instruction:
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.
question:
The committee sent letters to Juul Labs Inc, 35% owned by Marlboro maker Altria Group Inc, Fontem Ventures, Japan Tobacco Inc, and Reynolds American Inc, a unit of British American Tobacco Plc. The letter to Juul asked if the company has conducted or financed studies on the health implications of using its products and the effectiveness of Juul in helping users quit smoking. It asked if Juul has sent information to the Food and Drug Administration. Kaelan Hollon, a spokeswoman for Reynolds American, said the company is reviewing the letter and believes "minors should never use tobacco products, including vapor products." Japan Tobacco said in a statement it welcomes any opportunity to "set out the responsible approaches" it takes in its marketing. Juul and Fontem Ventures did not respond to requests for comment. The probe comes amid growing scrutiny of the e-cigarette industry by lawmakers. A separate House panel in July released internal Juul emails that committee staff described as attempts to "enter schools and convey its messaging directly to teenage children." James Monsees, Juul's co-founder and chief product officer, told the panel the company's target audience is adult cigarette smokers. Representative Frank Pallone, the Democratic chair of the committee, cited vaping-related lung illnesses recently reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. He requested answers and documents by Sept. 20. The CDC said on Wednesday it is investigating 153 possible cases of severe lung illness associated with e-cigarette use in 16 states. No deaths have been reported, they said.
answer:
E-cigarette firms probed over health concerns by U.S. House panel.

question:
The release does not mention cost or whether it's covered by private insurance or Medicare, and in this case, it's a pretty big omission. This may be an enormously expensive treatment for patients and it's why we have a cost criterion in our reviews. The hopeful psoriasis patient who sees this release without a cost discussion might already have their hand on the phone to call their dermatologist. Here's a very rough estimate of what that patient might face in terms of cost: Based on a conservative wholesale price of roughly $4,000 per 80mg injection and following the recommendation (found on the package insert) of twoinjections every two weeks for 12 weeks, followed by monthly injections, we calculated $48,000 for the first 12 weeks plus $36,000 for the following 9 months or $84,000 total. The release stated that by week 12,"76.4 to 81.8 percent of patients had their psoriasis classified as "clear" or "minimal" compared to 3.2% of patients on the placebo. By the 60th week, 68.7 to 78.3 percent of patients had maintained their improvement." We also wanted more detail on the measured strength of the response for each patient. For example, what constitutes "minimal"? The release adequately addresses harms and notes that long-term side effects are unknown with this sentence: "Adverse events associated with ixekizumab included slightly higher rates of neutropenia (low white blood cell count), yeast infection and inflammatory bowel disease compared to the placebo. The safety of therapy longer than 60 weeks will need to be monitored in the future." The release clearly and thoroughly describes the three phase 3 international trials at 21 sites, that they enrolled a large number of patients, and that they were randomized and controlled. There was no disease mongering. The release describes what psoriasis is and its prevalence, and explains that these trials were for moderate to severe psoriasis which covers at least 10 percent of the body. The release is very transparent in stating that the drug manufacturer paid for the research and that the lead researcher is a paid consultant to Eli Lilly. The release did not compare the many different ways that patients treat psoriasis, some with topical agents and some with oral steroids or other medications. The release states that the drug has been approved by the FDA following the completion of the trials. This is a strong indication that the drug is or soon will be available. The release should have noted that the drug is already being marketed under the brand name Taltz. The release makes an understated claim to novelty with this quote from the lead researcher: "Ten years ago, we thought complete clearance of this disease was impossible. It wasn't something we would even try to do. Now with this drug, we're obtaining response levels higher than ever seen before." There was no unjustifiable language in the release.
answer:
New drug clears psoriasis in clinical trials

question:
Both groups in this study used smoking cessation products, and so it would have been helpful to know how much they cost, even if it was just a quick approximation or discussion of affordability. At the same time, these aren't high-dollar items, so cost isn't as important to discuss as say, when reportingfindings about a new cancer drug or surgery. The story gives the absolute number of participants (697) who were enrolled in the trial and then reports the percentages of participants who stopped smoking. While it reported reduced cigarette consumption in relative numbers, it did specify that participants smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day, giving somewhat more meaning to these percentages (e.g. "decrease their smoking by an average of 29%"). It told us quit rates at four weeks and six months, tooso we get some sense of change over time on results. It also placed these results in the greater context of what we know about quit rates among smokers. When quitting, heavy smokers can experiencewithdrawal symptomssuch as depression, insomnia and decreased heart rateeven if they use nicotine replacement products. The article did refer to "withdrawal" and "urge intensities" and so we'll considered that sufficient. However, the piece would have been stronger had it specifically discussed the withdrawal symptoms mentioned above. The story sufficiently discusses the quality of evidence here, including thatparticipants were assigned to one of two treatment groups. We're told how far out the the study lasted, tooan indirect measure of quality, since long-term success rates are important for addictive behaviors. We also liked this frank sentence: "The researchers acknowledge that this is hardly the last word on the best way to quit." The story does not engage in disease mongeringa smoking habit is unhealthy and harmful, and efforts to improve quit rates are important to study. This story does not include any comments from independent sourcesor even from one of the researchers themselves. It only refers to the original journal article. Why does this matter? It's always a good idea to consult an outside source because it's likely to yield insights and context that otherwise would be lacking. But overall, this is a case where the storyis still fairly strong, regardless of the lack of sourcing or interviews. The study is comparing two alternatives when quitting smokingeither cold turkey or gradually. The story discusses these options, along with the use of nicotine replacement in both scenarios. That's enough to qualify as Satisfactory. However, another alternative the author didn't mention was medications that can help with cravingssuch as bupropion. What does the research say (if anything) about how those medications might augment quitting? That's important to discuss. The availability of cigarettes or smoking cessation products is not in question. Although the story uses the word "new" when it means "latest" in the lead paragraph, we feel it did a good enough job referring to other studies to merit a Satisfactory rating. Despite the lack of original comments, this LA Times article does not appear to be based on any news releases we found online.
answer:
To quit smoking, it's best to go cold turkey, study finds