages might’ve been reconciled by clarifying, as the FDA press release starts to, how these data show that Avastin’s effects on tumor growth were temporary enough that people taking Avastin didn’t live any longer, on average. Harms are not quantified, and it would’ve been very helpful to know how frequently these serious side effects occurred in the trials. Were they exceptionally rare? Utterly rampant? The point of our criterion is that without quantifying the harms, readers can’t evaluate the risk/benefit trade-off for themselves. That said, we could almost award the story credit on the spirit of this criterion because it gives the serious harms, and their implications in the FDA decision, a solid amount of time in this article. The point from the ACS medical officer that some women “have not only not benefited, they’ve been harmed,” conveys the big picture. However, true to the definition of this criterion, we must grade this as unsatisfactory. The story takes the time to walk us through the complex story of the preliminary study, E2100, that served as the basis for conditional approval, and the ultimate results of the larger trials, producing an implicitly higher-quality evidence base than E2100 alone. The “larger” is a big part of evaluating the evidence. It also discusses ongoing research into tumor subsets that may respond to Avastin. Ideally it would’ve provided more detail about the 4 studies themselves, such as the numbers of subjects, designs, and lengths of follow-up. While more evidence could’ve been helpful, we think the evaluation of the larger, more relevant arc is clear, that promising preliminary results from a smaller study were not played out in several bigger studies. The article avoids disease-mongering. If you want to be precise, Avastin is only approved for one type of metastatic breast cancer,  HER2-negative. There was some room for improvement here. Two independent sources were used: an interview with a cancer doctor and a statement on the ACS website. The story neglected to point out that the former, Joseph Sparano, has served as a consultant and speaker on Avastin for Genentech, as WebMD acknowledged when they interviewed him for their story. See “Quantifying Benefits” for our request for more information about Dr. Sparano’s quote regarding 1-year survival. On a side note, it may have balanced Dr. Sparano’s quote had the story included a little more of the ACS statement that spoke directly to the FDA decision, such as their conclusion that until we have a better way to determine who will derive the most benefit from Avastin, “giving all women with metastatic breast cancer [bevacizumab] may harm more women than it helps.” The outcomes, both potential benefits and harms, were described relative to standard chemotherapy. A bit more flesh here would’ve helped describe exactly what (and how many) other options are available. The story is clear about Avastin’s availability and the impact of the FDA decision. FYI: it states that the EU has decided to keep Avastin approved for breast cancer only in combination with paclitaxel. Just to be clear, in the US, it’s only approved in combination with paclitaxel , too. N/A It doesn’t appear to have relied solely or largely on the FDA release.

FDA rejects Avastin as breast cancer therapy