TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: "State lawmakers have a month before they get back to work in the 2015 legislative session and already the debate over medical marijuana has gotten into the, ahem, weeds. State Rep. Allen Peake, R-Macon serves as co-chair of a joint legislative committee that has studied whether and how to legalize the drug for certain conditions, including seizures in children. Peake has revived a bill aimed at allowing cannabis oil made from marijuana plants for treatment of certain seizure disorders and other health problems. He is finalizing that proposal, pre-filed as House Bill 1 after a similar measure fell short last session. But another committee member, state Sen. Curt Thompson, D-Tucker, is proposing a competing bill that would allow vaporized, edible or smokable marijuana. Thompson also has filed a resolution, calling for a statewide referendum on whether to authorize recreational use of the drug. Confusion about the oil form versus a smokeable drug has prompted Peake, who said he does not support expanded use, to speak out. ""We believe that the medical cannabis oil –  very low in THC, that doesn’t have a psychoactive component to it, cannot get you high – is a better approach for our citizens,"" Peake said in a press conference before a committee meeting last week. Opponents of the oil have raised safety concerns. So PolitiFact Georgia decided to take a closer look at  Peake’s contention that the oil extracted from marijuana won’t get users high. First, a reminder that the federal government still classifies marijuana as a Schedule I substance, defined as ""the most dangerous"" drug ""with no currently accepted medical use."" Despite that designation, 23 states have legalized medical marijuana, allowing access to the drug for a variety of medical conditions. Another 11 states – including neighboring Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee  – have enacted laws allowing cannabis oil products for medical reasons in limited situations. The key difference in allowing the oil, supporters say, is that it is high in cannabidiol and low in tetrahydrocannabinol. Both are compounds found in the marijuana plant that act on cell receptors that control neurotransmitters in the brain and the immune system from various organs, such as the spleen. Cannabidiol, known as CBD, is an antioxidant and not psychoactive. Tetrahydrocannabinol or THC is the long-known mind-altering part of pot. Cannabis oil is made from strains of marijuana already bred to be high in CBD and low in THC. For medical use, the oil is made with less than 3 percent THC and is orally ingested. Children’s doses tend to be at 1 percent THC, or lower. Studies are scarce on the medical benefits of such a product, given the Schedule I classification. But research does show that THC is what brings both it and CBD into the brain, where CBD’s antioxidant properties are thought to protect the brain. That evidence helped the federal Department of Health and Human Services earn a patent on medical marijuana in 2003. Anecdotally, parents of children with epilepsy and other seizure diseases back up the findings, reporting marked improvement from the cannabis oil. A London drug company, GW Pharmaceuticals, has created a drug out of highly purified CBD that has shown in preclinical studies that it potentially reduce seizures. The firm is waiting on final approval from Georgia Regents University and the federal Drug Enforcement Administration to begin clinical trials in Georgia with children who have severe seizure disorders. None of the existing studies or anecdotes from parents acknowledge or report any ""high"" from cannabis oil. Even the National Institute on Drug Abuse, while acknowledging the federal government does not see marijuana as medicine, reports that CBD as a ""non-psychoactive cannabinoid"" that may prove useful in treating epilepsy as well as some inflamation disorders and mental illnesses. In other words, while the medical use of cannabis oil can be debated given the limited number of medical and clinic studies, there is some common ground on the product. Marijuana remains officially a more dangerous drug than cocaine, according to the federal government. But the main component of the plant used to make cannabis oil doesn’t have the mind-altering, munchies-inducing effect associated with street use of the plant."

SOLUTION: Unlike marijuana, medical cannabis oil cannot get you high.

PROBLEM: The Alabama Department of Public Health said Friday that here has been a pneumococcal disease outbreak at the Ventress Correctional Facility in Barbour County. Three inmates were hospitalized and one inmate died after developing meningitis. Health officials said the Streptococcus pneumoniae bacteria can cause illnesses ranging from ear and sinus infections to pneumonia and meningitis. The Alabama Department of Corrections is giving antibiotics to inmates and staff who have had close contact with inmates who have been ill. The health department has ordered vaccine doses from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

SOLUTION: Illness outbreak reported at state prison, 1 inmate dead.

PROBLEM: The release clearly states that the relevant screening technique would normally cost between $100 and $250, but was free as part of the initiative. The release tells us how many cancers were found with the screening program, but it includes a misleading statement about what this might mean for survival rates. It notes that if lung cancer is identified in its early stages, the “overall survival rate” is 90 percent, whereas five-year survival rates for patients whose cancer is identified in the advanced stages is approximately 5 percent. A 90% vs. a 5% survival rate sounds impressive, but this is likely a significant overstatement of the true difference. Why? As Professor Gerd Gigerenzer of the Max Planck Institute explained in a BMJ editorial, the answer has to do with something called “lead time bias.” He said, “Earlier detection implies that the time of diagnosis is earlier; this alone leads to higher survival at five years even when patients do not live any longer.” This Youtube video by Dr. H Gilbert Welch discusses this issue in more detail. The bottom line is that when cancers are diagnosed at an earlier stage due to screening, patient survival time will be longer than if they were diagnosed later. This may or may not mean their survival was prolonged. They may have been destined to die at the same age regardless of when the cancer was diagnosed. CT scans expose a patient to a significant amount of radiation, which this release doesn’t address at all. Do the benefits of a potential early diagnosis outweigh the risks associated with radiation exposure? That’s for each patient (and his or her physician) to decide. But a patient needs to be aware of those risks in order to make an informed decision. In addition, an important limitation was not addressed in the release (nor was it spelled out in the study abstract). According to a 2017 article in the journal Chest, “A significant limitation of lung cancer screening is the false-positive rate. One of the major concerns with the NLST [National Lung Screening Trial] has been the high false-positive rate of screening with LDCT (27.3%).” The release does a thorough job of laying out the screening procedure, and its rationale, for the Augusta study — and places it in the context of previous screening initiatives. No disease mongering here, when it comes to lung cancer. However, we do have some concerns with the headline and first paragraph. More on that below in the Unjustifiable Language section. While the story doesn’t explicitly state where the funding for the initiative came from, it’s also not clear whether there was any external source of funding. Based on the description, the study comes across as a clinician-driven initiative designed to make use of down time on diagnostic equipment. There does not appear to be a conflict of interest. The focus appears to be on getting lung cancer screenings or not getting them — rather than on the virtues of any particular diagnostic technique (though there is one reference to the use of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) technology rather than conventional chest X-rays). As such, we’ll rate this not applicable. The release makes clear that the relevant diagnostic techniques are in widespread use; that there is limited access to the screening initiative (based on availability); and that there is an effort underway to expand the screening initiative. The release makes clear that the Augusta screening initiative was modeled after a previous national study and after a similar, regional initiative in Massachusetts. The headline states that “Free lung-cancer screening in the Augusta area finds more than double the cancer rate of previous screenings.” That’s the first thing the reader sees, and it’s a real attention-grabber. However, it is misleading. At first glance, many readers are likely to think that the rate of lung cancer in the Augusta area has more than doubled since the last time there was a lung-cancer screening initiative. That would be incorrect, given that this appears to be the first such initiative focusing on the Augusta area. Rather, the rate of lung cancer among “high risk” patients screened in the Augusta initiative was more than double that of high risk patients screened during a national screening initiative launched in 2002. That was cleared up a bit in the first paragraph. However, while the release clearly thinks this information is sufficiently important to merit making it the headline, it doesn’t give readers any information about why the cancer rate may be higher in Augusta. Even if the researchers don’t know, it’s important to just come out and say that. We urge research institutions to provide some discussion of those problems they highlight in news releases — and to take special care when writing headlines to ensure that readers don’t get the wrong idea.

SOLUTION:
Free lung-cancer screening in the Augusta area finds more than double the cancer rate of previous screenings