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:
"CORRECTION, 5:22 p.m., Oct. 15, 2014: This story has been amended to remove the incorrect original declaration that the $250,000 donation was given before the suits were filed. According to copies of the filings provided by Zac Petkanas, a spokesman for Davis, one of several suits singled out by Davis as the basis of her ad was filed in January 2014, before the donation the next month. This change led us to change our rating of the statement from Half True. (See the original fact check here.) In a TV ad, Wendy Davis said Greg Abbott took a hefty campaign donation before siding with a hospital against patients injured and killed by a drug-taking surgeon. Davis, the Fort Worth state senator and Democratic gubernatorial nominee, consistently depicts Abbott, the state attorney general and Republican choice for governor, as an unethical insider beholden to powerful interests. The narrator of the ad, titled ""Operation,"" says: ""He was a Texas surgeon, performing operations while reportedly using cocaine. Two people died, others were paralyzed. Doctors spoke out,"" the narrator says, ""but the hospital did nothing to stop him. Families and victims sued the hospital. ""Then, weeks after accepting a quarter-million-dollar campaign contribution from the hospital's chairman, Greg Abbott got involved, using his office to go to court -- against the victims."" Abbott solicited and accepted the donation, we confirmed, and the state intervened in lawsuits pitting patients against the hospital, though he got involved to defend a state law. Senator's backup By email, Davis spokesman Zac Petkanas said Davis based her claim in part on a July 30, 2014, news story in the Dallas Morning News stating that not long after the chairman of the board of the Baylor Health Care System, which owns the Baylor Regional Medical Center at Plano, donated $250,000 to Abbott's campaign, Abbott weighed in on federal lawsuits against the hospital where a neurosurgeon allegedly had done damage to patients. News report and interview of donor We confirmed from Abbott's campaign finance filings with the state and an interview with the board chairman and donor, Temple businessman Drayton McLane, that McLane donated $250,000 to Abbott's campaign in January 2014. That donation, the News story said, came after McLane gave the campaign $100,000 in 2013. Before the six-figure contributions, the story said, McLane's biggest donation to Abbott had been $25,000. Abbott's campaign recorded the $250,000 donation as arriving Jan. 23, 2014 -- the very date one of the relevant federal lawsuits were filed against the hospital. Then again, we realized with a nudge from Petkanas after this article initially appeared, one of the several lawsuits was filed Dec. 27, 2013, weeks prior to McLane's contribution. His $250,000 check, a photo of which McLane's office emailed to us, was dated Jan. 21, 2014. The News story said Abbott and McLane had each told the paper the two had not discussed the lawsuits. McLane also said he didn't know about the case before contributing the $250,000, the paper said, and he stressed he had no personal financial interest in the nonprofit hospital system; the chairman's post is unpaid. By phone, McLane told us he's known Abbott since before Abbott, originally a Houston lawyer, won election as a Harris County state district judge in 1992 and gave the $250,000 after Abbott asked him for a large contribution. McLane said he hadn't spoken with the Republican nominee since. Asked what he expected for the eye-catching contribution, McLane said: ""I'm not expecting to get anything back. I believe in strong good government. Unfortunately, on both sides, there are heavy contributions."" On top of not knowing about the lawsuits described by Davis before making his donation, McLane said, he hadn't long been chairman of Baylor Scott & White Health, which owns the Plano facility, having become chairman when healthcare systems merged in October 2013; McLane previously chaired Scott & White Healthcare. Abbott in court As noted in the News, the federal suits against the Baylor system and Plano hospital challenge the constitutionality of a state law requiring the plaintiffs to prove Baylor acted with actual intent to harm patients -- which the suing plaintiffs/families call an impossibly stiff burden. Petkanas of Davis' campaign provided copies of several lawsuits filed on behalf of patients and families, each one alleging a neurosurgeon, Christopher Duntsch, was permitted by the Plano hospital to perform surgeries under the influence of illegal drugs and alcohol, causing harm. Those suits also challenge action by state lawmakers in 2003, while overhauling laws regulating lawsuits seeking damages, to delete a definition of ""malice"" in the law, hence ""eliminating a common-law right arbitrarily in light of the purposes of the statute leaving only an impossible condition before liability will attach,"" the lawsuits say. A spokeswoman for the attorney general's office, Lauren Bean, emailed us the state's nearly identical March 24, 2014, filings in three plaintiff challenges to the law. In the filings, the state said it has a statutory right to intervene in a case when the constitutionality of a state law is at issue. On March 31, 2014, a week after the state filed its request, U.S. District Judge Jorge A. Solis granted the request to intervene ""for the purpose of defending the constitutionality of Texas law,"" Solis wrote. His order said no parties to the litigation objected. It's undisputed an attorney general may seek to get involved in a federal suit to defend a state law, but some lawyers told us it's up to the official to do so -- or not. Attorney Kay Van Wey, who represents some plaintiffs in the suits against the hospital, said by email Abbott's move was unusual and unreasonable, though she didn't object, she said, because there is no legal way to do so; we didn't divine what she meant by that. Van Wey further said Abbott ""is defending a law that essentially gives immunity to hospitals for credentialing dangerous physicians. The law, as it now stands, denies access to the courts for good, taxpaying Texas citizens, who through no fault of their own, were butchered by a highly dangerous surgeon. ""Even if we prove the hospitals were grossly negligent in hiring and retaining a dangerous surgeon,"" Van Wey said, ""...it isn't enough under the current state of the law. In Texas, we have to prove 'malice,' meaning we have to prove the hospital had a subjective intent to harm the patient. That is considered to be an impossible standard. It is clearly an erroneous and completely unfair law. He didn't have to intervene in our lawsuits. He chose to."" The News story quoted Bean saying McLane's contributions played no role in his decision to intervene in the suits. Besides, Bean said, the ""state is not defending the hospital or the doctor in this case or their alleged conduct. If the hospital or doctor have violated the law, then they will be held accountable, and nothing in the state's court filings opposes the plaintiffs,"" patients and families, ""on that front,"" she said. Bean gave us the agency's full response sent to the News. In it, Bean said the state ""will not be putting on any defense of any action by the hospital or any doctor. The state will not put on any evidence or make any argument whether the hospital's actions or the doctor's actions violate the law. The state does not condone, support or defend the actions of the hospital or doctor. The only thing the state will argue is that the law is not unconstitutional."" Outside lawyers An Austin lawyer who helped write the 2003 change told us he believes the attorney general was bound to defend the revised law as Abbott is doing. Michael Hull emailed: ""The AG intervention is consistent with federal and state law. The AG is defending the constitutionality of a statute. His office has not taken a position on the facts alleged in the petition nor has the AG chosen to defend the hospital or the doctor."" Hull later said such constitutional challenges are rare, ""but when challenges do occur, it is common for the AG to defend the constitutionality of the statute."" Hull and Michael Guajardo, the Dallas president of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, each pointed out any litigant is required to notify the state of a federal challenge to a state law's constitutionality We asked if that formal notice touched off Abbott's intervention. Not so, Bean said, adding the attorney general's office has no record of receiving the notice, which court filings say was sent by certified mail. Instead, Bean said, Jonathan Mitchell, the state solicitor general, learned of the suits from a March 10, 2014, news story in the Texas Lawyer magazine. Petkanas, told we hadn't uncovered proof the McLane donation prompted Abbott to enter the lawsuits, said by email the ad didn't assert a cause and effect -- only that McLane gave his campaign donation before Abbott intervened. Our ruling Davis said that weeks ""after accepting a quarter-million-dollar campaign contribution"" from a hospital board chairman, Greg Abbott went to court against victims of a drug-taking neurosurgeon. Davis' statement needs clarification that Abbott's intervention was limited to defending the constitutionality of Texas' tort-reform laws. That makes this statement . The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information."
answer:
"Weeks after accepting a quarter-million-dollar campaign contribution"" from a hospital board chairman, Greg Abbott went to court against victims of a drug-taking neurosurgeon."

question:
The story reports not only the cost of the blood test ($60), but the cost to detect one case (including follow-up), which the researchers calculated to be $28,600. This is excellent context. The story would have been better if it had noted that the people included in this study were at unusually high risk for developing this cancer. The 34 cases found after screening 20,000 people is almost 200 times the typical annual rate in the US and other countries (less than 1 per 100,000 people per year). The ultimate measure of cost is cost-effectiveness (cost per life-year saved) which requires survival data. These analyses can also be adjusted for quality of life. While most of this story is careful to note that this test has yet to show clinical effectiveness, that caution is trampled by the claim that this blood test "boosted patients' chances of survival," something that this type of study cannot determine. The claim that this test is more accurate than existing methods is also premature, since the study did not directly compare the blood test to existing methods. Finding more early-stage cancers is a necessary but hardly sufficient step in the pathway of demonstrating benefit for a new screening test. Clinical trials are needed to address issues of false positives, over diagnosis, over treatment, and survival. The story reports that developers of this blood test still need to show low rates of false positive or negative results. A low false negative rate means there are fewer missed cases of serious disease. The trade-off, though, is a higher false positive rate. All positive tests will need to be evaluated with a gold standard diagnostic test and the safety, acceptability, and costs of that gold standard test will profoundly affect the uptake of the new screening test. While the story reports that this study was a "proof-of-concept" experiment, it then says the test boosted survival, something that can only be known after directly comparing the new test to existing methods. Making treatment "dramatically more effective" can be proven only with randomized trials. All screening tests that can detect cancers at an earlier stage will be associated with an apparent increase in survival time, but as explained in more detail below, this does not necessarily mean that patients with screen-detected cancers actually live longer than they would have otherwise. Efficacy can be established only with an RCT. The story could have done a better job pointing out the many limitations in the work. For example, there was no follow-up testing for people who had negative blood test results. Even though the researchers surveyed participants a year after the testing, they didn't produce any data on how many of the people with negative blood tests actually had cancer. What's more, the researchers compared the survival rates of their patients to a different group of cancer patients from another study, which raises questions about how comparable the groups really are. There was also no discussion of the possibility that at least some of the tumors discovered through this screening might not have developed into dangerous cancers. The story does not address lead-time bias (that longer survival might be at least partly due to finding the tumor earlier in its natural course, rather than to just the effect of treatment). The researchers noted that the effect of lead time bias can only really be known through a randomized, controlled trial. We will rate the story satisfactory on this criterion because it is careful to note that this test is not ready for clinical use and that the study results apply to only one type of cancer. However, the story would have been better if it had pointed out just how rare this cancer is, less than one case per 100,000 people in the US per year. That is about 3,000 cases in the US per year out of about 1.7 million cancers diagnosed annually. And the comment that the cancer "is prevalent" in southern China and Southeast Asia may be misleading. While it may occur more often in the region, rates are still on the order of 10 to 20 per 100,000 which is hardly widespread. The story squeaks by on this criterion because it includes a quote from an editorial in the journal that was written by an independent source. It would have been more useful to readers to include more comment and context from someone without financial ties to this study. The story is upfront about the financial interests of the researchers themselves and the company that owns the rights to their work, noting the keen interest in bringing this test to market. Although the story reports that "that nasopharyngeal carcinoma typically goes undetected until later on, when patients report symptoms such as recurring nosebleeds," it does not tell readers anything about how often these cancers are found at an early stage. Readers are not given a sense of how patients typically fare with existing methods of diagnosis. The story clearly reports that the test is still experimental and that developers have yet to show that it could be practical and effective in clinical practice. The story highlights the desire for a new blood test that could be clinically useful. The story doesn't appear to rely on a news release. It includes quotes from a telephone interview with an executive at the company developing this test.
answer:
Silicon Valley Startup Grail Sees Hope for Cancer Blood Test

question:
In a joint statement after a five-day conference in Britain, the international experts said snake bites kill more people than all other so-called Neglected Tropical Diseases combined, yet get little attention or funding from the World Health Organisation (WHO) or from governments. Citing new evidence from a study in India and Bangladesh, the experts said around 46,000 people died annually of snake bites in India, plus another 6,000 in Bangladesh. The WHO estimates the annual death toll in India from snake bites is 10,000. "Snake bite ... is almost completely ignored and grossly underestimated," said Alan Harvey, head of the International Society of Toxinology, who led the meeting. "WHO and governments need to ... rank snake bite where it belongs as a very real public health and medical concern which needs funding, training and focus." Bites from snakes such as cobras, mambas and vipers mainly affect people living in rural areas of sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia with scant health facilities nearby. Antivenom treatment can cost between $250 and $500, the experts said, meaning many victims either seek no treatment at all or go to local witch doctors or herbalists. Despite high death rates, the WHO in 2013 downgraded snake bite to a "neglected condition" with no formal program on how to address it as a health threat, the experts said. The specialists also warned that antivenom stocks are running "dangerously low" in many risk areas and said there is a "real crisis in the quantity and quality of antivenoms in rural areas, where they are needed most". Even where antivenom stocks are good and of high quality, there is often a shortage of medical staff trained in how to administer them safely or effectively.
answer:
Venom experts say global snake bite death tolls 'grossly underestimated'.