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 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.
New drug clears psoriasis in clinical trials

On December 18, 2018, a spate of posts and articles about fast food chain Popeye's new "emotional support chicken" appeared on social media:The move appeared to be a stunt that was either tasty or tasteless, depending on your perspective. Although several general news outlets posted about the Popeye's product, readers and social media users remained on high alert for leg pulls and marketing stunts based on the topics of the day in this case, the ongoing controversy around emotional support animal companions and air travel:Delta says it saw an 84 percent increase in reported incidents involving service and support animals in 2016 and 2017. According to the trade group Airlines for America, airlines in the US saw a 74 percent increase overall in emotional support animals from 2016 to 2017. This increase has caused other major airlines including American and United totighten their policies.Even if you haven't encountered a nonhuman passenger on your own flight, you've probably heard one of the viral stories about one, which seem to surface every few weeks. In January [2018], a woman was barred from bringing heremotional support peacockon a United flight, even when she offered to buy the bird its own seat.Likely owing in part to the evergreen popularity of the debate, Popeye's advertisement of a new purported product relating to emotional support animals proved popular on social media:Sorry, Fido. Popeyes #EmotionalSupportChicken doesn't bark on the plane. (Available in the Philadelphia airport on 12/18.) pic.twitter.com/vWyBWq4PTe Popeyes Chicken (@PopeyesChicken) December 18, 2018Popeye's issued a press release on December 18, 2018 about its purported new product:There is no doubt the holiday season is one of the busiest and most stressful travel times of the year. The airports are crowded, the delays are frustrating, and travelers are stressed about getting from point A to point B with gifts in hand. This year, POPEYES®️ is launching "Emotional Support Chicken" to provide a good-hearted laugh most need to get through stressful holiday air travel. Starting Tuesday, December 18 [2018], travelers passing through Philadelphia International Airport can purchase their fried chicken meal with an "Emotional Support Chicken" carrier at the Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen in Terminal C to bring with them on their flight.Emotional support animals provide comfort and companionship, especially during a highly stressful time like air travel. However, according to recent headlines, some travelers are pushing the envelope with the types of animals they try to bring on flights and classify as "emotional support animals," including the likes of peacocks, squirrels and tarantulas. Knowing this, Popeyes decided to launch its new "Emotional Support Chicken" to bring holiday travelers some humor to what is one of the most stressful places to be during the holidays the airport.As is often the case with headline-grabbing fast food news, Popeye's "Emotional Support Chicken" promotion was a bit overhyped for its real-world impact. The product was only available at one location (Philadelphia International Airport), and only while supplies lasted. Overall, the announcement largely served to get Popeye's a bunch of news mentions, with little substance behind the novelty item.
"Popeye's Louisiana Kitchen is selling ""emotional support chicken"" for weary flight passengers."

"The article provides costs of ""regular"" colonoscopy and that of CT colography. The article does state that ""about the same number of advanced polyps"" were found in each group (comparing virtual to regular colonoscopy). It then goes on to give absolute numbers of people with an advanced polyp (the total number of people within groups is also given so that an absolute percentage could be calculated). The story also describes how many people required a regular colonoscopy after virtual colonoscopy and how many people decided to have their polyps watched. The story provides harms of ""regular"" colonscopy, including the number of people in the study who experienced a perforated bowel and those who also required surgery to repair it. Less objective harms, like embarrassment or inconvenience, are not reported,but are also harder to measure. For virtual colonoscopy, the story includes a reference to a concern that radiation from the CT scanner might be a harm. It also implies that because virtual colonoscopy did not measure smaller growths, this could be a harm if that growth somehow went on to develop into cancer. The story also mentions that a bowel prep is needed for the virtual test, which is often a drawback for people. The story does not mention that it's quite possible and even likely that if a regular colonoscopy is needed, it will probably be done on a different day requiring the prep to be repeated. While the study arranged to have these performed on the same day, this is not likely in the real world. The article doesn't mention the type of study that the findings are based on. This study was not a randomized trial, which is important, and is not discussed. Readers don't know how strong these findings are or are not. The information provided by the article about the condition in general is correct and not exaggerated. However, the article could have been improved if a discussion about how much colon cancer screening could benefit an average person was included. While it's true that colon cancer screening can reduce the chance of getting or dying from colon cancer, most people aren't aware that the absolute reduction in risk is quite small. For some, this relatively small benefit may not be worth the risks or inconvenience of the procedure. As above. Multiple sources are used, at least two of whom don't appear to be affiliated with the research. The story also cites potential conflicts of interest of the researchers. No other screening options are discussed (like FOBT, sigmoidoscopy, or a combination of the two). Additionally, the option of not screening is always valid when describing a screening program and was not mentioned. The article states virtual colonoscopy (or CT colography) is currently available at some hospitals and centers. The article also describes that many, if not most, insurers don't currently pay for this. The story doesn't provide information on when virtual colonoscopy started to be used. But, perhaps more importantly, it does make it clear that virtual colonoscopy would be a new option for colon cancer screening with new evidence. Since there a sources of information not affiliated with the research, it appears this story does not rely on a press release."
Studies endorse 'virtual colonoscopy'