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.

Not applicable. The story presented the outcome of 472 obese individuals and examined in more detail those who were able, on average, to loss 14 pounds over a period of 26 weeks. The story did not provide any insight as to whether this amount of weight loss resulted in any health improvement in the obese individuals who were studied. So the true benefit the true significance of the potential benefit was not explained. Further while the study found that those who got an adequate amount of sleep were among the cohort of individuals who were found to lose the most weight, the story did not explicitly point out that the study does not inform us about whether enforced hours of sleep would impact weight loss and weight loss management. So, again, the headline, the story's first sentence, and the call to action by the researcher were not balanced. The story was reporting on the impact of getting adequate amounts of sleep on weight loss. While there was no overt discussion of the harm of obtaining adequate amounts of sleep, there doesn't appear to be any harm involved in adequate sleep. Similar to the LA Times story we reviewed on the same study, this story did not challenge researchers' comments that went too far in promoting a call to action based on one observational study a study that can't prove cause and effect. Its opening sentence is an example of that flaw: "If you're looking to lose those extra pounds, you should probably add reducing stress and getting the right amount of sleep to the list" Later, it didn't challenge a researcher when he said, "If you want to lose weight, things that will help you include reducing stress and getting the right amount of sleep." That's pushing the limits of what one can conclude based on one observational study and the story should have explained that limitation. Toward the end, in describing another study, it started in a good direction by explaining that conclusions "should be considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal." Actually, they should be considered preliminary because they were based on analysis of just 26 people. They should be considered to have evaded full scrutiny by expert colleagues until published in a peer-reviewed journal. Just because work has not been peer-reviewed does not make it preliminary. The intent, we think, was correct. But the explanation the limitation was not defined appropriately. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. This story included expert quotes and also some insight from the results of a recently presented study. One of the strengths of this story in comparison with its shorter LA Times competition is the context it provided, much of it from an independent expert who said: "People who are healthy and vital tend to be healthy and vital not because of any one factor, but because of many. And the factors that promote health eating well, being active, not smoking, sleeping enough, controlling stress, to name a few promote all aspects of health. The important message is that weight loss should not be looked at with tunnel vision. This study encourages weight loss in a more holistic context." Not applicable. The story was framed as taking a broader perspective when contemplating weight loss and including other lifestyle factors which can affect food intake and exercise. Better than its LA Times competition, at least this story nodded in the direction of one other recent study on sleep and weight, thereby conveying that the newer study is not the only research on this topic. It's clear that the story did not rely solely on a news release.
Less Stress, Better Sleep May Help You Lose Weight

In a report issued Thursday, the U.N. health agency said the number of measles cases from January to June this year is double the number reported for the same period in 2018. Measles is among the world's most infectious diseases and is spread mostly by coughing, sneezing and close personal contact. Although numerous European countries have introduced stronger vaccination policies, stubborn pockets of vaccine refusal have fueled epidemics across the continent. Last month, the German government proposed making measles immunization mandatory for children and employees at kindergartens and schools; there have been more than 400 cases of measles in Germany this year. With more than 84,000 cases, Ukraine accounted for the vast majority of measles in Europe, followed by Kazakhstan and Georgia. In February, Ukraine's health ministry said eight people had died of measles. An expert WHO committee said four countries Albania, the Czech Republic, Greece and the U.K. have now lost their status as having eliminated measles. Measles is preventable with two doses of the vaccine, but there is no effective treatment once people are infected. "If high immunization coverage is not achieved and sustained in every community, both children and adults will suffer unnecessarily and some will tragically die," said Dr. Guenter Pfaff, chair of a WHO expert committee on measles in Europe. In some developed countries, measles vaccination rates dropped sharply following the publication of a flawed study in the late 1990s that linked the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine to autism. Health officials have struggled to debunk misperceptions about the vaccine's safety ever since. "Misinformation about vaccines is as contagious and dangerous as the diseases it helps to spread," WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus in a statement this week. In 2017, WHO estimated about 110,000 people died from measles worldwide, mostly children under 5-years-old.
'Dramatic resurgence' of measles seen in Europe, WHO reports.

"Several days after the capture of Dzokhar Tsarnaev, one of two brothers suspected in the Boston Marathon bombing, U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., cited a pattern in which the U.S. government looks into suspicious individuals who later are charged with terrorist acts. According to media reports, the FBI has acknowledged interviewing Tamerlan Tsarnaev -- Dzokhar's older brother, who died while fleeing the police -- at the request of Russian officials in 2011. ""After looking at his phone records, websites he visited and associates, the FBI found he had no ties to terror,"" ABC News reported. (We should note for the record that Dzokhar Tsarnaev has yet to face trial in the bombing case, so a court has not yet ruled on his guilt or innocence.) In an April 22, 2013, interview on MSNBC, King -- a senior Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee and the House Intelligence Committee -- said that pattern sounded familiar. The Boston Marathon bombing ""is the fifth case I'm aware of where a person was brought to the attention of the FBI. ... The FBI examined them and felt they were no threat and they went on to carry out terrorist murders."" We checked with King's office, and a spokesman confirmed the four previous examples he was referring to: Anwar al-Awlaki, David Headley, Abdulhakim Muhammed and Nidal Hasan. Here's a summary of their cases. Anwar al-Awlaki. Al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born citizen of Yemeni descent, was hunted by the U.S. and killed in a drone strike in September 2011. He was reportedly a key adviser, and even an instigator, in several terrorist incidents involving U.S. targets, including the 2009 killing of 13 and wounding of more than 30 by a shooter at Fort Hood, Texas; the 2009 plot to explode a plane in Detroit using an ""underwear"" bomb; and the foiled attempt to plant a bomb in New York City's Times Square in 2010. By the time of his death, Al-Awlaki ""had been under the scrutiny of American officials for more than a decade,"" the New York Times reported. ""He first came under FBI investigation in 1999 because of associations with militants and was questioned after the 2001 terrorist attacks about his contacts with three of the hijackers at his mosques in San Diego and Virginia."" David Headley. Headley, a Pakistani-American born as Daood Gilani, is serving a 35-year sentence for helping organize scouting missions for a 2008 terrorist attack in Mumbai, India, that left 160 dead. In the late 1990s, Headley had served as a confidential informant for the Drug Enforcement Agency and was sent on one mission to Lahore, Pakistan, in which he infiltrated heroin trafficking networks. But later, his actions raised questions among friends and acquaintances. ""A former girlfriend of Headley's told a bartender named Terry O'Donnell that he wanted to go to Pakistan to fight alongside Islamic militants,"" ProPublica reported, adding that O'Donnell subsequently contacted an FBI-led task force that was investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. On Oct. 4, 2001, ""two Defense Department agents working for the task force questioned him in front of his DEA handlers at the drug agency's office."" Abdulhakim Muhammed. Muhammed, a convert to Islam who was born Carlos Bledsoe, pled guilty to killing Pvt. William Long and wounding Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula outside a U.S. Army recruiting station in Little Rock, Ark., in 2009. He is now serving life in prison. Muhammed had been under investigation by the FBI's Joint Terrorist Task Force. ""The investigation was in its preliminary stages, authorities said, and was based on the suspect's travel to Yemen and his arrest there for using a Somali passport,"" ABC News reported. ABC also reported that his ""travel within the United States had also come under scrutiny by the Terrorist Task Force, including travel to Columbus, Ohio an area of domestic concern for authorities who have observed a number of Somali Americans traveling from there to Somali to wage jihad."" Nidal Hasan. Hasan, a psychiatrist and major in the U.S. Army Medical Corps, is the only suspect in the Fort Hood shootings and is awaiting a military trial that could bring the death penalty. Prior to the shootings, the government intercepted at least 18 emails between Hasan and al-Awlaki. They were ""passed along to two Joint Terrorism Task Force cells led by the FBI, but a senior defense official said no one at the Defense Department knew about the messages until after the shootings,"" the Associated Press reported. The FBI and military officials offered divergent reasons for the failure to pass along the messages. ""FBI officials have said a military investigator on the task force saw the emails and looked up Hasan's record, but finding nothing particularly worrisome, the investigator neither sought nor got permission to pass the emails on to other military officials,"" the AP reported. A senior defense official countered that ""the rules of the task force prevented that military representative from passing the records on without approval from other members of the task force."" One additional case shares some aspects of the pattern King laid out -- that of Umar Farook Abdulmutallab, the ""underwear bomber."" But since his plot was foiled and he did not go on to ""carry out terrorist murders,"" his case doesn't make King's list. (In Abdulmutallab's case, the National Security Agency had intercepted a discussion in Yemen that referenced the plot, but analysts did not link these intercepts with a separate piece of information, that Adbulmutallab's father ""visited the United States Embassy in Nigeria to express concerns about his son's radicalization,"" according to the New York Times.) We asked Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a terrorism expert who is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, for his thoughts on King's list. He agreed that Hasan's case qualified as a good example of government officials determining (misguidedly, as it turned out) that an individual was ""no threat."" He added that he thought Al-Awlaki and Muhammed fit the pattern to a significant degree, but not entirely. In their cases, while the U.S. government did not immediately step in to arrest either man, it's not clear that the U.S. government went so far as to determine that they were ""no threat,"" Gartenstein-Ross said. The weakest example, Gartenstein-Ross said, is Headley, whose case is murky for several reasons, including his role as a U.S. government informant. Seven years elapsed between his interview in 2001 and the Mumbai attack in 2008 -- a long enough time to raise questions about whether he was sufficiently radicalized to have given government officials reason to believe he was on a path to terrorism. Our ruling King said the Boston Marathon bombing ""is the fifth case"" in which U.S. government officials examined individuals potentially involved in terrorism ""and felt they were no threat and they went on to carry out terrorist murders."" It's clear that there are at least four prior instances -- Anwar al-Awlaki, David Headley, Abdulhakim Muhammed and Nidal Hasan -- that fit the pattern of someone being on the government's radar screen and later allegedly committing terrorist acts. But in at least one of these cases, and to a lesser extent two others, it's not clear that the government determined that the individuals ""were no threat"" based on the initial round of scrutiny."
The Boston Marathon bombing "is the fifth case" in which U.S. government officials examined individuals potentially involved in terrorism "and felt they were no threat and they went on to carry out terrorist murders.