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.

Q: In April 2018, the right-leaning Turning Point USA posted a Facebook meme which attacked Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders for once supporting a proposal to "dump nuclear waste" in a "poor Latino community in Texas": In the 90's, Trump supported a bill to dump nuclear waste in Sierra Blanca, a poor Latino community in Texas where the average yearly income was $8,000. When asked if he would visit the site, he said "Absolutely not." Oh wait! Never mind, that was Bernie Sanders! And he actually co-sponsored the bill! The meme was re-posted by the "Capitalism" Facebook page: In 1997 and 1998, Sanders did indeed support a measure that gave Congressional approval to an arrangement that would have allowed the states of Maine and Vermont to transport and dispose of nuclear waste at a proposed site in the sparsely populated town of Sierra Blanca in Hudspeth County, close to the Mexican border in West Texas. As the meme suggests, Sierra Blanca was (and is) a predominantly Latino community. U.S. Census Bureaurecords show that in 2000, two years after the proposal, 73 percent of the town's 533 residents identified as Hispanic or Latino, and almost all of those as Mexican. In 2016, some 69 percent of Sierra Blanca's 557 residents identified as Hispanic or Latino. In 1999, the annual per capita income of Sierra Blanca residents was $10,768, which was 45 percent lower than that of Texans at large ($19,617). In 2016, the median household income in Sierra Blanca was estimated to be $41,875 as compared to $54,727 in the state of Texas. As an Independent member of the U.S. House of Representatives for Vermont, Sanders was one of 23 co-sponsors of House Resolution 629, which called for Congress to give its consent to the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact an agreement between the states of Texas, Maine, and Vermont. Speaking on the floor of the house in October 1997, Sanders said he was in "strong support" of the resolution for environmental reasons, and stressed that he personally was opposed to the use of nuclear power, but that the waste it produces had to be disposed of as safely as possible. It is worth reading a relatively extensive excerpt from his remarksin order to get a good sense of Sanders' stated reasoning: Let me touch, for a moment, upon the environmental aspects of this issue. And let me address it from the perspective of someone who is an opponent of nuclear power, opposes the construction of nuclear power plants and if he had his way, would shut down the existing nuclear power plants as quickly and as safely as we could. One of the reasons that many of us oppose nuclear power plants is that when this technology was developed, there was not a lot of thought given as to how we dispose of the nuclear waste. Butthe reality, as others have already pointed out, is that the waste is here. We can't wish it away. It exists in power plants in Maine and Vermont, it exists in hospitals, it is hereSo the real environmental issue here is not to wish it away, but to make the judgement, the important environmental judgement as to what is the safest way of disposing of the nuclear waste that has been created. Leaving the radioactive waste at the site where it was produced despite the fact that that site might be extremely unsafe in terms of long-term isolation of the waste, and was never intended to be a long-term depository of low-level waste is horrendous environmental policyNo reputable scientist of environmentalist believes that the geology of Vermont or Maine would be a good place for this waste. In the humid climate of Vermont and Maine, it is more likely that ground water will come in contact with that waste and carry off radioactive elements to the accessible environment. There is widespread scientific evidence to suggest, on the other hand, that locations in Texas some of which receive less than 12 inches of rainfall a year, a region where the groundwater table is more than 700 feet below the surface is a far better location for this waste. This is not a political assertion, it is a geological and environmental reality. A video clip of his comments can be viewedhere. Congress passed the resolution comfortably by 305 votes to 117, as did the Senate, by 78 votes to 15. The proposal had much stronger support among Republicans than among Democrats. GOP members of the House voted 197-26 in favor, while Democrats were more evenly split, voting 107-91 in favor. In the Senate, not a single Republican opposed H.R. 629, while 51 of them voted for it. Fifteen Democratic Senators opposed the bill, while 27 of them voted in support. At that time, five out six Senators from Texas, Vermont, and Maine were Republicans. All five of them voted in favor of the proposal. Both of Maine's Representatives voted for the disposal site, as did 10 out of the 13 Republican Congress members from Texas. In the House, the proposal had 23 co-sponsors. Eleven were Republicans, eleven were Democrats, and one was Sanders himself, an Independent. The author of the resolution was Joe Barton, a Republican from Texas. Despite Congressional approval for the agreement, authorities in Texas ultimately rejected the proposal to establish a disposal site at Sierra Blanca. In October 1998, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission voted 3-0 against issuing a permit for the construction of a nuclear waste dump there. According to the Associated Press, commission chairman Barry McBee said the disposal site could have provided a much-needed economic boost to the area, but commission members were sufficiently concerned about safety issues to deny the permit. According to a September 1998 article in the Texas Observer, a group of activists opposed to the Sierra Blanca waste site approached Sanders at an anti-nuclear weapons rally in Vermont that year: Sanders left the stage, which surprised no one in the small Texas delegation. Earlier, he had told them, "My position is unchanged, and you're not gonna like it." When they asked if they would visit the site in Sierra Blanca, he said, "Absolutely not. I'm gonna be running for re-election in the state of Vermont." We contacted Bill Addison, a leading opponent of the Sierra Blanca proposal, who was identified in the Texas Tribune article as having attended that Springfield rally. He confirmed that he was present and corroborated the article's account of the activists' interaction with Sanders. We asked a spokesperson for Sanders whether he agrees that this exchange took place, but we did not receive a response to that specific question. Instead, the spokesperson offered a broader explanation and defense of the Senator's support of H.R. 629: The only reason Senator Sanders was ever involved is because the constitution requires Congress to approve interstate compacts. Texas RepresentativeJoe Bartonintroduced such legislation in 1998, and twenty-three members of the Vermont, Texas and Maine congressional delegations cosponsored it. The billdid not endorse a specific site in fact, it did not mention Sierra Blanca at all. Nor did the bill override the local and state approval process. In the end, the Texas agency in charge of permitting ruled against the Sierra Blanca site, choosing another site in Texas instead. So, the process worked. The compact, much less the site selection were never Sen. Sanders' idea. He disagrees with the very premise of the 1980 law that led to the Texas-Vermont-Maine compact, since it put the burden of disposing of low-level waste on the states, rather the nuclear energy companies that produced much of the waste. In fact, he has long been an opponent of nuclear power precisely it produces waste for which we still have no solution (the Texas site is just for low-level contamination there is still no plan for all of the high-level nuclear waste all across the country). Sanders' spokesperson is right to point out that the text of H.R. 629 did not mention Sierra Blanca, but the town was widely known and discussed as the proposed location of the disposal site throughout the time that Sanders and others supported the bill. For example, in April 1998 (three months before Sanders and others in the House voted in favor of H.R. 629) the late Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone condemned the proposed Sierra Blanca site from the floor of the Senate: What has troubled me from the very beginning is that this legislation would result in the dumping of low-level radioactive waste in a small, poor, majority-Latino community in rural West Texas a town called Sierra Blanca. The Texas legislation in 1991 identified the area where the dump will be located. The Texas Waste Authority designated the site near Sierra Blanca in 1992. A draft license was issued in 1996. Whether we like it or not, this knowledge makes us responsible for what happens to Sierra Blanca. The Turning Point USA meme is accurate in claiming that Sanders supported and co-sponsored a proposal that would have seen nuclear waste from Maine, Vermont and (principally) Texas disposed of at a site in Sierra Blanca, and that Sierra Blanca was (and still is) a predominately Latino and relatively poor community. The meme leaves out important and relevant context by failing to mention the key role that Republicans played in crafting and passing that proposal; instead, it singles out Sanders and does not offer the reader any inkling of his environmentalist rationale. Sanders stood to gain politically from supporting a plan that would remove nuclear waste from his constituency, but this does not necessarily mean he wasn't motivated by a sincere desire to dispose of the waste in a manner and location that he genuinely believed to be safer. However, whether or not you believe his stated rationale was sincere, no proper analysis of a particular politician's policy position or Congressional vote should leave out the reasons put forward by that politician. Finally, we were not able to corroborate the "Absolutely not" quotation attributed to Sanders, and his spokesperson did not address our question about it.

A: "Sen. Bernie Sanders once supported a proposal to ""dump nuclear waste"" in the ""poor Latino community"" of Sierra Blanca, Texas."
****
Q: In November 2018, the "Weird Facts" Facebook page posted a widely-shared meme which outlined the death of Joyce Carol Vincent, summarizing it as "In 2006, a woman (Joyce Carol Vincent) was found in her London flat, skeletonized, after 3 years of being dead with the TV still running": Notwithstanding the somewhat crass imagery used in the meme, this was unfortunately a largely accurate description of the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Joyce Carol Vincent, who did indeed remain undiscovered at home for around two years, dying around December 2003. According to material prepared for release to the news media by the Metropolitan Police, as well as reports by the BBC and the Press Association, the following are the known facts surrounding Vincent's demise. Some readers might find the details disturbing. On 26 January 2006, Vincent's remains were discovered at her apartment in Wood Green, north-east London. Workers from the Metropolitan Housing Trust, an organization which provides affordable housing and is now known as Metropolitan Thames Valley, had forced entry while attempting to inquire about thousands of pounds of unpaid rent arrears. Vincent had been placed in the small apartment as part of a scheme for victims of domestic violence. Vincent's remains were badly decomposed, and pathologist Dr. Simon Poole later described them as being "largely skeletal," which supports the claim made in the "Weird Facts" meme. According to evidence heard at a coroner's inquest, Vincent was found lying on her back on the floor of her living room next to a shopping bag and Christmas presents which she had wrapped but never delivered. Her television was indeed still switched on when Vincent was found. She was identified by reference to dental records. Based on the expiration dates of food and medication found in Vincent's flat, it was estimated that she had died around December 2003, some two years earlier not three years earlier, as the "Weird Facts" meme and several news reports mistakenly stated. She was born in London to Grenadian immigrant parents in 1965, and was 38 years old at the time of her death. In the years after Vincent was discovered, the filmmaker Carol Morley tracked down her friends, colleagues and associates. In interviews which would ultimately form the basis of the 2011 documentary film Dreams of a Life, those who knew Vincent universally recalled their shock and disbelief at the circumstances of her death and discovery. In the film some friends recounted actually having read news accounts of her death in April 2006, but without an accompanying photograph, they did not connect the horrific circumstances of her discovery with the person they had known. According to those accounts, Vincent had for many years been a very social, popular professional young woman who worked in London's fast-paced financial district in the 1980s and 1990s, was highly intelligent and charming, and was remarkably attractive and frequently the object of male attention. Vincent, who was at one time an aspiring singer, was acquainted with the soul vocalist Betty Wright, and had dinner with other iconic musical artists, including Gil Scott-Heron, Jimmy Cliff, and Ben E. King. In 1990, Vincent briefly met and conversed with Nelson Mandela backstage at a concert in London's Wembley Stadium. Although she had many friends, Vincent's friendships appear to have been somewhat fleeting, and despite the deep affection in which she was held, she was known for "drifting" in and out of social groups and relationships and sometimes appeared troubled. Her acquaintances recalled that she was distant towards her family members. According to Morley's interviews with friends of Vincent, she became engaged to marry an unidentified man in the late 1990s, and the Metropolitan Police later noted that she had been involved in a "domestic incident" in 1998. In Morley's documentary, Vincent's friends observed that she was likely to have been in at least one abusive relationship during that time. By 2001, Vincent left her job at the accounting firm Ernst & Young and progressively lost contact with her family members, friends and former colleagues, working for a time as a cleaner. She changed addresses frequently but moved into her final apartment in Wood Green in February 2003, having been placed there as part of a women's refuge program for victims of domestic violence. Her friends have speculated that she may have become isolated and withdrawn over time because she was ashamed of the abuse she had suffered and the shift in her professional and personal circumstances, and she may also have been avoiding detection by an abusive former partner. In November 2003, she was briefly hospitalized after vomiting blood and was diagnosed with a peptic ulcer. Although she is believed to have died around a month later, the coroner was unable to arrive at a cause of death due to the decomposition of her remains by January 2006. She also suffered from asthma, which was cited by her friends as a possible cause of death.

A: In 2006, the skeletal remains of Joyce Carol Vincent were found in her home, with the television on, years after her death.
****
Q: The story says the federal government is paying about $2,250 per patient for a standard 5-day treatment course. It also notes that the approved alternative treatments are less expensive. The story points out that the benefits of peramivir have yet to be proven and that it is being offered only because some patients are not helped by approved drugs or are they are so sick they need a drug that can be given intravenously. The approved antiviral drugs are currently available only in pill or inhaled form. The story should have mentioned the side effects seen in clinical trials so far, as well as the risk that patients could suffer harms like those sometimes seen in people who have been given similar antiviral drugs. These side effects are clearly spelled out in an FDA fact sheet prepared for patients and caregivers: "The most common side effects of PERAMIVIR are: diarrhea nausea vomiting white blood cell count decreased These side effects may go away after you stop receiving PERAMIVIR. These are not all the possible side effects of PERAMIVIR. Peramivir is still being studied so it is possible that all of the risks are not known at this time. Other medicines that are used to treat people with 2009 H1N1 flu have side effects that may also happen in people who receive PERAMIVIR. These side effects include: Signs of unusual behavior. People with the flu, especially children and adolescents, may be at a higher risk for seizures, confusion, or abnormal behavior early in their illness. These events may happen after starting PERAMIVIR or may happen if the flu is not treated. These events are not common. Patients should be watched for signs of unusual behavior. Allergic reaction or severe rash Not a lot of people have taken PERAMIVIR for 5 days or longer. Serious and unexpected side effects may happen. The side effects of getting any medicine by vein are brief pain, bleeding, bruising of the skin where the needle enters, soreness and swelling at that spot, and possible infection at that spot." Patient fact sheet available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/UCM187799.pdf Provider fact sheet available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/UCM187811.pdf The story points out more than once that peramivir is still being tested and that questions remain about its potential effectiveness. The story points out that the experimental drug is being offered only to patients who are already in the hospital and aren't being helped by approved drugs. The story did not point out that one of the supporters of faster and broader access to peramivir, Dr. Richard Whitley, has long been a booster of the drug, which is being commercially developed by a spin-off of the University of Alabama department he works in. See Whitley comments in a 2005 article promoting the potential of peramivir: http://main.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=87834 Here we also point out that the story profiled only one patient and includes a quote from the patient's father crediting peramivir with saving his daughter's life. The story does not give any examples of similar patients who either survived after getting approved drugs or who received peramivir and yet did not survive. Despite the clear caveats in the story, the reliance on only a single anecdote may give readers a skewed sense of the benefits of the unapproved drug. The story makes clear that the approved antiviral flu drugs are Tamiflu and Relenza. The story makes very clear that peramivir is experimental and is being offered only because some patients cannot take or aren't helped by approved antiviral drugs. The story is quite clear that peramivir is still being tested. The story does not appear to rely on a news release.

A:
New Drug for H1N1 Flu Offers Hope
****