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: Hussle, who was killed Sunday in Los Angeles, was reportedly working on a documentary about Dr. Sebi, who in 1985 beat New York allegations of practicing medicine without a license after his healing center ran newspaper advertisements claiming his diet of low alkaline foods cured patients with AIDS. Sebi, born Alfredo Bowman, died in a Honduran jail cell in 2016 after his arrest for carrying large sums of cash into his native country. He was 82. The official cause was pneumonia. Some think Hussle’s death is connected to the Sebi documentary because of a belief that there were forces trying to silence Sebi’s health message, though there is no direct evidence of that. Nick Cannon posted on Instagram that he’d like to carry on Hussle’s work, not directly referencing the film. He has since posted photos and videos of Sebi along with mentions of Hussle. A Cannon representative said Tuesday that Cannon had not yet reached out to Hussle’s loved ones about the film project, wanting to give them time to grieve. Police have said they believe the man suspected of shooting Hussle outside his clothing store had a personal dispute with the rapper. As for Sebi, one Twitter user, Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, summed it up this way: “The real tragedy about Dr Sebi is that white scientists, including medical doctors, have experimented so much on Black people that a lot of Black people don’t trust medicine or any other science. So be judgmental ... but judge how we got here: whiteness.”
Example Output: Social media sleuths take on mysterious herbalist Dr. Sebi.

Example Input: One new study found that heart attack survivors benefited from a medicine long used to treat gout. Several experimental drugs also showed early promise for interfering with heart-harmful genes without modifying the genes themselves — in one case, with treatment just twice a year. The research was featured at an American Heart Association conference ending Monday in Philadelphia. “There’s a lot of excitement” about the new gene-targeting medicines, especially because they seem to last so long, said Dr. Karol Watson, of the University of California, Los Angeles. Scientists have been exploring gene therapy — altering DNA — to attack the root cause of many diseases. The new drugs essentially accomplish the same thing without tampering with genes, said the University of Pennsylvania’s Dr. Daniel Rader, who has consulted for some makers of these drugs. The medicines work by silencing or blocking messages that genes give to cells to make proteins that can do harm, such as allowing cholesterol to accumulate. The first few of these “RNA-interference” drugs recently were approved for other conditions, and research is also targeting heart disease. Farthest along is inclisiran, tested in 1,561 people with heart disease from clogged arteries who still had high LDL, the bad form of cholesterol, despite taking standard drugs. They were given a shot of inclisiran or a dummy drug when they joined the study, three months later and then every six months. The drug lowered LDL by 56% without serious side effects. More testing will show whether it also lowers heart attacks and other problems, not just cholesterol. Inclisiran’s maker, The Medicines Company, plans to seek federal approval for it later this year. Two other RNA interference drugs aim at a different target — triglycerides, another fat in the blood that’s elevated in one quarter of Americans. Treatments include very low-fat diets, weight loss, fish oil and drugs, but doctors say more and better therapies are needed. Each RNA interference drug was tested at various doses in 40 people. A single shot lowered triglycerides by 30% to 67%, and the benefit lasted for at least four months. The studies were just intended to show safety; Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals is developing both drugs. Other research found new benefits from older drugs. AstraZeneca’s Farxiga, originally developed to treat diabetes, also lowered the risk of heart problems in heart failure patients who did not have diabetes. Among 2,605 of such patients treated for 18 months, about 9% of those on Farxiga had worsening heart failure or heart-related death versus nearly 13% of those not given the drug. That worked out to a 27% lower risk, without extra serious side effects. Surprising benefits also were seen in a Canadian study of the decades-old gout drug. The anti-inflammatory drug colchicine — sold as Colcrys, Mitigare and in generic form — was tested in 4,745 people who recently had a heart attack. After about two years, colchicine users had a 23% lower risk of suffering a new heart attack, heart-related death, stroke, cardiac arrest or urgent need for an artery-opening procedure compared with a group given dummy pills. The benefit came mostly from preventing strokes and artery-opening procedures, and some heart doctors would rather have seen more difference in heart attacks and deaths. Colchicine is being tested in several other studies, and more evidence is needed before using it routinely to lower heart risks, Dr. L. Kristin Newby of Duke University wrote in a commentary published with the study in the New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Donald Lloyd-Jones, a Northwestern University cardiologist and program chief for the heart conference, was more supportive. “When you have a safe drug that’s easily available, it’s going to be hard to hold this one back,” he said. ___ Marilynn Marchione can be followed on Twitter at http://twitter.com/MMarchioneAP ___ 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: New, old drugs may offer fresh ways to fight heart disease.

Example Input: "Leaders of the U.S. Army need to take more active steps to prevent a growing number of soldiers from committing suicide, according to a major study released by the Army. Gen. Peter Chiarelli discussed the study on This Week with Christiane Amanpour. The study documented complex pressures -- including overly long deployments, more tolerance for high-risk behavior among soldiers and lax standards for leaders keeping tabs on their soldiers. Another complicating factor: increased use of prescription antidepressants, anti-anxiety drugs and pain medications. ""We know that we had over 106,000 soldiers last year who had a prescription of three weeks or more for some kind of antidepressant, anti-anxiety medicine,"" said Chiarelli. A few moments later, he added, ""A portion of those 106,000 soldiers that I told you are on some kind of pain medication, it has nothing to do with a behavior health issue. There are soldiers who have been on two, three, four deployments, hucking a rucksack filled with equipment that may weigh 70 to 80 pounds at 8,000 feet, and they've got a knee injury or a leg injury that is painful. Probably should stay home and get operated on, but they go back for the second deployment, and they're on some kind of a pain medication. We have soldiers who suck it up all the time and hide from their leaders when they're hurt."" Chiarelli was referring to information in the Army's Health Promotion, Risk Reduction, and Suicide Prevention Report, released Aug. 5, 2010. This seemed like an important issue to explore further. The report explains that historically, the Army's suicide rate has been much lower than the civilian population's. But the Army's rate began increasing in 2004 and surpassed the national average in 2008. That year, the suicide rate in the Army was 20.2 per 100,000, compared with a typical civilian rate of 19.2. This increase prompted the study. ""In Fiscal Year (FY) 2009, 160 active duty Soldiers took their lives, making suicide the third leading cause of death among the Army population,"" the study states. ""If we include accidental death, which frequently is the result of high risk behavior (drinking and driving, drug overdose, etc. ), we find that less young men and women die in combat than die by their own actions. Simply stated, we are often more dangerous to ourselves than the enemy."" The report affirms the 106,000 number that Chiarelli uses. ""Latest accounts estimate that approximately 106,000 Soldiers are prescribed some form of pain, depression or anxiety medications. The potential for abuse is obvious,"" it states. The report also discusses whether these and other prescription drugs are being abused by members of the military:  ""There is concern that potential prescription drug abuse is masked in our current system. This is the result of the increase in prescriptions which expands the population authorized to use pharmaceuticals. For example, the growing population who has obtained prescriptions for amphetamines has resulted in an increased rate of authorized use. Unfortunately, there is no definitive method to ascertain if the use was authorized or illicit. As a result, we have masked a subset of that population who are either dependent or illicitly use drugs. Ultimately, if left unchecked, this gap facilitates a population of drug addicts and distributors."" The report also notes that many soldiers are aged 18 to 29, and there are continuing questions about the use of antidepressants -- specifically, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) -- among young people, and whether these medications sometimes increase the risk of suicide. ""The Army Medical Command (MEDCOM) is cognizant of this issue and is investigating the use of these and other medications to better manage care,"" the report states. The report makes additional observations about prescription drug users in the military. Pain medications seem to be more common than antidepressants or anti-anxiety drugs; ""14% of the force is taking some form of opiate medication,"" according to the report. The percentage for antidepressants and anti-anxiety medications appear somewhat lower, with between 3 and 6 percent of the deployed force receiving such medication, according to evidence the report cites. Anecdotal evidence in the report indicates some soldiers receive multiple prescriptions for pain and depression. We should emphasize the study draws no hard conclusions about the role that prescription drugs play in military suicides. ""The impact of increased use of antidepressant, psychiatric and narcotic pain management medications has not been comprehensively studied in a military population,"" the report states. In the interview with Amanpour, Chiarelli rejected the idea that soldiers were overly medicated. ""We know that the drugs that we're talking about are cleared by the CENTCOM surgeon for soldiers to be taking when they're downrange. So we're not sending any soldier into harm's way who is taking a drug that we feel would somehow endanger him or others,"" he said. Finally, we should note that the report links policing potential drug addiction to military leadership in a section titled ""The Lost Art of Leadership in Garrison."" The Army has been transformed in recent years, the report states, so that combat readiness has been emphasized more than ""good order and discipline practices."" Unannounced health and welfare checks and inspections ""have been lost"" as part of that transition. ""There are instances where a leader’s lack of Soldier accountability resulted in suicide victims not being found until they had been dead for three or four weeks,"" the report noted. While the report raises a host of issues, we're only ruling on what the general said about the rate of medication among soldiers. The Army report and other testimony that we found support Chiarelli's statement that approximately 106,000 soldiers had ""a prescription of three weeks or more"" for pain, depression or anxiety medication."
Example Output:
"About 106,000 soldiers had ""a prescription of three weeks or more"" for pain, depression or anxiety medication."