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.

The verdict in the lawsuit brought by the California woman, Eva Echeverria, marks the largest sum awarded in a series of talcum powder lawsuit verdicts against Johnson & Johnson in courts around the U.S. Echeverria alleged Johnson & Johnson failed to adequately warn consumers about talcum powder's potential cancer risks. She used the company's baby powder on a daily basis beginning in the 1950s until 2016 and was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2007, according to court papers. Echeverria developed ovarian cancer as a "proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder," she said in her lawsuit. Echeverria's attorney, Mark Robinson, said his client is undergoing cancer treatment while hospitalized and told him she hoped the verdict would lead Johnson & Johnson to put additional warnings on its products. "Mrs. Echeverria is dying from this ovarian cancer and she said to me all she wanted to do was to help the other women throughout the whole country who have ovarian cancer for using Johnson & Johnson for 20 and 30 years," Robinson said. "She really didn't want sympathy," he added. "She just wanted to get a message out to help these other women." The jury's award included $68 million in compensatory damages and $340 million in punitive damages, Robinson said. The evidence in the case included internal documents from several decades that "showed the jury that Johnson & Johnson knew about the risks of talc and ovarian cancer," Robinson said. "Johnson & Johnson had many warning bells over a 30 year period but failed to warn the women who were buying its product," he said. Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman Carol Goodrich said in a statement that the company will appeal the jury's decision. She says while the company sympathizes with women suffering from ovarian cancer that scientific evidence supports the safety of Johnson's baby powder. The verdict came after a St. Louis, Missouri jury in May awarded $110.5 million to a Virginia woman who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2012. She had blamed her illness on her use of the company's talcum powder-containing products for more than 40 years. Besides that case, three other trials in St. Louis had similar outcomes last year with juries awarding damages of $72 million, $70.1 million and $55 million, for a combined total of $307.6 million. Another St. Louis jury in March rejected the claims of a Tennessee woman with ovarian and uterine cancer who blamed talcum powder for her cancers. Two similar cases in New Jersey were thrown out by a judge who said the plaintiffs' lawyers did not presented reliable evidence linking talc to ovarian cancer. More than 1,000 other people have filed similar lawsuits. Some who won their lawsuits won much lower amounts, illustrating how juries have wide latitude in awarding monetary damages. Johnson & Johnson is preparing to defend itself and its baby powder at upcoming trials in the U.S., Goodrich said. ___ Associated Press writer Amanda Lee Myers contributed to this report. ___ Follow Michael Balsamo on Twitter at http://twitter.com/MikeBalsamo1 .
Record $417M award in lawsuit linking baby powder to cancer.

The story provided no cost estimates for vitamin and mineral supplements. The magnitude of wasted expenditures that could be saved is relevant. The story indicated that there was no cancer risk reduction associated with the vitamin supplements studied. A quote in the story from the author of one of the studies indicated that too little or too much of particular vitamins was associated with increased cancer risk. In addition, the table in the story provided information about vitamins being associated with an increased risk of diabetes and a higher, though not significant increase in the incidence in the case of one cancer. The story did not convey any sense of the quality of the studies on which it was reporting. Were they retrospective observational studies (generally weak designs) or prospective randomized trials (the best type of study). A more insightful explanation about why the current group of studies which find no protective effect are more compelling that the previous studies that found a protective effect of vitamins would have also been useful.. This story did not engage in disease mongering. The story included quotes from one of the study authors, as well as a spokesperson from the American Cancer Society and an expert without connection to the study but who wrote an editorial accompanying the study. The story mentions specific lifestyle interventions which have been shown to be associated with reduction in cancer risk. It inaccurately mentioned screening for colon, cervical, and breast cancer as means of reducing their risk. It should have stated that these screening tests are associated with reduced risk of dying of these cancers, not as means of reducing the chance of developing them. It's clear that vitamins and mineral supplements are in widespread use. The story correctly indicated that the results of the current study are consistent with the results from several recent studies which demonstrated that vitamin supplementation failed to decrease the chance of developing cancer. The sidebar table, which summarized results and included the journal name and month of publication, provided a resource for interested readers to find more information. Does not appear to rely on a press release.
Vitamins get 'F' in cancer prevention

The article does not offer any cost information. The article offers general statements about the "dramatic" and rapid effects of UA from Allergan researchers, but does not provide any numerical context or offer summaries of research with that information. The article notes the side effects of UA and potentially two other similar drugs in the pipeline. The main concern about these agents is the effects they may have on the endometrium (uterine lining) over time. The evidence is generally AWOL. A personal testimonial from a celebrity with fibroids does not stand in for evidence one expects to see from a clinical trial or trials. No mongering here. The article quotes one outside expert whose comments focused on the use of an injectable alternative to the oral drug, and the downsides of this alternative. But it also has a comment from Allergan's researcher noting that longer-time follow up is needed for UA. These source's commercial relationships are appropriately disclosed. [Editor's note: Following publication of this review, we learned that Allergan provides financial support to the White Dress Project. The story would have done well to acknowledge this relationship.] The article mentions some alternative treatments in detail. One strength of the article is that it prominently points out that many women with fibroids who have no symptoms do not require treatment of any kind. The article notes the new drug could be available in the US next year. The drug is already available in the US for another indication but is packaged in doses that are much larger than those used for fibroid treatments. The article makes clear that the advantage of the new drug is that it is an oral medication, and is taken for a limited time. However, ulipristal is not the first oral medication. There are some older oral hormonal medications, including pills in some cases, that have been tried. GnRH agonists (delivered by injection or nasal spray) such as Lupron have been used in limited situations to treat fibroids, but their use is limited by side effects related to medically induced menopause. The story includes comments from two experts and it appears as though the second one had no involvement with the study.
New Treatment for Fibroids Without Surgery