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.

[EX Q]: The story makes clear the "big unknown" remains the price and "how much people are willing to spend to cut a day or so off of a bout of flu." The story reports that Genentech, the drug's manufacturer, said it's too early to comment on the drug's U.S. price. The story also notes that in Japan, where the drug was invented, it "sells for the equivalent of about $43.50." The story uses terms like "a little more than a day" and "nearly a day" and "substantially" to describe the drug's reduction in flu symptoms, fever, and coughing and sneezing, respectively. It does not explain, as the news release does, that: "Similar efficacy results were seen between baloxavir marboxil and [Tamiflu] in relation to duration of symptoms and fever reduction." In other words, on the symptom front, both drugs were the same. According to the news release, a difference was seen in the length of time the virus was shed from the body (presumably through coughing and sneezing): 24 hours for baloxavir marboxil verses 72 hours for Tamiflu. The news release also states that there was also a difference seen in the level of virus in the nose and throat, but it provides no precise numbers. It is not known whether this benefit translates into less infection transmission, and the story should have made that clear. The news release issued by Genentech about the FDA's decision to grant priority review describes baloxavir marboxil's most common side effects: diarrhea, bronchitis, nausea and sinusitis. The news release also states that overall incidence of adverse events seen in patients taking baloxavir marboxil were lower than those seen in both the placebo group and the group taking Tamiflu. The STAT News story does not mention any potential harms. This evidence comes from the randomized phase III Capstone-1 study the FDA will review, which included 1,436 people in the US and Japan. It excluded people older than 64. The news story does not note this exclusion, nor does it state a key problem with this study: It has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal (instead, a study abstract was released as part of ID Week 2017). This means the full data analysis has never been seen by anyone other than the researchers. We explained why this is important in February 2018, when we discussed news coverage of the drug's approval in Japan. The 2017-2018 flu season was the worst the US had experienced in nearly a decade. The flu impacted the entire country, and was responsible for 172 pediatric deaths. The news article did not use these or any other flu-related statistics to increase fear about the flu and, in turn, the need for this medication. The article includes two sources: Mark Eisner, Genentech's VP of product development for immunology, infectious diseases and ophthalmology and Richard Webby, head of the World Health Organization's influenza collaborating center at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis. Eisner's affiliation with Genentech, the drug's manufacturer, is clearly noted. Webby does not appear to have any conflicts of interest. The article would have been stronger if it had included a third source who commented on whatif anythingis known about whether reducing the duration of symptoms leads to reduced levels of transmission that result in fewer people contracting the flu and fewer deaths. The story explains that the only other drug approved to treat the flu is Tamiflu, which is not widely used. The writer explains that both drugs need to be taken within 48 hours of symptom onset and thatbaloxavir marboxil is a single one-time dose, while Tamiflu must be taken twice daily for five days. It is clear from the story that the FDA is expected to decide by the end of the year whether to approve this new flu medication. The story explains that it's been more than 20 years since a new class of flu drug has been developed and marketed. (It is available in Japan.) The catalyst for the story was a news release issued by Genentech about the FDA granting priority review of baloxavir marboxil, but the story does not use direct quotes from the news release.
[EX A]: A flu drug shown to reduce the duration of symptoms could upend treatment in U.S.

[EX Q]: The study evaluated the combined effect of six lifestyle habits on prostate cancer mortality. Those six factors were, as described in the journal article: "not currently smoking or quit 10 or more years ago, body mass index under 30 kg/m2, high vigorous physical activity, high intake of tomatoes and fatty fish, and low intake of processed meat." It's tough to put a price tag on those lifestyle choices. How much does "high vigorous physical activity" cost? How much does it cost to avoid eating processed meat? It would be easy to say this category doesn't apply. But the release does address the issue, saying the study findings underscore "the ongoing need for more effective prevention measures and policies to increase exercise, improve diet quality and reduce tobacco use in our population.It takes co-operation and effort from multiple areas, like insurance companies, employers, policy makers and city planners, to figure out how to creatively support and encourage more exercise into most busy adults' working day." Recognizing the need for policies that support these lifestyle changes is important and addresses the cost issue in a meaningful way. This is where things get a little tricky. The research described in this journal article looked at data from two different studies: the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS) and the Physicians' Health Study (PHS). The HPFS tracked 42,701 men from 1986-2010. The PHS tracked 20,324 men from 1982-2010. The release (and journal article) explain that the researchers used the HPFS data to develop a "healthy lifestyle score," and then applied that score to the men in the PHS to see if it predicted whether someone would contract a lethal form of prostate cancer. The researchers identified the number of lethal cases of prostate cancer in each group to calculate benefits. The release states: "Participants with 5 to 6 points [the highest scores] in the HPFS had a 68 percent decreased risk of lethal prostate cancer[,] and a 38 percent decreased risk was observed in the [PHS] for the same comparison." Several points to make here. First, the 'healthy' group appeared to have been compared to the 'least healthy' group (score 0-1) and not all the other groups combined. This was noted in the published results but not mentioned in the release. That's important. Second, the release does not note (but the journal article does) that the 38 percent decreased risk seen in the PHS was not found to be statistically significant. That's also an important distinction. Third, this is the relative reduced risk, and doesn't tell readers what the actual, absolute reduction of risk is. The release doesn't address harms. But the lifestyle choices at issue here are (for the most part) so broadly defined that it would be difficult to say what the harms would be. What harms are associated with eating tomatoes, avoiding processed meats, or not smoking? We'll rate this one not applicable. The release does a good job of explaining what is a somewhat complicated study design. The study is basically an analysis of data drawn from two large, previous studies and the release describes the overall sample size, age range, and length of those two studies. But the language used to describe the results is inappropriate. Since this was an analysis of observational study data that's unable to prove cause and effect, it's misleading to use active verbs to describe the results. The release does this in several places: It's more appropriate to state that these habits were "associated with" reduced risk not that the habits "save lives" or "cut" risk. Another thing that's not clearly explained to readers (as noted above) is what it means to develop a lifestyle scoring system based on one study's data set, and then apply that scoring system to a second data set, when the results section is provided for both data sets. It's confusing. We'd encourage public affairs specialists preparing news releases and reporters using them as their initial sources to focus more on the limitations of this type of research. Sometimes referred to as "data dredging," it's basically finding statistically significant results only by chance. In this case it's a statistic of a statistic (up to 47% of cancer cases could be prevented with these lifestyle interventions). No disease mongering here. Funding sources were clearly identified, and there are no clear conflicts of interest. Things get tricky again here. As the release notes, most prostate cancers don't metastasize and aren't life threatening. But some do metastasize and can be fatal. Are there different types of prostate cancer, just like there are different types of flu? Are there genetic factors that affect risk? Readers would have benefited from that information. And we suppose that the release could have also mentioned other dietary or lifestyle factors that might help reduce risk that were not considered in the paper. However, the range of healthy behaviors discussed here is pretty broad, and it seems excessive to expect the release to address an entire laundry list of possibilities. We'll give this a Satisfactory rating. The study was limited to a relatively high level income group and the interventions may not be attainable for all men, in all socioeconomic groups. Does partaking of vigorous physical exercise on a regular basis require access to a gym or just a high degree of motivation? Are tomatoes and fish attainable year round for all socioeconomic groups? The study addresses this to some extent when it says, "It takes co-operation and effort from multiple areas, like insurance companies, employers, policy makers and city planners, to figure out how to creatively support and encourage more exercise into most busy adults' working day." We'll award a Satisfactory here. There are a lot a lot of papers out there on lifestyle choices and prostate cancer. In fact, the opening sentences in the abstract for the journal article says as much, while articulating what sets this research apart: "Several lifestyle factors have been associated with risk of lethal prostate cancer, but little is known about their combined effect. Our objective was to develop and apply a lifestyle score for prevention of lethal prostate cancer." However, the release does not acknowledge all of the existing work on lifestyle and prostate cancer, and therefore fails to highlight how this paper fits into that broad body of work. Apart from the cause-and-effect statements addressed above, there is no unjustifiable language used here.
[EX A]: Working up a sweat may protect men from lethal prostate cancer

[EX Q]: "State Rep. John Cortes, D-Kissimmee, made a biting claim about the consequences of poor dental careduring debate on a bill that would change the rules for Medicaid coverage. HB 819 is backed by MCNA, a Fort Lauderdale dental benefits company that lost its Medicaid contracts with the state after the 2011 switch to mandatory managed care. The bill allows the Legislature to take dental off the list of services that managed care plans are required to offer people on Medicaid. The state would then be able to contract with vendors like MCNA to provide the dental care instead. (Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry raised eyebrows for discussing the issue with Gov. Rick Scott on behalf of MCNA without first registering as a lobbyist.) Cortes, who voted for the bill, said he wanted to make sure proper dental care would be available for children, maintaining problems can easily arise without treatment. ""Anyone can die of a toothache,"" he said in a House Health Innovation Subcommittee meeting on Jan. 13, 2016. ""Believe it or not, you can."" The bill passed the committee by a 12-1 vote. Given this age of modern medicine, we wondered if Cortes was right. We decided to drill into this one to find out. The whole tooth We didn't hear back from Cortes' office, but unfortunately for all you odontophobes, you really should be getting checkups on a regular basis. ""Yes, it is possible to die from complications with an infected tooth,"" Thomas Porter, a faculty member at the University of Florida College of Dentistry, told PolitiFact Florida. ""Every year there are cases where the patient did not receive appropriate and timely treatment of an infected tooth. In most cases, the infected tooth starts as a localized site with pain and infection."" Obviously you're not going to die of the physical pain, but these problems can start from some form of periodontal issue or, as is most often the case, cavities. The decay leads to abscesses, which are usually infections between the tooth and the gums. ""Not treated, the problem progresses and the patient becomes septic, which can lead to death,"" Porter said. Dr. Erin Sutton, a Fort Walton Beach dentist, pointed out the infection could either move to bone marrow or the bloodstream, causing sepsis and affecting major organs. This is not a new phenomenon, of course. Dental infections and other tooth-related problems were listed as the fifth- or sixth-leading cause of death in London back in the early 1600s. But it certainly happens today, too. The number of people who die from an untreated tooth problem is small, but the details can be harrowing. An oft-cited case is the 2007 death of Deamonte Driver, a 12-year-old Maryland boy who died when bacteria from an abscess infected his brain. He had two brain operations totaling $250,000 before he died, but hecould have been saved with a timely tooth extraction that would have cost $80. His family had no health insurance and had lost Medicaid benefits. Kyle Willis, a 24-year-old unemployed father from Cincinnati, died in 2009 after being unable to afford a tooth extraction and prescription antibiotics for an infection. John Schneider of Mt. Orab, Ohio, was 31 when he died in 2014 after what he thought was a sinus infection but was actually an untreated abscess that eventually led to multiple organ failure. The scope of the danger was highlighted four years ago by the Pew Charitable Trusts, which foundpreventable dental conditions made upmore than 830,000 emergency room visits in 2009. That was up 16 percent from 2006. While the number of deaths aren't regularly examined, a 2013 study published in the Journal of Endodontics offered a quick cross-section of the issue based on one kind of condition. Researchers found that between 2000 and 2008, there were more than 61,000 hospitalizations nationally for periapical abscesses, an infection at the tip of a tooth's root that is a common symptom of untreated tooth decay. Of those 61,000-plus stays, 66 patients died. Our ruling Cortes said, ""Anyone can die of a toothache."" It's not so much that you'll die of pain, of course, but dentists and research confirm that an untreated abscess can infect other parts of the body, either through the bones or the bloodstream. Most people won't die from a toothache, but it's a condition that if left untreated can lead to the worst: a fatal result."
[EX A]:
Anyone can die of a toothache.