user: 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.
--------
Question: A still image provided by KPIX TV and taken from the broadcaster's video footage shows Timothy Ray Brown during an interview at his home in San Francisco. Timothy Ray Brown, was a young HIV-positive American living and working in Berlin who had developed leukaemia and suffered a relapse after initial treatment. REUTERS/Courtesy KPIX TV/Handout Dramatic scientific advances since HIV was first discovered 30 years ago this week mean the virus is no longer a death sentence. Thanks to tests that detect HIV early, new antiretroviral AIDS drugs that can control the virus for decades, and a range of ways to stop it being spread, 33.3 million people around the world are learning to live with HIV. People like Vuyiseka Dubula, an HIV-positive AIDS activist and mother in Cape Town, South Africa, can expect relatively normal, full lives. “I’m not thinking about death at all,” she says. “I’m taking my treatment and I’m living my life.”   Nonetheless, on the 30th birthday of HIV, the global scientific community is setting out with renewed vigor to try to kill it. The drive is partly about science, and partly about money. Treating HIV patients with lifelong courses of sophisticated drugs is becoming unaffordable. Caring for HIV patients in developing countries alone already costs around $13 billion a year and that could treble over the next 20 years. In tough economic times, the need to find a cure has become even more urgent, says Francoise Barre Sinoussi, who won a Nobel prize for her work in identifying Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). “We have to think about the long term, including a strategy to find a cure,” she says. “We have to keep on searching until we find one.”   The Berlin patient is proof they could. His case has injected new energy into a field where people for years believed talk of a cure was irresponsible. Timothy Ray Brown was living in Berlin when besides being HIV-positive, he had a relapse of leukemia. He was dying. In 2007, his doctor, Gero Huetter, made a radical suggestion: a bone marrow transplant using cells from a donor with a rare genetic mutation, known as CCR5 delta 32. Scientists had known for a few years that people with this gene mutation had proved resistant to HIV. “We really didn’t know when we started this project what would happen,” Huetter, an oncologist and haematologist who now works at the University of Heidelberg in southern Germany, told Reuters. The treatment could well have finished Brown off. Instead he remains the only human ever to be cured of AIDS. “He has no replicating virus and he isn’t taking any medication. And he will now probably never have any problems with HIV,” says Huetter. Brown has since moved to San Francisco. Most experts say it is inconceivable Brown’s treatment could be a way of curing all patients. The procedure was expensive, complex and risky. To do this in others, exact match donors would have to be found in the tiny proportion of people — most of them of northern European descent — who have the mutation that makes them resistant to the virus. Dr Robert Gallo, of the Institute of Virology at the University of Maryland, puts it bluntly. “It’s not practical and it can kill people,” he said last year. Sinoussi is more expansive. “It’s clearly unrealistic to think that this medically heavy, extremely costly, barely reproducible approach could be replicated and scaled-up ... but from a scientist’s point of view, it has shown at least that a cure is possible,” she says. The International AIDS Society will this month formally add the aim of finding a cure to its HIV strategy of prevention, treatment and care. A group of scientist-activists is also launching a global working group to draw up a scientific plan of attack and persuade governments and research institutions to commit more funds. Money is starting to flow. The U.S. National Institutes of Health is asking for proposals for an $8.5 million collaborative research grant to search for a cure, and the Foundation for AIDS Research, or amfAR, has just announced its first round of four grants to research groups “to develop strategies for eradicating HIV infection.”   Until recently, people in HIV and AIDS circles feared that to direct funds toward the search for a cure risked detracting from the fight to get HIV-positive people treated. Even today, only just over five million of the 12 million or so people who need the drugs actually get them. HIV first surfaced in 1981, when scientists at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention discovered it was the cause of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). An article in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of that June referred to “five young men, all active homosexuals” from Los Angeles as the first documented cases. “That was the summer of ‘81. For the world it was the beginning of the era of HIV/AIDS, even though we didn’t know it was HIV then,” says Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who has made AIDS research his life’s work. In the subsequent three decades, the disease ignorantly branded “the gay plague” has become one of the most vicious pandemics in human history. Transmitted in semen, blood and breast milk, HIV has devastated poorer regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, where the vast majority of HIV-positive people live. As more tests and treatment have become available, the number of new infections has been falling. But for every two with HIV who get a chance to start on AIDS drugs, five more join the “newly infected” list. United Nations data show that despite an array of potential prevention measures — from male circumcision to sophisticated vaginal or anal microbicide gels — more than 7,100 new people catch the virus every day. Treatment costs per patient can range from around $150 a year in poor countries, where drugs are available as cheap generics, to more than $20,000 a year in the United States. The overall sums are huge. A recent study as part of a non-governmental campaign called AIDS2031 suggests that low and middle-income countries will need $35 billion a year to properly address the pandemic by 2031. That’s almost three times the current level of around $13 billion a year. Add in the costs of treatment in rich countries and experts estimate the costs of HIV 20 years from now will reach $50 to $60 billion a year. “It’s clear that we have to look at another possible way of managing of the epidemic beyond just treating everyone forever,” says Sharon Lewin, a leading HIV doctor and researcher from Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. In some ways, we have been here before. Early AIDS drugs such as AZT came to market in the late 1980s, but within a decade they were overtaken by powerful cocktail treatments known as HAART, or highly active antiretroviral treatment. HAART had a dramatic effect — rapidly driving the virus out of patients’ blood and prompting some to say a cure was just around the corner. But then scientists discovered HIV could lie low in pools or reservoirs of latent infection that even powerful drugs could not reach. Talk of a cure all but died out. “Scientifically we had no means to say we were on the way to finding a cure,” says Bertrand Audoin, executive director of the Geneva-based International AIDS Society. “Scientists ... don’t want to make any more false promises. They didn’t want to talk about a cure again because it really wasn’t anywhere on the horizon.”   The ultimate goal would allow patients to stop taking AIDS drugs, knocking a hole in a $12 billion-a-year market dominated by Californian drugmaker Gilead and the likes of Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Merck. It’s unlikely to happen anytime soon, but Brown’s case has opened the door to new ideas. “What it proved was that if you make someone’s cells resistant to HIV...then all the last bits of HIV, that hang around for a long time in patients on treatment, did in fact decay and disappear,” says Lewin. Now scientists working on mimicking the effect of the Berlin patient’s transplant have had some success. One experimental technique uses gene therapy to take out certain cells, make them resistant to HIV and then put them back into patients in the hope they will survive and spread. At an HIV conference in Boston earlier this year, American researchers presented data on six patients who had large numbers of white blood cells known as CD4 cells removed, manipulated to knock out the existing CCR5 gene, and then replaced. “It works like scissors and cuts a piece of genetic information out of the DNA, and then closes the gap,” says Huetter. “Then every cell arising from this mother cell has this same mutation.”   Early results showed the mutated cells managed to survive inside the bodies of the patients at low levels, remaining present for more than three months in five. “This was a proof of concept,” says Lewin. Another potential avenue is a small group of patients known as “elite controllers”, who despite being infected with HIV are able to keep it under control simply with their own immune systems. Researchers hope these patients could one day be the clue to developing a successful HIV/AIDS vaccine or functional cure. Scientists are also exploring ways to “wake up” HIV cells and kill them. As discovered in the late 1990s, HIV has a way of getting deep into the immune system itself — into what are known as resting memory T-cells — and going to sleep there. Hidden away, it effectively avoids drugs and the body’s own immune response. “Once it goes to sleep in a cell it can stay there forever, which is really the main reason why we can’t cure HIV with current drugs,” says Lewin. Her team in Melbourne and another group in the United States are about to start the first human trials using a drug called SAHA or vorinostat, made by Merck and currently used in cancer treatment, which has shown promise in being able to wake up dormant HIV. As scientists begin to talk up a cure, the old question of whether that’s the right goal has re-emerged. Seth Berkley, a medical epidemiologist and head of the U.S.-based International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) is concerned. An HIV-positive person holds a placard during a programme organized to mark World AIDS Day in Kathmandu December 1, 2010. To match Special Report AIDS/ REUTERS/Deepa Shrestha “From a science point of view, it’s a fabulous thing to do. It’s a great target and a lot of science will be learned. But from a public health point of view, the primary thing you need to do is stop the flow of new infections,” says Berkley. “We need a prevention revolution. That is absolutely critical.”   Vuyiseka Dubula agrees. The South African activist finds talk of a cure for HIV distracting, almost disconcerting. “This research might not yield results soon, and even when it does, access to that cure is still going to be a big issue,” she says. “So in the meantime, while we don’t have the answer on whether HIV can be cured or not, we need to save lives.”

Answer: Special Report: An end to AIDS?.


Question: As the NFL preseason schedule commenced in August 2018, President Donald Trump resumed his fierce criticism of players who protested against racial injustice and police brutality by kneeling or declining to stand on the field during the playing of the U.S. national anthem. After similar protests occurred during several games held on 9 August, President Trump the following morning posted a series of tweets claiming that the players themselves did not understand why they were demonstrating and calling for them to be suspended without pay: The NFL players are at it again – taking a knee when they should be standing proudly for the National Anthem. Numerous players, from different teams, wanted to show their “outrage” at something that most of them are unable to define. They make a fortune doing what they love…… — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 10, 2018   …..Be happy, be cool! A football game, that fans are paying soooo much money to watch and enjoy, is no place to protest. Most of that money goes to the players anyway. Find another way to protest. Stand proudly for your National Anthem or be Suspended Without Pay! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 10, 2018   In response to this tweetstorm, Twitter user Anna Gallardo posted a meme about one particular fatal police shooting of a black man, writing: “Since Donald Trump doesn’t know why NFL players are protesting, let’s retweet this.”   The meme, which was retweeted 120,000 times within three days, gave the following account of the death of an Ohio man named John Crawford III: He was 22 years old. A father to two young sons. He went into Walmart to buy marshmallows, chocolate and graham crackers to make s’mores at a family cookout. While shopping, he picked up an unpackaged BB/pellet air rifle at the store’s sporting goods section. A customer called 911, claiming that John was pointing the gun at people walking by. Since the security video has been released, the customer has recanted. John was carrying a BB gun in the store that sold the gun, in an open carry state. The police arrived, went directly to John and shot him twice before he even knew what was going on. He died at the hospital soon after. A grand jury decided not to indict the officers. John Crawford III mattered. THE INJUSTICE OF HIS MURDER IS WHY THEY KNEEL. The text of the meme was a modified version of an account which the progressive political action committee Voters for Equality published on Facebook in October 2017: His name was John Crawford III. He was 22 years old, a father to two young sons. He went into Walmart to buy marshmallows, chocolate and graham crackers to make s’mores at a family cookout. While shopping, he picked up a un-packaged BB/pellet air rifle inside the store’s sporting goods section. Another customer called 911, claiming that John was pointing the gun at people walking by. Since the security video has been released, the customer has recanted, stating “At no point did he shoulder the rifle and point it at somebody.” John was carrying a BB gun in the store that sold the gun, in an open carry state. The police arrived. Crawford was talking on his cell phone while holding the BB/Pellet air rifle when officers shot him; store video shows the officers fired immediately without giving any verbal commands and without giving Crawford any time to drop the bb gun, even if he had heard them. He died at the hospital soon after. A grand jury decided not to indict the officers. John Crawford III mattered. His life matters, and the injustice of his murder is #WhyTheyKneel #WhyWeKneel. The widely-shared August 2018 tweet prompted enquiries from readers about the overall veracity of the account presented in the meme. On the whole, the meme is highly accurate, but the claim that Crawford was shot “before he even knew what was going on” is a significant point of contention, based on the accounts presented by the police officers involved. Crawford’s Trip to Walmart John Crawford III was shot dead on 5 August 2014 by Sean Williams, a police officer in the city of Beavercreek, Ohio, near Dayton. Crawford was shopping in the Walmart store at 3360 Pentagon Boulevard in the city. As the meme stated, he was indeed the father of two young sons aged five months and under two years old, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer. As reported by the Guardian, Crawford’s girlfriend Tasha Thomas told police in an interview after the shooting that the couple had gone to the Walmart to buy the ingredients to make s’mores for a family cookout, as the meme stated. Multiple news reports confirm the claim in the meme that Crawford picked up an unpackaged pellet gun from a shelf in the Walmart store and walked around with it. The 911 Call Another Walmart customer, later identified as Ronald Ritchie, called 911 to report Crawford to police. Excerpts from an audio recording of the call were later published by multiple news organizations, in which Ritchie told dispatchers that Crawford had loaded a rifle and was “pointing it at people,” including children. Ritchie and his wife’s initial characterizations of Crawford as a threat to shoppers were significantly discredited when surveillance video footage of the incident was released, and when Ritchie himself told the Guardian that “At no point did [Crawford] shoulder the rifle and point it at somebody.”  Several witness statements later seen by the Guardian also negated the notion that Crawford was perceived as a threat by other shoppers: Ritchie and his wife, April, claimed afterwards that Crawford was causing panic among fellow shoppers. Yet only one of seven other customers interviewed by Ohio’s bureau of criminal investigation recalled seeing Crawford. The customer, Billie Brewer, told investigators that he was not alarmed and presumed the 22-year-old was a Walmart employee taking a gun on sale at the store to a storeroom. Ritchie stated repeatedly on his 911 call that Crawford was pointing the gun at people, including two children in particular. This was relayed to the officers on the ground, and before shooting Crawford, [office Sean] Williams called back to the 911 dispatcher to confirm the gun was being pointed at people. In a written statement to Beavercreek police the following day, Ritchie repeated again that Crawford was “pointing the gun at people as they walked by”. Yet Ritchie “later explained that the man with the gun wasn’t actually pointing the gun at the family,” according to a report of his interview with state investigators, but rather “swinging the gun around and flashing the muzzle at children”. Ritchie later made similar remarks to the Guardian in an interview. Later still, the surveillance footage showed Crawford occasionally swinging the gun at his side and pointing it at a shelf, but not in the direction of anyone. April Ritchie gave a similar account to investigators, adding that Crawford was acting “very shady”…[She] said she traveled around warning shoppers about Crawford. No one interviewed by investigators recounted this. Surveillance footage showed Crawford continued to look straight ahead. Yet April Ritchie, who had been standing to his left, “said that despite what the video camera was showing, they maintained eye contact with Crawford”. So while Ritchie did not take back every claim he made during his 911 call (he insisted that Crawford was “waving [the pellet gun] around”), he did later contradict a very significant claim which likely fuelled the escalated police response: that Crawford was pointing the “gun” at other shoppers, including children. The meme is again accurate in this respect. A judge in nearby Fairborn later ruled that sufficient grounds existed to charge Ritchie with raising false alarms, but Hamilton County special prosecutor Mark Piepmeier declined to proceed, deciding that the  evidence was not clear that Ritchie knew his descriptions of Crawford’s movements and actions were factually inaccurate. As the meme stated, Ohio is indeed an “open carry” state, meaning the carrying of a visible firearm (even a rifle) in public is lawful. However, the legality of open carry does not extend to using a firearm to threaten others. Although Crawford was apparently not threatening anyone and was carrying only a pellet gun, it’s worth noting that police arriving at the scene had only one source of information (Ronald Ritchie) who had told them Crawford was carrying a loaded rifle and pointing it at children. The Shooting The claim that police shot Crawford “before he even knew what was going on” is the most contentious assertion made in the meme. The surveillance footage shows that a relatively very short period of time (mere seconds) elapsed between the arrival on the scene of Officer Sean Williams and Sergeant David Darkow, and Williams’ fatal shooting of Crawford. However, Williams asserted that within that period of time, Darkow repeatedly shouted at Crawford to drop what the policemen thought was a loaded rifle, and that Crawford failed to do so. Williams also claimed that Crawford made an aggressive motion just before he fired two shots at Crawford. Here’s how Williams described the incident in a statement he wrote on 5 August 2014: We then made it to the final row of the pet department. Sergeant Darkow checked to the left and I covered his back by checking the long row to the right. As I quickly checked to the right I immediately heard Sergeant Darkow yell, “Drop the weapon!” As I turned towards the pet department I immediately saw a black male standing in the center of the aisle. He was holding a rifle. I quickly identified that he was holding a rifle and I could see the silhouette of the magazine seated in the weapon. Sergeant Darkow repeatedly yelled, “Drop the weapon!” The black male, who matched the description of the black male waving the rifle around (blue pants and blue shirt) did not drop the rifle. After repeated commands to drop the weapon the male turned towards us in an aggressive manner with the rifle in hand. At that time the black male was in a position where he could shoot me or Sergeant Darkow. I felt at that moment that my life was in immediate danger, that Sergeant Darkow’s life was in immediate danger, and that the lives of all the families, children and customers were in immediate danger. I then fired two rounds at the suspect. As I shot the suspect he began to move from my right to my left. Once I fired the shots he retreated backwards and dropped the rifle. He then fell backwards behind the end of the row and out of sight. At that time the rifle was in the open. I then quickly closed the distance between me and the suspect. As I neared the weapon, which was lying on the floor, I identified it again as being a black rifle with a seated magazine. As I neared the rifle the black male jumped from behind the aisle and charged towards the weapon. He began to reach for it as he neared it and I yelled for him to get on the ground. Just before reaching the rifle he collapsed to the floor … Elements of Williams’ account were contradicted both by Darkow and civilian witnesses, as the Guardian reported: Reports from interviews of Williams and the other officer who responded, sergeant David Darkow, said that they apparently did not identify themselves as police to Crawford as they turned the corner into the aisle where he was standing. They specified that they shouted at Crawford repeatedly “drop your weapon”, “drop your gun” or “drop the gun”. Yet three witnesses separately said they heard one, less specific, command: “Put it down, put it down”. Crawford’s family have said surveillance footage suggests that while speaking on his phone, he may not have heard an order or realised that it was directed at him. One witness said she did hear police say “drop your weapon”; another said that he heard “get down”. In a recording of the 911 call, a word that sounds like “down” is shouted as officers round a corner in the Walmart, about a second before two shots ring out. Darkow confirmed to investigators that the time between the “last command” being given and shots being fired was “fairly close”. Darkow also told his interviewers that before opening fire, he and Williams separately instructed Crawford to put down the gun. Yet Williams said that he did “not recall personally giving any commands”, and that only Darkow had done so. Darkow further said that Crawford “made a movement that seemed to indicate an attempt to run or an attempt to take cover” just before the 22-year-old was shot. This description appears to be supported by the store surveillance footage, which was released last week. Williams, however, apparently made no mention of this, telling the officials in his interview that he opened fire after Crawford made an “aggressive” move. He added in a written narrative that the 22-year-old had “turned towards us in an aggressive manner with the rifle in hand”. By the time Darkow filed his own written narrative, 10 days after his interview, he described Crawford’s final action differently. Darkow said only that it was a “quick movement”, and did not repeat his earlier remarks that Crawford appeared to be trying to retreat. In his 911 call, Ritchie can be heard telling a dispatcher that Crawford was “on his phone” thirty seconds before his fatal shooting. It’s plausible that Crawford, distracted by his phone call, was not aware of the presence of police or their instructions until it was too late. Accounts of two other important details also vary: how clear and specific the order police gave to Crawford was (and who exactly issued that order), and whether Crawford made an aggressive or defensive movement immediately before Williams shot him. At the 8:26:54 mark in the video published by WLWT, a voice can be heard shouting what appears to be “Down!” followed by what sounds like “Put the weapon down,” but two shots were seemingly fired before the second order was completed. Crawford also appeared to retreat sharply after the word “Down” was heard rather than moving towards the officers, who had not identified themselves as police. However, it’s unclear whether Williams and Darkow issued any earlier instructions not captured in the background of Ritchie’s 911 call, or how Crawford’s movements and gestures appeared to Williams in person (rather than as seen on somewhat grainy surveillance footage). Ultimately, we can’t say with certainty whether Crawford was shot “before he even knew what was going on,” as the meme claims, but evidence to that effect can be interpreted in various ways. Aftermath Williams shot Crawford in his torso and left arm, and Crawford died later that day at the hospital, as the meme states. Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine appointed Hamilton County prosecutor Mark Piepmeier to head a grand jury prosecution in Greene County, and in September 2014 that grand jury decided against indicting either Williams or Darkow on charges of murder, reckless homicide or negligent homicide. The U.S. Department of Justice investigated whether the shooting of Crawford involved a civil rights violation but ultimately decided it did not and declined to launch a federal civil rights prosecution against Williams: Based on a legal analysis of the investigative materials, the Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to establish that Officer Williams acted with the requisite criminal intent necessary to pursue a federal prosecution. To establish that Officer Williams acted willfully, the government would be required both to disprove his stated reason for the shooting — that he was in fear of death or serious bodily injury — and to affirmatively establish that Officer Williams instead acted with the specific intent to violate Mr. Crawford’s rights. Williams returned to full duty a few days after the Justice Department announced their decision not to proceed with a civil rights prosecution. Crawford’s family is suing Sean Williams, the city of Beavercreek, and Walmart in a federal civil wrongful death lawsuit.

Answer: We evaluate the claims made in a viral 2018 meme about the police shooting death of John Crawford III.


Question: The possibility that the coronavirus spreads in a mostly stealthy mode among a population of largely young, healthy people showing no symptoms could have major implications for U.S. policy-makers, who are considering how and when to reopen the economy. It also renews questions about the extent to which U.S. testing of just the people suspected of being infected is actually capturing the spread of the virus in the United States and around the world. The Navy’s testing of the entire 4,800-member crew of the aircraft carrier - which is about 94% complete - was an extraordinary move in a headline-grabbing case that has already led to the firing of the carrier’s captain and the resignation of the Navy’s top civilian official. Roughly 60 percent of the over 600 sailors who tested positive so far have not shown symptoms of COVID-19, the potentially lethal respiratory disease caused by the coronavirus, the Navy says. The service did not speculate about how many might later develop symptoms or remain asymptomatic. “With regard to COVID-19, we’re learning that stealth in the form of asymptomatic transmission is this adversary’s secret power,” said Rear Admiral Bruce Gillingham, surgeon general of the Navy. The figure is higher than the 25% to 50% range offered on April 5 by Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a member of President Donald Trump’s coronavirus task force. Defense Secretary Mark Esper, speaking in a television interview on Thursday, said the number of asymptomatic cases from the carrier was “disconcerting.”   “It has revealed a new dynamic of this virus: that it can be carried by normal, healthy people who have no idea whatsoever that they are carrying it,” Esper told NBC’s “Today” morning show. Such data present challenges to the Pentagon, which is deployed around the world, sometimes in confined environments like submarines, ships and aircraft. Testing the entire military is not yet feasible, given still-limited testing capacity, officials say, and detecting enough cases without tests is impossible if most cases are asymptomatic. The U.S. coronavirus death toll - the highest in the world - surged past 31,000 on Thursday after doubling in a week. It also claimed the life of a sailor from the Theodore Roosevelt this week. Five other members of the crew are hospitalized. Still, the case of the Theodore Roosevelt offers a case study for researchers about how the virus spreads asymptomatically in a confined environment among mostly younger adults. That cohort has been somewhat underrepresented in the epidemiological data so far, said William Schaffner, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. “The findings are of enormous interest because the proportion of people who are asymptomatic is just simply not known,” Schaffner said, when asked about the Navy’s data. Vice Admiral Phillip Sawyer, a deputy chief of naval operations at the center of the Navy’s coronavirus response efforts, presented the 60% figure in a call with a small group of reporters on Wednesday. But he declined to speculate about the implications. “I don’t know if we’re proving something different,” Sawyer said. “I do agree that we are providing some data that some other organizations might not have.”

Answer:

assistant: Coronavirus clue? Most cases aboard U.S. aircraft carrier are symptom-free.