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.

Example Input: "Assembly Democrats want to guarantee access to abortion for New York state residents if the Supreme Court overturns the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. A bill, commonly referred to as the Reproductive Health Act, would change state law to guarantee women the choice to have or refuse an abortion or contraception if the Supreme Court reverses Roe v. Wade. Different versions of the bill have been introduced for at least seven years in the Legislature. This year’s debate over the measure included tough questions to the bill’s sponsor, Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick, from members opposed to the bill. ""So, if a baby is born intact and alive but has not yet taken its first breath, it has no rights?"" Assemblymember Steven F. McLaughlin asked. ""Is that the position you are taking?"" ""New York state law says you are alive when you begin to breathe,"" Glick said. ""That’s not me, that’s just the law."" Is Glick right? Is that the law? State abortion law Glick said her definition comes from the current state law on abortion. The definition is included in the state’s penal law, or criminal code, which defines the crime of abortion, where someone intentionally causes a pregnancy to be terminated without consent or justification. The law says a person, ""when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who has been born and is alive."" So a fetus inside the womb is not considered a person, and therefore does not have rights under state law. That is why someone can legally have an abortion after being pregnant for 24 weeks to preserve the life of the mother. State health law State health law goes a step further in defining when someone is considered born. Under Public Health Law, live birth is defined as ""the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy, which, after such separation, breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached; each product of such a birth is considered live born."" It is up to a medical professional to determine if there is evidence of life in the infant. If the medical professional finds evidence, it is legally considered the birth of a person. ""The reality is that if they are born and alive they are a person and have full rights,"" Glick said in a phone interview. ""And that is the determination of a medical person at the time."" Our ruling Glick said during an Assembly debate that ""New York state law says you are alive when you begin to breathe."" State law says a person has been born alive when the fetus has exited the woman’s body and shows signs of life. The law specifically mentions breathing as one of the signs. But the law also mentions other evidence of life, such as a beating heart.s ."
Example Output: New York state law says you are alive when you begin to breathe.

Example Input: Scientists dubbed the startling findings “immune amnesia.” The body can rebuild those defenses — but it could take years. And with measles on the rise, “it should be a scary phenomenon,” said Dr. Michael Mina of Harvard’s school of public health, lead author of research published Thursday in the journal Science. “This goes under the radar” because doctors wouldn’t necessarily connect a child’s pneumonia to measles they suffered a year earlier, Mina explained. “But would they have gotten it if they hadn’t gotten measles?” The Harvard team analyzed blood samples taken from 77 children before and after a measles outbreak in an unvaccinated community in the Netherlands. They looked for antibodies, which remember viruses and bacteria they encounter to guard against a repeat infection. After recovering from measles, the youngsters were left with plenty of antibodies against that virus — but ones they’d previously harbored against other germs had plummeted. In the most severe cases, “they’re just as vulnerable as if they were infants,” said study senior author Stephen Elledge, a Harvard geneticist. Elledge is paid by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, which also supports AP’s Health & Science Department. A separate study, published Thursday in Science Immunology, supported the findings. Researchers from Britain’s Wellcome Sanger Institute used the Dutch blood samples to genetically test antibody-producing cells, and concluded measles is eliminating enough to re-set the immune system to a baby-like state. If protection against the misery — and sometimes life-threatening effects — of measles isn’t enough reason to vaccinate children, specialists said the two studies offer a powerful new rationale. “There really are profound gaps and holes” in someone’s immunity after measles, said Dr. Anthony Fauci of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, which helped fund the Harvard work. “You ultimately recover but after a year or two or sometimes more.” “It’s doubly important to vaccinate children,” agreed Dr. Mark Mulligan of NYU Langone Health, who wasn’t involved with the new research. “It’s a vaccine that protects against the specific target, measles virus, but also against immune suppression.” Measles is one of the world’s most contagious viruses, able to spread through coughs and sneezes for four days before someone develops the characteristic rash. It sometimes leaves children with brain damage or hearing loss, and while deaths are rare in the U.S., measles killed 110,000 people globally in 2017. The vaccine offers powerful protection but a lack of access means measles remains rampant in many lower-income countries. Even the U.S., where most children are immunized, has seen a resurgence fueled by outbreaks in unvaccinated communities that in turn threaten people too young or sick to be immunized. So far this year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has counted more than 1,200 U.S. measles cases, the most since 1992. Doctors have long known that people temporarily experience weakened immunity after measles. Using decades of health records, Mina previously reported that child deaths from other infections jumped after a measles outbreak, increases that lasted two or three years. But no one knew why, until the new study. The Dutch children started out pretty healthy: Technology developed in Elledge’s lab found antibodies in their blood against typical childhood germs. But two months after recovering from measles, the children had lost on average 20 percent of their usual antibody mix. Some lost up to 70 percent of protection against specific bugs, limiting their ability to respond if they encounter that germ again. Importantly, researchers didn’t find loss of antibodies in “control” populations that didn’t get infected with measles — or in children after they received the measles vaccine. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Example Output: Measles saps kids’ ability to fight other germs.

Example Input: There is no mention of the cost of this new drug, Rydapt (midostaurin), or of the cost of the diagnostic tool, the LeukoStrat CDx FLT3 Mutation Assay, which the FDA approved for use in determining the appropriateness of using this drug. Many patients will need to be tested for this mutation in order to find the individuals who have it and thus may benefit from this new drug. However, the FDA evaluates drugs without considering costs, which is why they are not discussed in this news release. Although the release does provide some numerical context, it’s insufficient to give credit here. The release could have provided much more useful information about the quantitative benefits. For example, a summary of the trial upon which the approval was based stated, “At a median follow-up of 57 months, midostaurin reduced mortality risk by 23% compared with placebo plus chemotherapy. The median OS was 74.7 months for the group receiving midostaurin versus 26 months for the placebo group (P = .007), representing a 23% reduction in the risk for death favoring midostaurin.” The release should have provided both absolute as well as relative benefits, both of which were available from the trials. What the release does say is that patients who received a combination of standard chemotherapy and Rydapt for treating AML “lived longer than patients who received chemotherapy alone, although a specific median survival rate could not be reliably estimated,” compared to patients receiving chemotherapy plus a placebo. That’s pretty vague. In addition, it said that “patients who received Rydapt in combination with chemotherapy in the trial went longer (median 8.2 months) without certain complications (failure to achieve complete remission within 60 days of starting treatment, progression of leukemia or death) than patients who received chemotherapy alone (median three months).” The release effectively reports possible side effects experienced by AML patients receiving Rydapt, including “low levels of white blood cells with fever (febrile neutropenia), nausea, inflammation of the mucous membranes (mucositis), vomiting, headache, spots on the skin due to bleeding (petechiae), musculoskeletal pain, nosebleeds (epistaxis), device-related infection, high blood sugar (hyperglycemia) and upper respiratory tract infection.”  It also warns women who are pregnant or breastfeeding to avoid taking Rydapt. It also points out that the FDA approved the use of Rydapt for other patients with “certain types of rare blood disorders” and provides a list of possible side effects they might experience. The release explains that the approval follows the completion of a “randomized trial of 717 patients who had not been treated previously for AML.”  It would have been better if the release would have added how many patients were screened with the diagnostic test to identify the 717 patients studied. While it appears this treatment prolongs survival, it isn’t clear from the release what the time frame is, meaning people may live longer but still may die in the end of the disease. And while the release states that there are almost 20,000 patients diagnosed with AML each year in the US, it doesn’t state how many may have this mutation and thus be potentially treated with this new therapy. According to a review article published last year, “Approximately 30% of patients with AML carry the FLT3 mutation, which is associated with aggressive disease, with poor prognosis and a high risk for relapse.” That means that most patients with AML will not be eligible for this treatment but the release could give the general public the impression that it will help most patients with AML. There is no evidence of disease mongering here. AML is a life-threatening condition and new agents that can prolong life are clearly needed. There’s plenty of context about the disease and how the drug works: “Rydapt is a kinase inhibitor that works by blocking several enzymes that promote cell growth. If the FLT3 mutation is detected in blood or bone marrow samples using the LeukoStrat CDx FLT3 Mutation Assay, the patient may be eligible for treatment with Rydapt in combination with chemotherapy.” The release doesn’t mention who funded the research leading to the approval, although some readers might be able to guess that Novartis Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of Rydapt, and Invivoscribe Technologies, the makers of the LeukoStrat CDx FLT3 Mutation Assay, sponsored the trials since the approval was given to them. The new medication was used in combination with standard chemotherapy. That tells us the alternative was standard chemotherapy alone, an important comparison. While the release doesn’t specifically state the availability of the drug, the FDA approval for its use suggests that it should start to become available in a matter of months and not years. The release makes clear that the use of this drug for AML patients with the FLT3 mutation is a new approach for a situation where previous therapies have been marginally successful. It also claims that the drug is “the first targeted therapy to treat patients with AML, in combination with chemotherapy,” according to an FDA official. No unjustifiable language here.
Example Output:
FDA approves new combination treatment for acute myeloid leukemia