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.

"Ed Stafford of Leicestershire, England walks in between trees as he walks through the Amazon jungle in Brazil in this undated handout photo. Former British army captain Stafford became on Monday the first known person to walk from the origin of the Amazon river, the world's second-longest river, to its mouth, after withstanding ""50,000"" mosquito bites, scorpion attacks and skin disease in his 859 day odyssey. REUTERS/Handout Ed Stafford, a 34-year-old from Leicestershire, England, dived into the Atlantic Ocean after taking 859 days to walk the length of the world’s second-longest river, starting at the peak of Mount Mismi in Peru in April 2008. “It’s just phenomenal to be here at the end of the journey after 2-1/2 years slogging our way through the jungle,” he told Reuters after arriving at the beach about 90 miles northeast of the Brazilian city of Belem. “It was really difficult to envisage how this was going to feel and I’m completely overwhelmed.”   Stafford briefly collapsed from exhaustion with only 52 miles of the 6,000-mile journey to go, passing out by the roadside after breaking out in a rash. “I feel slightly humbled that my system just decided to shut down so close to the finish,” he wrote on his blog at www.walkingtheamazon.com. Stafford has aimed to use the walk to raise awareness about the threats to the Amazon rain forest and its people, using a portable satellite video to blog about his trek. He had planned to complete the walk in about a year, but the journey was prolonged by floods that forced him to walk a roundabout route that was 2,000 miles longer than the 4,000-mile (6,400-km) length of the Amazon, which is exceeded in length only by Africa’s Nile river. He began the journey with fellow British adventurer Luke Collyer, but the pair had a falling out early in the trek and Stafford continued alone. He was joined in July 2008 by a Peruvian forestry worker, Gadiel Cho Sanchez Rivera, who pledged to walk with him for five days and has been with him on the walk ever since. A statement from Stafford’s media team said that the Briton had been: “wrongly accused of murder on two separate occasions, been imprisoned, had concrete stuffed in his mouth by hostile tribes people, been chased by Ashaninka Indians with bows and arrows, been stung by hundreds of wasps and watched as his guide ‘Cho’ removed a botfly from Ed’s head with superglue and a tree spine.”   It said he had endured “50,000” mosquito bites, lived on a diet of piranha fish, rice and beans, and dodged a variety of snakes, electric eels, scorpions, and ants, as well as contracting a skin-disfiguring disease. Famed British explorer Sir Ranulph Fiennes was quoted as saying in the statement that Stafford’s feat was “truly extraordinary.”   “No one has ever done this before and the pundits considered the route impossible,” he said."
British man becomes first to walk Amazon length.

This release doesn’t discuss costs in its comparison of influenza shots versus nasal sprays, although both modes of immunization have been around for a long while and the costs for both are easily known. While flu immunizations are often free through public health clinics and such, some people receive their immunizations from their family physicians and carry a specific cost. Knowing the difference in costs between the two types is useful information both for people and public health officials. The release reports similar rates of vaccine uptake for intranasal vaccine and standard flu shots. But it does not quantify benefits for the main outcome of the study, that is, rates of influenza in communities vaccinated with nasal vs injected vaccine over the course of the study. These rates were statistically no different: 5.2% for the standard vs 5.3% for the nasal vaccine. This release makes no mention of possible harms that my follow the use of either the influenza vaccine injections or nasal spray, even though there are well-known restrictions on whom should and should not receive the nasal spray, and potential negative reactions to the injections among some people. The release points out that the study was the “first blinded randomized controlled trial” done in children within largely closed communities and it found similar efficacy in using the two modes of immunization. However, we do wish the release had addressed limitations, as well as some of the complexity of making these results generalizable to a larger population, as we saw with NPR’s take on the news. While media attention is routinely heightened leading up to and during flu season, this release does not appear to reach the level of disease mongering. The release does identify the chief funder of the study, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, although it offers no information on possible conflicts of interest among any of the researchers. The abstract of the study does state that two of the researchers do have links to pharmaceutical firms, but not in relation this study. Since the study looked a two forms of influenza vaccine administration, it obviously addresses the question of comparing alternatives. Both forms of immunization — shots and nasal spray — have been around for some time, their availability is widely known, earning the release a Satisfactory in this category. The release makes clear that the novelty of this study is its ability to examine both indirect effects of vaccination on the community as well as direct effects for persons receiving the vaccine. The release does not use any unjustifiable language.
Flu nasal spray provides similar protection against influenza as flu shot: Study

Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California have sent a letter with the signatures of 64 colleagues to congressional leaders supporting the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment that prevents federal officials using public funds to enforce federal laws against medical marijuana. “The provision, which first became law in December 2014, has successfully protected patients, providers, and businesses against federal prosecution, so long as they act within the confines of their state’s medical marijuana laws,” they said in the letter that was sent this week. It asked Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate to include the provision in any final package as they negotiate a fiscal year 2018 appropriations bill to fund the government beyond Dec. 8. U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions in May told congressional leaders in a letter that it would be “unwise” to renew the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment, saying marijuana is harmful and is banned by federal law. Blumenauer, in a message to marijuana stakeholders and supporters, said that despite bipartisan support for the provision, the leadership of the House didn’t allow a vote on it or any other marijuana-related amendments. But the Senate Appropriations Committee included the provision in its bill. “I’m working hard to ensure Rohrabacher-Blumenauer remains in effect to protect individuals in 46 states and thousands of state-legal businesses from federal intervention,” the Oregon congressman said in his message, emailed to The Associated Press by the Oregon Cannabis Business Council. Blumenauer, in a telephone interview with AP last summer, said Sessions is “out of step” with most members of Congress, who have become more supportive “of ending the failed prohibition on marijuana.” ___ Follow Andrew Selsky on Twitter at https://twitter.com/andrewselsky

Continued protection sought for medical-marijuana states.