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.

Input: Consider Input: Financial markets had their worst day in 30 years despite emergency action by global central banks to try to prevent a recession, with U.S. stock markets falling 12% to 13%, wiping out trillions of dollars in market value. Just a month ago, financial markets were hitting record highs on the assumption the outbreak would largely be contained in China and not cause disruptions beyond what was seen with earlier viral outbreaks of Ebola, SARS and MERS. There have now been more cases and more deaths outside mainland China than inside, with 180,000 cases worldwide and over 7,000 deaths. Canada, Chile and other countries closed their borders to visitors. Peru deployed masked military personnel to block major roads, while Ireland launched a campaign to recruit more healthcare workers. Airlines slashed flights, shed jobs and asked governments for billions of dollars in loans and grants. In contrast to much of the world, Mexico and Brazil still held large political rallies and the United Kingdom kept its schools open. GRAPHIC: Track the spread of coronavirus - here  U.S. states pleaded with the Trump administration on Monday to coordinate a national response to the outbreak, saying patchwork measures enacted by state and local authorities were insufficient to confront the coast-to-coast emergency that has killed at least 74 Americans. A few hours later, President Donald Trump urged Americans to halt most social activities for 15 days and not congregate in groups larger than 10 people in a newly aggressive effort to reduce the spread of the coronavirus. Calling the highly contagious virus an “invisible enemy,” Trump said the worst of the outbreak could be over by July, August or later and warned a recession was possible. However, the United States was not yet closing its borders or mandating curfews or business closures on a national scale. Many states and cities had already taken those steps or were preparing to. San Francisco area residents will be urged to shelter in place for three weeks starting on Tuesday, the San Francisco Chronicle reported. A White House adviser said the United States could pump $800 billion or more into the economy to minimize economic damage. EU finance ministers were planning a coordinated economic response to the virus, which the European Commission says could push the European Union into recession. The World Health Organization (WHO) called on all countries on Monday to ramp up testing programs as the best way to slow the advance of the pandemic. “We have a simple message to all countries - test, test, test,” WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told a news conference in Geneva. “All countries should be able to test all suspected cases. They cannot fight this pandemic blindfolded.”    In Italy, another 349 people died on Monday, taking the total to 2,158, with nearly 28,000 cases, after 368 deaths were reported on Sunday, a daily toll more dire than even China was reporting at the peak of the outbreak. “Many children think it is scary,” Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg told a news conference dedicated to answering children’s questions about the pandemic. “It is OK to be scared when so many things happen at the same time,” Solberg said. Several countries banned mass gatherings such as sports, cultural and religious events to combat the fast-spreading respiratory disease that has infected nearly 179,000 people globally and killed more than 7,000. Spain and France, where cases and fatalities have begun surging at a pace just days behind that of Italy, imposed severe lockdowns over the weekend. The Middle East business and travel hub of Dubai said it was closing all bars and lounges until the end of March. Thailand plans to close schools, bars, movie theaters and popular cockfighting arenas. Public health experts in the United States and elsewhere are hoping the measures will help spread out the number of new cases over time so as not to overwhelm hospitals and healthcare systems as has happened in Italy. Italy’s Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte told daily Corriere della Sera that the outbreak was still getting worse, though the governor of Lombardy, the northern region that has suffered the worst, said he saw the first signs of a slowdown. The International Olympic Committee will hold talks with heads of international sports organizations on Tuesday, a source close to a federation briefed on the issue said, amid doubts the Tokyo 2020 Olympics set to start on July 24 can proceed.

Output: Coronavirus causes historic market drop, global scramble to contain 'invisible enemy'.


Input: Consider Input: They found several creams caused skin cancer in the specially bred mice, which had been pre-treated with ultraviolet radiation. The cancers are not melanoma, the deadliest kind of skin cancer, they stressed in their report in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology, but another type called squamous cell carcinoma. Such tumours are slow growing, highly treatable and only fatal if patients fail to have them removed. Allan Conney and colleagues at Rutgers University in New Jersey said they discovered the risk while testing a theory that caffeine could prevent skin cancer. “We sort of got into this by accident,” Conney said in a telephone interview. “We wanted a safe cream that we could put the caffeine into.”   They were testing specially bred albino mice, which are prone to develop skin cancer. The mice are pre-treated with ultraviolet radiation to simulate the effects of a human who has had heavy sun exposure in the past but then stopped — something that may be happening in the population as people realize the risks of getting a tan. Conney’s team decided to test the creams first and found that all four they tested caused tumours to grow on the mice. He said he does not know why, but suspects two ingredients — mineral oil and sodium laurel sulphate. “We’d like to understand the mechanism. What is most important is to see whether these moisturizing creams are tumorigenic in people,” Conney said. He said his lab is not equipped to do this but someone should. But he added, “I don’t think that people should be scared because this is a mouse study and we don’t know whether or not it applies to humans.”   Other experts were sceptical about the study. “This is a pretty artificial situation with the mouse skin primed by a lot of UV light to develop cancer,” Karol Sikora, Medical Director of Cancer Partners U.K. in Britain, said in a statement. Dr. Jonathan Rees, an expert in dermatology at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, said squamous cell carcinoma was not a big health worry. “Non-melanoma skin cancer in man is very, very common and is almost 100 percent curable with an operation usually simpler than a tooth filling,” Rees said in a statement. Conney said the mouse was a commonly used model in skin cancer but said he agreed that it does not perfectly replicate human skin and human behaviour. He said his team approached Johnson & Johnson to create a cream without the suspect products and they developed one using other readily available ingredients. “They are things that are commonly used in many moisturizing creams,” he said. This cream did not cause the tumours in the mice, they said. He said Rutgers and Johnson & Johnson had patented the new cream jointly but did not know whether it would be commercially developed. A spokesman at the company was not immediately available for comment.

Output: Skin creams seen to cause tumours on mice.


Input: Consider Input: The story makes clear that the test is expensive and that Medicare and some other insurance plans cover it. Although the article provides data about the total number of people randomized to the two arms of the study, it does not go beyond what the news release offers about the percentage/relative increases in remission of symptoms and response to drugs. No absolute numbers are given, so it’s impossible to know how many of the patients in each arm actually benefited and to what extent. All it provides is the relative improvement in “response” to medication: “researchers found a 30% greater response to the medicine when the test was applied.” No data is provided for remission. But when you look at the raw numbers regarding remission rates, and compare the results of both groups, they don’t look as impressive: Of those who didn’t receive genetic testing, 10% reached remission. With the tests, it was 15%. This gives the reader perspective that the absolute difference was 5%. Also, the news release hints that at least some of the results might not have been statistically significant, and we’re curious about that and think it should have been explained in the story: “The GeneSight-treated cohort also demonstrated higher symptom improvement which approached statistical significance (Chart 1).” The test itself — using DNA taken from a cheek swab — carries no physical risks. But the story needed more detail about the potential downsides. As noted in more detail in the TIME coverage of the story, the various “scales” that are used to assess drugs aren’t organized by how effective the drugs might be based on genetics, but instead how many adverse events they might cause. So, a person is told to take certain drugs not because they’ll be more effective than other drugs, they’re just less likely to cause problems. Could selecting drugs based on how many problems they cause lead some people to choose drugs that aren’t as effective for treating depression? That would seem to be biggest issue in terms of harms — that the test would simply be wrong for some people. Also, the test appears to show results for drugs beyond antidepressants — including some drugs that are known to cause dependency or can be deadly when taken alone, mixed together or with other drugs, such as hypnotics and benzodiazepines (Ambien and Xanax, for example). This is important to consider in a group of people already at higher risk for suicide. All of this means adverse event data is vital — was it indeed lower in the gene-tested group? If adverse event data were not available from the company or the investigators at the University of Michigan who led the study, the article could have noted the fact. The story did not do enough to establish that this research is still preliminary — it has not been published nor peer-reviewed, and everyone is relying on just a little bit of data released by the company. We should all be skeptical at this point. No disease mongering here; moderate to severe depression is a real and prevalent disorder and danger. We also thought it was wise how the story included a patient narrative with unclear results–she’s feeling better, but not 100%. That is a very powerful way to explain that this new tool isn’t a silver bullet. The story quotes outside experts and notes that the principal investigator is an unpaid consultant to the company that makes the test. We’re also told that the study was funded by the maker of the genetic test. Although quantification is mostly missing, the article properly points out that clinical judgment-based treatment alone misses the mark a lot of the time, and is essentially educated guesswork. The article might have been strengthened even more had it given information about alternatives or adjuncts to drugs, such as behavioral therapy and electroshock therapy. It’s clear from the story that the test, marketed as GeneSight, is available. The story is pretty careful to put the findings of the study — presented at a conference in New York — in the context of overall advances in the use of pharmacogenetics and precision medicine, treatments increasingly tailored to an individual’s genetic makeup. And it notes that the Myriad Genetics test is not the only player in the gene-based medicine field. The story also includes the information that the study was “blinded” and randomized, but (happily) avoids the hyperbole of the news release which calls it a “landmark” study and the largest ever of its kind. As noted above, the article quotes outside sources.


Output: Which Anti-Depressant is Right for You? Your DNA Can Shed Some Light