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]: 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."
[A]: Social media sleuths take on mysterious herbalist Dr. Sebi.

[Q]: With a bumper crop of blacklegged ticks possible this season, researchers in a Lyme disease-plagued part of New York's Hudson Valley are tackling tick problems across entire neighborhoods with fungal sprays and bait boxes. The $8.8 million, five-year project aims to find out if treating 24 neighborhoods in Dutchess County for ticks, also known as deer ticks, can significantly reduce cases of Lyme disease and other tick-borne illnesses. "We want to do a better job and actually remove the threat from the neighborhoods, from the places where people are actually exposed to infected ticks," said Richard Ostfeld, a disease ecologist with the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies in Millbrook, about 70 miles (110 kilometers) north of New York City. Dutchess County is a patchwork of forests, rolling farmland and thick residential developments that has long been a hotbed of Lyme disease. Tick checks are a common end-of-day routine here, as are inspections for the red, target-shaped rashes associated with tick bites. People spray on tick repellents, treat their clothes with insecticide and even spray their yards. But Ostfeld notes that spraying individual lawns has not proved effective in fighting Lyme disease. So he's scaling up from one backyard to many. The Tick Project involves more than 900 families in neighborhoods that consist of about 30 to 50 participants. Yards are being treated in the spring and early summer with a fungal spray that kills ticks. Researchers also are deploying bait boxes to attract rodents. An insecticide in the box kills any ticks on mice and chipmunks, two animals largely responsible for infecting ticks with the bacterium that causes Lyme disease. Researchers check in with families every two weeks in season to see whether anyone in the house, including cats and dogs, had ticks on them over the period. The Tick Project is funded mostly through a $5 million grant from the Steven & Alexandra Cohen Foundation, created by the hedge fund manager and his wife. Ostfeld said 2021 is set aside for data analysis, thought they will have some sense of early results within a year. Ostfeld would not divulge which neighborhoods are involved or who is participating, citing the need for privacy and of keeping good relations with participants. Edward Blundell, mayor of the village of Red Hook, mentioned during an interview that he had agreed to take part in the study. While he felt he could take personal steps to protect himself from Lyme disease, he would be satisfied if something comes out of the research. "Let's let the scientists look at this and give them a mini-lab site here, so we felt our yard could be the mini-site," Blundell said. Tick researchers say such area-wide studies are complex and difficult to do. They are costly. It can be hard to get all the needed permissions. And variabilities in tick densities over study areas can make the science challenging. Thomas Mather, director of the Tick Encounter Resource Center at the University of Rhode Island, said executing a well-designed study large enough to produce valid results is a "Holy Grail" of tick researchers. Phillip Baker, executive director of the American Lyme Disease Foundation, said the neighborhood approach sounded like a good one but noted that ticks are a resilient parasite. "Ticks have been around for a long, long time," Baker said, "and there's no real easy approach to get rid of them."
[A]: Tick towns: Researchers target neighborhoods in Lyme effort.

[Q]: This story does not mention cost. Sure, vitamin pills cost only pennies a day, but treating everyone would cost billions of dollars a year. Assuming just a nickel a day for 400 IU of vitamin D (the dose used in this study), the cost of treating everyone in the U.S. would exceed $5 billion a year. That bill has to be compared to the expected benefits of supplements given to healthy people, which in this trial were not statistically significant, so those billions might just be flushed down the drain. As noted above, the body of the story makes clear that the results of this trial did not show a clear benefit from taking 400 IU daily. However, the headline and lead sentence both state that vitamin D might fight colds, something this trial failed to clearly demonstrate. We'll give the story the benefit of the doubt for what's in the middle, not at the top. The story cautions that vitamin D can cause problems including nausea, vomiting, constipation, poor appetite, weight loss and even higher blood pressure or heart rhythm abnormalities. This rating is a close call. The story notes the limitations of the study of vitamin D and winter colds, including the fact that there was no statistically significant difference in the main outcome measure between the treatment and placebo groups, that the study was small, and that the extent of any benefit was not clear. The story also does a nice job of providing readers with some background, including results of other recent trials, as well as recommendations and opinions of health agencies and experts. However, the cautionary notes in the body of the story are drowned out by the headline and the lead sentence that tout potential cold-fighting properties of vitamin D. Also, while the story says that 164 men took part in the trial, it fails to tell readers that 60 of them dropped out before the study was done and that the high number of drop-outs made it impossible for the researchers to determine if there was a statistically significant difference in absenteeism between the treatment and placebo groups. We've made our point about the headline and lead, so we won't ding the story for that again in this criterion. But the grade could have gone either way for reasons noted. This story does not exaggerate the effects of common winter colds. Although this story refers to the findings of other studies and the recommendations of health agencies and experts, there is no identified independent source to comment on the trial. In their journal article, the researchers reported no potential conflicts of interest. It would have been helpful to tell readers that the trial was funded by the Medical Research Fund of Finnish Defence Forces, in order to distinguish this trial from studies funded by supplement manufacturers or others with a vested interest in the results. The story points out that experts generally recommend supplements only when people aren't getting enough vitamin D from their diet or sunlight. And as noted above, the story points out that supplements expose people to some risks of vitamin D toxicity. The availability of vitamin D supplementation is really not in question. There was no claim that there is anything new about tests of vitamin D for prevention of respiratory illness. This story missed the opportunity to explain what was different about this trial. In their article in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, the researchers pointed out that by studying military conscripts much of the variability that complicates population studies was filtered out. All the participants were from a narrow age group, had passed the same entry physical examination, lived in the same military housing, ate the same food, followed the same daily routines and so on. Also, the classification of their daily status (healthy or ill) was more uniform than would be expected in a study of people in varied civilian occupations. The strengths of the study would be expected to filter out much of the background noise that fogs typical population studies. It is notable that despite those features, this trial failed to reach statistically significant results (partly because of the high drop out rate, which the story should have mentioned.) One word usage nit: the story refers to military "recruits," but the study participants were not recruited to join the military, they were performing mandatory service. The story quotes an e-mail exchange with the lead researcher, so it's clear it didn't rely solely on a news release.
[A]:
Some evidence vitamin D might fight colds