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.

[Q]: The story provided no cost estimates for vitamin and mineral supplements. The magnitude of wasted expenditures that could be saved is relevant. The story indicated that there was no cancer risk reduction associated with the vitamin supplements studied. A quote in the story from the author of one of the studies indicated that too little or too much of particular vitamins was associated with increased cancer risk. In addition, the table in the story provided information about vitamins being associated with an increased risk of diabetes and a higher, though not significant increase in the incidence in the case of one cancer. The story did not convey any sense of the quality of the studies on which it was reporting. Were they retrospective observational studies (generally weak designs) or prospective randomized trials (the best type of study). A more insightful explanation about why the current group of studies which find no protective effect are more compelling that the previous studies that found a protective effect of vitamins would have also been useful.. This story did not engage in disease mongering. The story included quotes from one of the study authors, as well as a spokesperson from the American Cancer Society and an expert without connection to the study but who wrote an editorial accompanying the study. The story mentions specific lifestyle interventions which have been shown to be associated with reduction in cancer risk. It inaccurately mentioned screening for colon, cervical, and breast cancer as means of reducing their risk. It should have stated that these screening tests are associated with reduced risk of dying of these cancers, not as means of reducing the chance of developing them. It’s clear that vitamins and mineral supplements are in widespread use. The story correctly indicated that the results of the current study are consistent with the results from several recent studies which demonstrated that vitamin supplementation failed to decrease the chance of developing cancer. The sidebar table, which summarized results and included the journal name and month of publication, provided a resource for interested readers to find more information. Does not appear to rely on a press release.
[A]: Vitamins get ‘F’ in cancer prevention


[Q]: Igor is a 13-year old tiger living in the zoo in the southern Hungarian town of Szeged. It has been suffering from hip joint pains for years. The treatment, used more widely on humans than animals, cures injured joints with tissue taken from patients’ own fatty tissue, which contains regenerative stem cells, doctors said. These are injected back into the ailing joints. “The essence of stem-cell treatment is that we can achieve an improvement in the quality of life of patients who cannot be helped by operations or medical treatment,” said Robert Gippert, the veterinarian who operated on Igor’s hip. “Just like in humans, the worn out joint of Igor the tiger will heal due to the regenerative and self-healing effects of stem cells, without the use of external materials,” he added. The sedated tiger was lying peacefully on its side on the operating table, with its big paws sticking out from below a green blanket. After Igor wakes up, it could take two to three weeks before vets can judge the improvement in its movement.
[A]: Igor the Siberian tiger gets stem-cell hip treatment in Hungary.


[Q]: The story notes the costs of several of the therapy sessions offered. “A five-day program costs $2,200 and includes about 20 minutes of dolphin time each day.” The story only makes reference to one specific claim of quantified benefits. “The website for the Living From the Heart Dolphin Experience says that 95% of autistic children who receive dolphin therapy enjoy benefits that last up to two years. Those benefits are said to include longer attention spans, better emotional control and improved communication skills.” The story debunks this and other more vague claims in the story by saying, “There are a few dolphin studies out there, but they don’t add up to much, says Lori Marino, a neuroscience and behavioral biology researcher at Emory University in Atlanta.” The story does not quantify the potential harms from dolphin therapy. We think the reporter may have had a hard time finding this information in the literature, but we would have liked to at least have seen a little more discussion of how money and effort wasted on an uNPRoven therapy might actually be detrimental for people who have serious illnesses that could benefit from other, more proven courses of treatment. The story does not spend a lot of time with the studies that have been touted as supporting dolphin therapy, but it doesn’t have to. There are very few studies that have even examined the topic, and none of them have examined a substantial number of people. Instead, the story brings in strong independent analysis to help readers understand both the reasons why some are claiming a thereaputic benefit and the paucity of the evidence supporting those claims. The executive director of one of the dolphin centers “agrees that there’s no real research to support dolphin therapy, but she sees that shortcoming in a positive light: “If there’s no science behind it, how can you say that it doesn’t work?”  This is a classic argument, and one that the column handles adroitly. The story does not engage in disease-mongering. It also doesn’t make light of the people who are seeking help at these centers. It says, for example, “The dolphins also work with some adults, including veterans who have lost limbs.” We think it is often too easy to take cheap shots when it comes to far-fetched sounding treatments, even though some of the people who have sought these treatments may believe whole heartedly that they benefited. The story uses a wide variety of sources and allows many of the centers operators to speak for themselves. We would have liked to have heard from at least one of the researchers examining the issue. There were no comparisons with alternatives, and this goes back to potential harms. The story mentions that “Through mechanisms that aren’t completely clear, there are also reports that dolphins have relieved chest pain and restored faulty vision.” Anyone seeking to relieve chest pain through dolphin therapy may be ignoring serious warning signs about heart problems. This is just one of many ways that people could be sidetracked by an uNPRoven therapy like this. The story does a great job showing where these centers operate, even saying, with a mind toward its regional audience, that there are no such centers in California. The story makes it clear that there is nothing novel about dolphin therapy. The story does not rely on a news release.
[A]:
The shallow waters of dolphin therapy claims