TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: File photo shows a young carer holding the hands of an elderly woman in a residential home for the elderly in Planegg near Munich June 19, 2007. REUTERS/Michaela Rehle The study, reported on Sunday in the journal BioMed Central BMC Neurology, involved 12 patients who had greatly improved language recall shortly after treatment with Enbrel, or etanercept, an anti-inflammatory drug co-marketed by Amgen and Wyeth. "We often see verbal effects within a few minutes of the first dose," said Dr. Edward Tobinick, director of the Institute for Neurological Research, a private medical group inc., in Los Angeles, who led the study. Tobinick invented and holds several patents on a special method of injecting the drug into the neck. He said he charges anywhere between $10,000 and $40,000 per patient for the treatments. In January, Tobinick's report on a single patient, and release of a striking video, drew the attention of the Alzheimer's Association, which released a statement expressing concern. "People with Alzheimer's and their families may place undue value on this new finding based on the dramatic language used in its description and the apparent immediate effect," the group said. "We need to see work in other laboratories by scientists without financial interest in the product," it added. Dr. Sam Gandy, chairman of the Alzheimer's Association's medical and science council, said the latest study, done at Tobinick's clinic, does not offer that independent confirmation. "It's still not a proper trial," Gandy said. Tobinick believes the drug may work in the brain by blocking an excess of tumor necrosis factor-alpha or TNF-alpha, which may affect communication in the brain. The study looked at language difficulties, such as in finding words, in 12 patients with mild-to-severe Alzheimer's disease who were administered etanercept weekly for six months. "There was a significant improvement in the majority of the verbal measures that were studied. The remainder showed a tendency toward improvement, which was not significant," Tobinick said in a telephone interview. He said the study provides evidence that "excess TNF, in the Alzheimer brain, may offer a new way to address this language dysfunction." Tobinick acknowledged the study is limited because people knew they were getting the drug. Alzheimer's patients in such open-label studies often show improvement. "Placebo effect is an enormous problem in open-label studies," said Dr. Scott Turner, incoming director of the Memory Disorders Program at Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington. Turner said the true test must come from a more scientifically rigorous double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. In such studies, patients receive either a dummy treatment or an active agent, and neither the doctor nor the patient knows which. Amgen has also expressed concern about the research, claiming there has been insufficient evidence so far. "This off-label, unapproved treatment, administered by Dr. Edward Tobinick, is not supported nor endorsed by Amgen," the company said in April on its Web site. A video showing one woman's response to the drug in a sister study can be found at : here

SOLUTION: Drug restores speech in Alzheimer's; experts worry.

PROBLEM: The researchers who conducted the review said their findings suggest most people can eat red and processed meat at current average intake, typically three or four times a week for adults in North America and Europe, without significant health risks. "Based on the research, we cannot say with any certainty that eating red or processed meat causes cancer, diabetes or heart disease," said Bradley Johnston, an associate professor at Dalhousie University in Canada who co-led the review published on Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine journal. However, in what amounts to a scientific food fight, experts from Harvard, Yale, Stanford and elsewhere, including one of the review authors, said guidelines that could lead people to eat more red and processed meats were irresponsible. They asked in a letter to the journal that it "pre-emptively retract publication" of the papers pending further review. A statement by the Harvard School of Public Health, shared with Reuters by Frank Hu, a doctor and chair of the nutrition department, said: "From a public health point of view, it is irresponsible and unethical to issue dietary guidelines that are tantamount to promoting meat consumption, even if there is still some uncertainty about the strength of the evidence." The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) both say red and processed meat may or can cause cancer. The WCRF advises eating "little, if any" processed meat and only "moderate amounts" of red meat, such as beef, pork and lamb - with a weekly limit of 500 grams (17.6 ounces) cooked weight. Giota Mitrou, the WCRF's director of research, said people should not misinterpret the review as saying meat is risk-free. "The public could be put at risk if they interpret this new recommendation to mean we can continue eating as much red and processed meat as they like without increasing their risk of cancer," she said. "This is not the case." In the analysis published on Monday, researchers from Canada, Spain and Poland conducted a series of reviews of both randomized controlled trials and observational studies looking at the possible health impact of eating red and processed meat. Among the randomised trials they selected for analysis, which included around 54,000 people, they found no statistically significant link between eating meat and the risk of heart disease, diabetes, or cancer. Among the observational studies, which covered millions of people, they did find "a very small reduction in risk" in those who ate three fewer servings of red or processed meat a week, but said this association "was very uncertain." "Our bottom line recommendation ... is that for the majority of people, but not everyone, continuing their red and processed meat consumption is the best approach," Johnston said. David Katz, director of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center at the Yale University School of Medicine, said he had "grave concerns" about the potential of the new review "for damage to public understanding, and public health". But other experts said the work was a comprehensive, well-conducted analysis of the available evidence on eating meat and human health. "This study will, I hope, help to eliminate the incorrect impression ... that some meat products are as carcinogenic as cigarette smoke, and to discourage dramatic media headlines claiming that 'bacon is killing us'," said Ian Johnson, a nutrition expert at Britain's Quadram Institute of bioscience. Christine Laine, editor in chief of Annals of Internal Medicine, noted that nutrition studies are challenging. "To be honest with our patients and the public, we shouldn't be making recommendations that sound like they're based on solid evidence," she said. "There may be lots of reasons to decrease meat in your diet, but if you're decreasing it to improve your health, we don't have a lot of strong evidence to support that."

SOLUTION: Steak is back on the menu, if a new red meat risk review is to be believed.

PROBLEM: Exposure to essential oils can be fatal for cats and small animals. But there's not much scientific evidence about how risky essential oils are for cats, and what levels are safe. First, we'll take a look at what essential oils are. They're high concentrations of oils that occur naturally in plants. When mixed with solvents, essential oils can be diluted and defused throughout a room. They're used for aromatherapy and for medicinal purposes. Warnings that essential oils are harmful to cats have been circulating for years. And for good reason. One version that we found on social media warns that "all citrus" varieties of essential oils are toxic to cats. Among those listed is tea tree essential oil. Studies indicate that the warning is valid, but only when cats are exposed to the oils in large doses. The Science Behind Claims That Essential Oils Are Harmful to Cats The Oklahoma Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory published a study in 1998 that described how three purebred cats were poisoned by Australian tea tree oil. The cats' owner applied a topical ointment containing the oil directly to the cats to treat fleas. All three became sick within hours. Ultimately, two of the cats survived and one died. Tea tree oil is toxic to cats because of how they metabolize terpenes, the organic compounds that give essential oils their scents. And other essential oils, like eucalyptus oil, are very similar in composition. They can be toxic to cats for the same reason. Most cases of poisoning result from misuse (like applying the oil directly to the cat's fur). But cats can also be especially susceptible to high concentrations of defused tea tree essential oil because of cats' grooming habits, the study found: The terpenes in tea tree oil are rapidly absorbed through the skin and digestive tract because of their highly lipophilic nature. Toxicity from dermal exposure has not been produced in rabbits but may be possible. Cats may be more susceptible to tea tree oil toxicosis after topical application than are other species because of their grooming behavior. In this case, the cats had been shaved, so that tea tree oil was applied directly to the skin, enhancing dermal absorption. The flea bite lesions may have also increased dermal absorption somewhat. Further, grooming efficiency was probably augmented due to shaving, allowing cats to ingest a large amount of the oil applied To summarize essential oils like tea tree oil can be toxic to cats if they lick it from their fur, or even if it's absorbed through their skin. Some argue that highly defused, high-quality essential oil in a well-ventilated room is perfectly safe for pets. However, we weren't able to find any studies indicating that that's true, or at what levels essential oils are safe for cats. For those reasons, we're calling claims that some essential oils are toxic for cats "true." Comments

SOLUTION:
Essential oils can kill cats and mall animals. Social media posts warn those with cats to avoid certain essential oils.