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]: The story does not talk about costs, which was disappointing. The costs of intensive medical therapy can easily be identified. Using an online pharmacy we calculated the costs to be about $1,500 to $2,000 annually for medical therapy, using generic drugs. Using the Health CareBlue Book, we found the average cost of coronary artery bypass sugery and hospitalization to be about $62,000. We think that this is important information for readers that should have been included. The quantification here was presented in such a way to make it clear to readers that there was no significant benefit found to surgical intervention, which is a fair conclusion to draw from the study. The story says, "In the Stich study, 41% of patients assigned to treatment with drugs alone died during the follow-up period, which averaged five years. That compared with a mortality rate of 36% among patients who received bypass surgery plus medication. Although the relative reduction in risk of death was 14%, the result didn't meet tests for statistical significance, meaning it could have resulted from chance alone."That's a great way to describe the lack of statistical significance. It would have been even more powerful to show readers the actual number of patients who died in each group. The story provides great information about the study itself and about the overall state of the evidence supporting heart surgery. "How best to treat these patients has been fraught with uncertainty," is one of the more notable phrases from the story. It also says, "Many patients aren't evaluated for heart surgery to treat diseased arteries because they don't suffer classic chest pain or because doctors worry that hearts weakened by heart failure won't benefit from the procedure. Other doctors recommend immediate bypass surgery despite a lack of vigorous studies to support that strategy." The story does not engage in disease-mongering and takes a very careful approach to describing the types of patients who would be affected by this study's results. We also like the way they provided snapshots of patients who were in both arms of the study surgery and non-surgery at the end of the story, making it clear, as the study did, that both routes can be equally successful. The story brings in some strong independent voices who help make sense of this complicated study: James Fang, a cardiologist at University Hospitals Case Medical Center in Cleveland, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study, Raymond Gibbons, a cardiologist at the Mayo Clinic, and Clyde Yancy, chief of cardiology at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine. Rarely do you see a story that spends as much time with independent experts as it does with the authors of the study. The story does a great job showing how the standard interventions for heart disease stacked up against each other in this study. We wish that some mention had been made of diet and exercise and that at least a sentence had been included about whether there might be differences in outcomes seen as a result of different medication patterns. The story doesn't make it clear what exactly the patients were taking. The story makes it clear that the range of treatments studied by the authors are widely available. The story makes it clear that there is a great need for more evidence in this field and that this study will be surprising to many clinicians because of a long-held assumption that surgery is the superior option. tudies published in the early 1990s supported the view that bypass surgery provided a better long term outcome. The story does not rely on a news release.
[A]: More Options Before Bypass Surgery, Study Finds

[Q]: Amid mounting global concern over the public health implications of so-called e-cigarettes, Touraine said they faced the same fate as traditional ones: a ban on smoking in public spaces and sales to minors and a blackout on media advertising. In a country where the pungent waft of Gaulloises and Gitanes once seemed an unassailable part of cafe culture, smokers have long been banished to outdoor terrace seats. The near-odorless electronic alternative - battery-driven devices that allow users inhale odorless nicotine-laced vapor rather than smoke - are gaining ground in no-go zones such as bars, cafes, trains, waiting rooms and offices. A government-commissioned report said this week that around 500,000 people in France had turned to e-cigarettes, which are designed to look like cigarettes although some come in different colors, and recommended a crackdown on public use. Health officials in many countries say the impact of electronic cigarettes on health needs further study. Another worry they cite is that the electronic alternative will increase the general temptation to smoke, including enticing those who have quit to start again, or that smokers may use them alongside rather than instead of regular cigarettes. "This is no ordinary product because it encourages mimicking and could promote taking up smoking," said Touraine, who announced her plans at a news conference. In the United States, the number of smokers who have tried out e-cigarettes doubled to one in five in 2011 and the number of all adults trying it doubled too, to 6 percent, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In France, a country of 66 million, the government says tobacco smoking kills some 66,000 people a year and another 5,000 are killed through passive exposure to smoke. The expert in charge of the French report advised against an outright ban on e-cigarettes, however, saying they still seemed safer than tar-laden tobacco. Electronic cigarettes, whose invention is widely credited to a Chinese pharmacist a decade ago, usually comprise disposable cartridges of liquid such as propylene glycol that is easily turned to vapor and can contain artificial flavors alongside concentrated liquid nicotine.
[A]: France to ban electronic cigarettes in public.

[Q]: The challenge looks formidable. When the 2008 financial crisis tipped the world into recession, carbon emissions fell. But as economies grew again, governments proved unable to halt an emissions rebound. The issue now is that at a crucial moment for international negotiations, the latest global economic blow could put paid to costly ideas for slowing climate change from political leaders and the private sector alike. "When things are more difficult then people are really going to be focused on financial performance," Hester Peirce, a Republican member of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) said Monday as world markets dived. This time around, money managers interviewed by Reuters say a growing recognition of the prospect of massive disruption, underscored by Australia's bushfires, has permanently shifted the dial and put environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues front and center. "People look at ESG as a luxury and when recession hits it gets thrown out of the window," said Michael Lewis, who heads research into environmental issues at German asset manager DWS. "There's still going to be significant pressure on policymakers not to take their eye off the ball, because of the financial materiality of climate change," he added. The initial stages of the epidemic in China have already had a dramatic impact on the world's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, as Beijing locked down whole areas, shutting down factories and preventing travel. Finland's Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air says Chinese CO2 emissions fell by a quarter, or an estimated 200 million tonnes in the four weeks to March 1. Satellite data also showed a sharp fall in Chinese emissions of nitrogen dioxide, a noxious gas emitted by power plants, cars and factories, starting in Wuhan and then spreading over other cities, including the capital, noticeable over a fortnight in mid-February. "There is evidence that the change is at least partly related to the economic slowdown following the outbreak of coronavirus," NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center said in a report. But China has since began to resume business as usual and globally scientists say it is too early to estimate what the coronavirus outbreak's economic impact may mean for emissions. In 2009, global carbon emissions fell to 31.5 gigatons from 32 gigatons, the Global Carbon Project said. But as the global economy recovered, emissions jumped to 33.2 Gt in 2010 and to a projected 36.8 Gt in 2019, a record high. Graphic - Global carbon emissions: here For an interactive version of the graphic, click here The recession's impact in the United States was particularly marked, with CO2 emissions falling 10% between 2007-2009, due to factors including less consumption of goods and services, a paper here published by science journal Nature Communications said. Steve Davis, an associate professor at the University of California at Irvine and one of the paper's authors, said the growing U.S. usage of natural gas helped suppress the rebound. "The conclusion that the Great Recession helped decrease emissions is still true," he said. "But that's not the way we want to win the war on climate change." Coronavirus and the oil price fall come at a fraught time for international talks to avoid catastrophic global warming. Observers fear governments will delay making ambitious pledges at a make-or-break U.N. summit in Glasgow in November. "A recession is likely to complicate the politics of environmental policy, as it will drop in priority relative to the economy," Ruben Lubowski, chief natural resource economist at the Environmental Defense Fund, a Washington, D.C. advocacy group, said. Others see the drop in oil prices as an opportunity to impose more extensive carbon taxes. "The money raised can be used to support fossil fuel workers and retool the economy," said Kingsmill Bond, energy strategist at financial think-tank Carbon Tracker. The price plunge in oil triggered by a Saudi-Russia price war could also affect the shift away from carbon. With shares in oil majors hit hard this week, some investors question the wisdom of new oil and gas exploration, climate issues aside. At the same time, low oil and gas prices could reduce incentives for big emitters such as the European Union, Japan, China and India to wean themselves off fossil fuels. "A lower oil price will stall the green revolution in the world," Michel Salden, senior portfolio manager at Vontobel Asset Management, said. But rapid renewable energy cost falls could give decarbonisation more momentum than in past downturns. Steve Young, chief financial officer of Duke Energy Corp, (DUK.N), a major U.S. electric utility, told Reuters the coronavirus so far does not seem to affect progress toward its goal of reducing its carbon footprint by 50% by 2030 and reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Investors will also watch if any government stimulus packages aim to accelerate decarbonisation or simply encourage more high-emitting projects. Changed social attitudes could make it hard for politicians to dismiss climate concerns, Keith Skeoch, chief executive of Standard Life Aberdeen, said. But low oil prices will have some influence. "Cheap oil and cheap petrol probably does make (it), from a consumer's perspective, potentially a little bit more difficult to decarbonise," Skeoch said.
[A]:
For richer or poorer: coronavirus, cheap oil test climate vows.