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: According to the story, brand-name aromatase inhibitors cost between $340 and $420 a month, but the story also points out that lower-costing, generic versions are available in the U.S. It would have been useful had the story also provided cost information for the other preventive drug options, tamoxifen and raloxifene. A particular strength of this story is its presentation of data. Dr. Winer, an independent source included in the story, translates a 65% risk reduction to mean that exemestane may reduce a woman's risk of developing breast cancer from 3% to 1%. Not only does the story provide absolute risk, but it also presents the number needed to treat. According to the study authors, 26 women would need to take exemestane for five years to prevent a single case of breast cancer. It should be noted, however, that few women in the study completed five years of therapy. Since this is being used as a preventive measure in healthy women, side effects are very important and data should have been provided. The story indicates that "slightly" more women taking exemastane experienced hot flashes, fatigue, sweating, insomnia, and joint pain, compared to those taking placebo pills. It would have been helpful to note, for example, that 40% in the exemestane group experienced a hot flash versus 32% in the placebo group. Citing older research, the story indicates that that joint pain, muscle aches, problems having sex, and vaginal dryness may be more evident with a longer duration of use. The story makes it clear that the study was a large-scale, placebo-controlled, randomized trial, which enrolled over 4500 women in North America and Europe. The women included had at least one risk factor for breast cancer. It also notes that given the significant risk reduction associated with exemestane, the study was stopped after 3 years to give women in the control arm the option of taking exemestane to prevent possible breast cancers. More information regarding participants' characteristics, including age and race would have been helpful. This story did not engage in disease-mongering. In addition to including experts not affiliated with the exemestane study, the story also notes that the it was funded by the Canadian Cancer Society, the Avon Foundation, and Pfizer. In addition, the writer points out that the study lead and a few other authors have received speaking fees from Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies that make cancer drugs. This story compares the benefits and harms of exemestane with tamoxifen; however, a mention of how these compare with raloxifene, would have been useful. The availability of aromatase inhibitors is not in question. It's clear from the story that aromatase inhibitors are currently used to prevent breast cancer recurrences. It's also clear that this is the first study evaluating its utility for preventing the first instance of breast cancer in healthy women with a higher risk of developing the disease. The story does not appear to be based on the press release.

Answer: Hormone-blocking drug reduces breast cancer risk

Question: On December 20 2018, the Facebook page "Teanderthal Party" posted the following meme about healthcare, "illegal immigration," terror attacks, and the mortality rate in the United States:It stated:FACT:More Americans die every year from lack of affordable healthcare than from terrorist attacks and illegal immigration combined.Teanderthal Party didn't share any commentary alongside the meme, nor was it accompanied by any citations, sources, or even references backing the point the page was attempting to convey by sharing the meme. Presumably, its creators singled out "illegal immigration" and "terrorist attacks" as common political fears in the United States, and it aimed to suggest that those concerned about those dangers were possibly likelier to die from lack of access to healthcare services. (But without additional context, that remains a guess as good as any. )Regardless of the page's editorial intent in sharing the meme, its claims remained fact-checkable to a degree. However, questions remain: If fact-based resources were consulted to compose the meme, did its creator simply reference 2018 (the year in which it was posted to the page)? Was it created and based upon an earlier year? And how far back should we go to examine the claim's truthfulness?Further, did the meme intend to reference terrorism-related deaths of Americans within the United States, or did it include Americans killed while visiting other countries? Were combat deaths involving the Islamic State (for example) included in the creation of the meme? And with respect to the number of "Americans [who die] from illegal immigration," did it mean people murdered by undocumented immigrants, or something else? With such nebulous benchmarks, answering these questions was a dicey prospect.Finally, the precise meaning of dying "from lack of affordable healthcare" was undefined. Would such a number encompass people who succumbed to illness or injury because they were unable to pay for treatment, people whose health declined because they did not maintain any form of medical insurance, or some other category? Would any other scenario be included in the calculation of deaths due to a lack of affordable healthcare?Although vague, the meme pinpointed three metrics of debatable description with which we will try to approximate a truth rating:The first number might be the easiest of the bunch, due to related research appearing from time to time in the news. Fact checkers PolitiFact and FactCheck.org have both tackled variations of the claim, the latter with no rating, while the former assigned a "" decision to a claim no one died from a lack of access to healthcare.Figures from theAmerican Journal of Public Health[PDF] published in 2009 often serve as a benchmark number for deaths linked specifically to a lack of health insurance in American adults. In their study, "Health Insurance and Mortality in U.S. Adults," researchers provided several numbers in different years prior to 2009, estimating that 46 million Americans were uninsured. For the year 2000, researchers estimated 27,424 deaths due to a lack of health insurance among adults in the United States. For 2005, using the same methodology, they calculated between 35,327 deaths in non-elderly people and 44,789 deaths overall.The study was conducted at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance, and was based on data obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In a September 2009 Harvard Gazette article about the findings, researchers said that the larger 44,789 figure was conservative at the time of its publication:Steffie Woolhandler, study co-author, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and a primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance, noted: "Historically, every other developed nation has achieved universal health care through some form of nonprofit national health insurance. Our failure to do so means that all Americans pay higher health care costs, and 45,000 pay with their lives.""The Institute of Medicine, using older studies, estimated that one American dies every 30 minutes from lack of health insurance," remarked David Himmelstein, study co-author, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and a primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance."Even this grim figure is an underestimate now one dies every 12 minutes."A major change to policy in the United States took place between the publication of those figures in 2009 and the meme's circulation in December 2018 the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act(known colloquially as "Obamacare") in March 2010. At the time the paper quoted above was published, 46 million American citizens lacked health insurance.We were unable to locate a one-to-one comparison of estimated deaths from lack of health insurance after passage of the Affordable Care Act, but research published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in September 2017 indicated that 28 million Americans were uninsured at that point. Using the American Journal of Public Health figures of 46 million uninsured Americans and 44,789 deaths for 2005 (published in 2009), we calculated a .097 percent mortality rate. Applying that ratio to the 28 million uninsured Americans referenced in September 2017,27,160 uninsured Americans could be expected to die of the same general cause.Although figures on deaths due to a lack of health insurance in several given years were relatively easy to find, the other two metrics proved far harder to decisively pin down. Nevertheless, it seemed possible to arrive at a simple "true or false" based on disparity alone.The question of how many Americans are killed annually by undocumented immigrants has come to the forefront of the public discourse, most notably when President Donald Trump referenced a completely unsubstantiated figure of 63,000 American deaths at the hands of undocumented immigrants since September 11, 2001.TheWashington Post located the origin of the 63,000 murders figure in June 2018:We traced that number back to its source. On May 5, 2006, [Rep. Steve] King posted an article on his official website in response to national pro-immigration protests held that month. The post is a catalogue of anti-immigrant scaremongering he explained the math behind his numbers."The crimes that are committed by those who enter this country illegally are in significantly greater numbers than the crimes that are committed by American citizens," King said, "to the extent that 28 percent of the inmates in our prisons in the United States are criminal aliens, 28 percent."That figure he got from a Government Accountability Office report issued in April 2005 King figured (admitting that [his referenced] number would go up or down a percentage point or two):"That means then that criminal aliens are committing 28 percent of the crimes in the United States. And so that means 28 percent of the murders, 28 percent of the rapes, 28 percent of the violence and the assaults and battery, first- and second-degree murder and also manslaughter attacks are committed by criminal aliens."In other words, since 28 percent of the prisoners were immigrants in the country illegally, they must also therefore have committed 28 percent of each and every crime! Quod erat demonstratum. Recognizing that this sounded like a lot even at the time, King rationalized it by asserting that for every undocumented immigrant in the country we know about, two or three sneak in without our knowing it. Here's how we know that's not true.There is an almost impossibly large number of problems with King's argument.The first is that, of course, crime is not evenly distributed among populations. If 10 percent of prisoners are named John, that doesn't mean that people named John commit 10 percent of murders. Many of those undocumented immigrants in federal custody were probably there for a very specific type of crime: felony immigration violations. Very, very few native-born Americans were there for that. In fact, in 2014, half of criminal arrests were for immigration violations. Since the GAO data are only for federal prisoners, that's significant. (It's also worth noting, as a reader did, that federal prisoners make up only a small percentage of the entire prison population. )The Post concluded that "King seems to have basically made the number up more than a decade ago," adding that the Congressman did not even stick with the same figure himself in later reference to the subject:In 2011, King presented a resolution that offered a different calculus."According to the Government Accountability Office," it read, "there have been 25,064 homicide arrests of criminal aliens since 1955."That's about 1.2 per day.We were unable to locate any trustworthy estimate for the number of Americans killed (intentionally or not) by undocumented immigrants in any given year. And even if that number had been correct instead of specious, 63,000 deaths divided by 17 years equals 3,706 deaths annually a figure dwarfed by the lowest number of deaths from lack of health insurance by any metric in any year.There is no basis whatsoever to assume the "63,000 since 2001" figure was based in anything at all, but if we apply King's second formula (1.2 per day) to an annual basis, we get 438 deaths a year, which we can round up to 500 for comparison purposes.Finally, we come to the number of Americans killed annually in terrorist attacks. The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) provided figures [PDF] for the number of Americans killed both on and off American soil in terrorist attacks between 1995 and 2016. In that 21-year period, START calculated 3,393 deaths in total in the United States, 3,277 American fatalities on US soil, and 3,658 total American fatalities due to terrorism abroad.Those figures included all deaths during the attacks of September 11, 2001, which totaled 2,902. Averaging the largest number of the three (3,658) per year without adjusting for the outlying events of a single large-scale attack provided a figure of 174 deaths. Subtracting 9/11 from the larger figure and again calculating the number provided an annual average of 36 Americans killed by terrorists each year.In summation, the lowest number of estimated deaths among Americans due to a lack of health insurance in any given year (regardless of the Affordable Care Act's passage in 2010) totaled more than 27,000. We found no solid figures for the number of Americans killed by undocumented immigrants in any given year, but even the incorrect number of 3,706 annual deaths based on the baseless 63,000 deaths-since-9/11 figure did not approach the number of deaths from lack of access to affordable healthcare. And combining that inaccurately large number with the unadjusted number of terrorism-related deaths (174 deaths per year), the highest comparative total was 4,881 deaths due to undocumented immigrants and terrorism. But once again, the latter two numbers were far likelier under 700 deaths total combined, versus 27,000 deaths on the first count.The meme's statement that more people die every year from a lack of affordable healthcare than terrorist attacks or "illegal immigration" is true any way you slice it. The latter two numbers in any permutation (even when wildly inflated) come nowhere near matching the very credible figures informing the healthcare deaths estimate, and that remains true regardless of the meme's extremely poor explanation of its own claims.

Answer: More Americans die every year from a lack of affordable healthcare than by terrorism or at the hands of undocumented immigrants.

Question: "After San Francisco 49ers quarterbackColin Kaepernick didn't stand during the playing of the national anthem before a game, actor James Woods chided the NFL over a decal that hasn't been approved for Dallas Cowboys helmets. On Aug. 27, 2016, Woods tweeted: ""Kaepernick doesn't stand for the national anthem, Rams players can walk onto the field with their hands up for the 'hands up, don't shoot,' and other players can wear t-shirts saying I can't breathe. But the Dallas Cowboys can't put a sticker on their helmets for the 5 police officers who were killed. Way to go NFL."" We wondered if the actor stuck to the facts. Woods posted his tweet after Kaepernick didn't join others standing during the anthem before his team's Aug. 26, 2016, preseason game against the Green Bay Packers. Afterward, Kaepernick said: ""I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder."" Woods otherwise referred to five Rams players raising their arms in support of protests in Ferguson, Mo., during player introductions before a Nov. 30, 2014, game. The NFL didn't discipline the players; spokesman Brian McCarthy told CNN: ""We respect and understand the concerns of all individuals who have expressed views on this tragic situation."" And the decal? After the July 7, 2016, shooting deaths of five Dallas police officers, the Dallas Morning News reported, Cowboys officials led by tight end Jason Witten honored surviving family members at the Cowboys training camp in Oxnard, Calif., in part with players entering the field arm in arm with officers. The newspaper said in a July 30, 2016, news story: ""The idea to come out arm-in-arm belonged to Witten. So did the idea to wear a patch on their helmets in this camp that reads Arm in Arm. The Cowboys have asked the NFL if they can wear that patch on their helmets this season. Discussions are ongoing."" Eleven days later, Stephen Jones, the team's executive vice president, told reporters that NFL officials had told the Cowboys that players couldn't wear the Arm in Arm decal during preseason or regular-season games--though the decals could remain on helmets during training camp practices, according to an Aug. 11, 2016, News story, which said the Cowboys had placed the decal on the back of each helmet after the ceremony initiated by Witten. Jones said then: ""Everyone has to be uniform with the league and the other 31 teams. We respect their decision."" We spotted Section 4, Article 1 of the league rules stating: ""All visible items worn on game day by players must be issued by the club or the League, or, if from outside sources, must have approval in advance by the League office."" More directly, Section 8 of the rules states that on game days, items ""to celebrate anniversaries or memorable events, or to honor or commemorate individuals, such as helmet decals, and arm bands and jersey patches on players' uniforms, are prohibited unless approved in advance by the League office."" (The rules also bar any ""detachable kicking toe."" Now you know.) And what is allowed? ""All such items approved by the League office, if any, must relate to team or League events or personages,"" the rule says. ""The League will not grant permission for any club or player to wear, display, or otherwise convey messages, through helmet decals, arm bands, jersey patches, or other items affixed to game uniforms or equipment, which relate to political activities or causes, other non-football events, causes or campaigns, or charitable causes or campaigns. Further, any such approved items must be modest in size, tasteful, non-commercial, and non-controversial; must not be worn for more than one football season; and if approved for use by a specific team, must not be worn by players on other teams in the League."" We asked Rich Dalrymple, a Cowboys spokesman, about Woods' tweet. He didn't speak to its accuracy other than to share news stories on the decal's debut and the league decision not to allow the decals to be worn during games. Dalrymple said the request and denial occurred by telephone. Beforeour clock ran out, our attempts to query the NFL about the decals and Woods' tweet didn't draw a whistle--or any response. Our ruling In a tweet, Woods said the ""Dallas Cowboys can't put a sticker on their helmets for the 5 police officers who were killed."" NFL rules give the league control over decals on helmets which must relate to team or league ""events or personages."" This limit likely explains the league's disapproval of the decals honoring the felled officers. The statement is accurate and there's nothing significant missing.

Answer:
The Dallas Cowboys can't put a sticker on their helmets for the 5 police officers who were killed.