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.

On July 10 2020, a number of Facebook users shared posts like the one below purportedly screenshots from the profile of a user, Richard Rose, who initially adopted the position of a "COVID denier" before dying from it on July 4 2020:Circulating Posts About Richard Rose's Posts and DeathIn the post above, four chronological posts attributed to Rose appeared, alongside the following status update from the poster:There's obviously no shortage of people who believe that following COVID-19 protocols makes you look weak. The insecurity and ignorance that fuels these outspoken acts of bravado are a separate conversation, but If you have a moment, please follow the last three months in the life of Richard Rose: https://www.facebook.com/rickrose2007In a post dated April 28 2020, Rose was quoted as refusing to buy or wear a mask, vowing not to buy into that "damn hype." On June 12 2020, a post captured Rose's check-in to "Put-in-Bay, South Bass Island" in Ohio alongside a remark that it was "not that packed lol."Two posts attributed to Rose were dated July 1 2020, the first of which was about Rose's illness in the preceding days. In the second, Rose disclosed he was quarantined for fourteen days after testing positive for COVID-19.A fifth and final screenshot included a smiling photograph of a genial-looking man and the words "Richard Rose, III Obituary." Visible in that image were the dates of Rose's birth and death: July 25 1982 and July 4 2020.A similar collection of screenshots shared by the page "Guess what he says next" on July 10 2020 was shared thousands of times in just a few hours. In place of the two July 1 2020 posts, a single July 2 2020 post attributed to Rose was included:On July 7 2020, somebody claiming to be a friend of Rose's wrote:This was my friend Richard Rose. Rick was diagnosed with COVID-19 on July 1. Rick lost his life 3 days later on July 4th. Rick was healthy as far as we know and was only in his 30's. Rick was like a lot of my friends, and didn't feel the need to wear a mask because he was young and healthy. Please know that this virus is real. Just because you don't personally know someone effected yet doesn't mean it's not real.Rick Rose's Facebook PagePosts seen in the screenshots were available and initially open to comments on public posts. It appeared that Rose's Facebook page was memorialized at some point on July 10 2020, judging by the amount of activity to that date a flood of engagement which ceased when the page was memorialized.On April 28 2020, Rose posted the status commonly shared first in the circulating posts, in which he said "I'm not buying a fucking mask," and "I've made it this far by not buying into that damn hype":On June 13 2020, Rose commented "it's not that packed lol" on his check-in post:On June 29 2020, Rose expressed concern Halloween might "not happen" in 2020:The posts seen from July 1 and 2 2020 also were visible on Rose's timeline:Rose's final post appeared on July 3 2020, a meme that read:When you see me in heaven don't shit yourselves you judgmental pricks.Comments on the post between July 4 2020 and July 7 2020 appeared to be solely from Rose's friends, expressing shock and grief at his death. On July 10 2020, a number of new comments apparently spurred by posts about his comments and death appeared:Does he still think it's a hoax though?An Obituary for Richard Rose IIICrosser Funeral Home in Port Clinton, Ohio published an obituary for Rose, archived here. It confirmed the cause of Rose's death and included details about his life:Richard Donald Rose, III July 25, 1982 July 4, 2020 Born in Port Clinton, Ohio Resided in Port Clinton, OhioRichard Donald Rose, III, 37, of Port Clinton passed away Saturday, July 4, 2020 due to complications of Covid-19 at his home. He was born July 25, 1982 in Port Clinton. He graduated from Port Clinton High School. He served his country in the United States Army for nine years serving two tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. He enjoyed social media, online streaming, paranormal and his two cats Dale and Tucker. He was a fan of NASCAR, Dirt Track Racing and Georgia Bulldogs Football. Surviving are his mother and step-father: Tina and Kenny Heschel of Port Clinton; sister: Krystal Campbell of Genoa; brother: K. C. Heschel of Concord, NC; half-sister: Melissa Rose of Port Clinton. He was preceded in death by his grandparents: Carl and Marla Kessler, Cooper and Janice Heschel, Richard Rose, Mildred DeBlase. Funeral services will be conducted 11:00 am Wednesday, July 8, 2020 at Neidecker, Crosser & Priesman Funeral Home & Cremation Service, 1124 Fulton St. Port Clinton, OH where visitation will be held Tuesday from 2:00 4:00 and 6:00 8:00pm. Interment will be at Riverview Cemetery, Port Clinton, OH. Memorial contributions may be given to the family. Online condolences may be shared with the family at www.neideckercrosserpriesman.com[. ]SummaryIt is true that a man named Richard Rose (who appeared to go by "Rick") published a Facebook post in April 2020, expressing his belief that the use of masks to cut down on COVID-19 transmission was "damn hype." We did not find extensive posting from Rose about the pandemic. It is further true that Rose posted about his illness on July 1 and 2 2020, and he died of complications from COVID-19 on July 4 2020. His last post referenced "heaven," but chronologically he appeared to go from viewing his diagnosis as an inconvenience on July 1 2020 to dying three days later. Rose's page was memorialized on the afternoon of July 10 2020, likely in response to a flood of comments.Comments
Circulating posts by a man named Richard Rose demonstrate his position that COVID-19 was a hoax; Rose died from COVID-19 in July 2020.

Though the article does not mention costs or compare costs of garlic and garlic supplements with other treatments,many readers will be familiar with these. The story reports that the consumption of garlic in any of three forms (raw, powdered supplement, aged extract supplement) had no effect on LDL cholesterol or triglycerides. To quantify this non-effect in mm/dL is unnecessary, and would have been numbing for the average health news consumer. A majority (57%) of individuals in the trial who ate garlic-laced sandwiches reported bad breath and body odor, a "harm" the story neglected to mention. The article reflects an appreciation for the hierarchy of evidence, noting that "there was good evidence in test-tube and animal studies" that garlic could lower LDL cholesterol, and explains the randomization methods in the new clinical trial. No obvious elements of disease-mongering. The article cites four sources and provides sufficient information about their potential conflicts of interest. The article fails to mention alternative methods for lowering cholesterol, though many readers may be familiar with these (most prominently exercise, diet, and drugs). Most readers will be familiar with the availability of the health interventions studiedraw garlic and garlic supplements. The story rightly notes that garlic is not a new "treatment" for high cholesterol. No obvious use of text from a press release.
Garlic powerless against cholesterol

"Ohio will begin tracking arsonists this summer through a new registry similar to the one used to track sex offenders. A law passed last year by the General Assembly will require people convicted of arson-related offenses to register at their local sheriff's office each year for at least 10 years. Failing to register will be a felony. Supporters tout the measure as a tool for law enforcement. Critics argue, among other points, that the registry will be a burden for sheriffs already charged with keeping the sex-offender registry. ""The sex-offender registry has been around for a long time, and the research that's out there says that it has no positive impact on the public safety,"" Amy Borror, spokeswoman for the Ohio Public Defender's Office, told The Plain Dealer. ""And, if anything, it might have a negative impact on public safety because it creates this administrative burden."" The registry has been around for almost 20 years and has been public for more than 15. The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children Act, enacted by Congress in 1994, required convicted sex offenders to record their address with local law enforcement. Megan's Law, added in 1996, allowed the information to be given directly to the public. The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), passed in 2006, set registration standards that widened the reach of registration for the entire nation. PolitiFact Ohio knew the subject could be an emotional one. We asked Borror how the claim is supported that the registry does not improve public safety. She referred us first to the website of the Public Defender's Office, which links to a number of reports, and to a special issue of the peer-reviewed journal Criminal Justice and Behavior, from May 2010, which was dedicated to sex offender issues. Criminal Justice and Behavior published 10 academic studies related to sex offenses, focusing on the question of whether public policies concerning sex offenders enhance the safety of children and communities. The journal found that the subject is consistently one of the leading policy issues on legislative agendas. It concluded, however, that ""sex offender policies are often inconsistent with empirical evidence about sex offender risks, recidivism, reintegration and supervision.... ""Legislators cite the news media and the views of their constituents -- not research evidence -- as their primary sources of information about sex offenses and offenders,"" the journal said. One of the published studies, by criminologists with the University of Massachusetts, Lynn University and the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, focused on Ohio and Oklahoma, two of the first states to meet federal guidelines set by SORNA. Those guidelines classify offenders into one of three categories determined by solely by convicted offense. (Previously, judges determined what risk offenders posed and assigned them to one of three registration categories.) Drawing on data from more than 28,000 cases in Ohio and from other research, the study's conclusions ""shed doubt on the public safety utility of the SORNA classification system."" It found that a disproportionate number of offenders were classified as high risk, placing greater burdens, perhaps unnecessarily, on law enforcement personnel and budgets. ""From a public safety perspective,"" the study found, the SORNA classification guidelines hurt the ability of the system ""to effectively discriminate between those who pose a substantial risk to society and those who pose minimal risk,"" and also contradict evidence about the risk of repeat offenses for both adult sex offenders and juveniles. Another report, from the Minnesota Department of Corrections, studied sexual offenders who were jailed for failing to register with local law enforcement agencies. It found that the failure to register was not a predictor of repeated crime, other than future failure to register. An analysis of adult arrest data from 1990 to 2005 in South Carolina found that sex offender registration laws did have a deterrent effect on first-time adult offenders, but no effect on juveniles and no effect on recidivism. Borror also pointed us to a 2009 study from the state of New York's Office of Mental Health that specifically compares a risk-based classification system (which Ohio used to have) to the offense-based registration system, which Ohio has now. It concluded that the current system ""falls short of increasing public safety,"" citing five earlier studies that found registration and notification laws were ""ineffective methods of reducing sexual victimizations."" It also noted there is evidence that such laws actually lead to more criminal behavior by aggravating the factors linked to it -- an unintended consequence of reducing or denying employment, educational, social and housing opportunities. ""Although well intended, such laws have done little (if anything) to increase public safety and may in fact be lowering it,"" the study said. (A 2007 report by the non-government organization Human Rights Watch detailed the harassment of registered offenders because of online community notification.) We looked further and found a 2008 report funded by the U.S. Justice Department examining the original Megan's Law in New Jersey. ""Despite widespread community support for these laws,"" it said, ""there is virtually no evidence to support their effectiveness in reducing either new first-time sex offenses (through protective measures or general deterrence) or sex re-offenses (through protective measures and specific deterrence). ""Given the lack of demonstrated effect of Megan's Law on sexual offenses, the growing costs may not be justifiable,"" it said. Another study, by J.J. Prescott of the University of Michigan Law School and Jonah Rockoff of Columbia Business School and the National Bureau of Economic Research, examined data from 15 states over more than 10 years. They found that registering sex offenders does reduce sex crime, especially among victims with a personal connection to offenders, most likely because of better police monitoring. They also found, however, that making the registry information available to the public has the opposite effect and increases crime. ""There is little evidence of a decrease in crimes against strangers,"" the study said. ""We also find evidence that community notification deters crime, but in a way unanticipated by legislators. Our results suggest that community notification deters first-time sex offenders, but may increase recidivism by registered offenders by increasing the relative attractiveness of criminal behavior. This finding is consistent with work by criminologists showing that notification may contribute to recidivism by imposing social and financial costs on registered sex offenders and, as a result, making non-criminal activity relatively less attractive. ""We regard this latter finding as potentially important, given that the purpose of community notification is the reduction of recidivism,"" the authors concluded. The federal Government Accountability Office evaluated the effects of SORNA in a report issued earlier this year. The GAO noted that law's purpose is to protect the public from sex offenders, but found ""analysis of the act's effect on public safety has been limited."" Positive effects included ""improved monitoring of registered sex offenders"" and better information sharing between law enforcement agencies. Negative consequences found by the GAO included a lack of consideration of the risk of repeating sexual offenses in classifying offenders; a disproportionate increase in the workload of law enforcement agencies, and increased problems for registered sex offenders to find work or housing. What conclusion can we draw about Borror's statement for the Ohio Public Defender's Office, that research shows the sex offender registry has no positive impact? We found that research has been done generally on the effectiveness of sex offender registration and notification laws. We found that studies indicate the laws have no clear effect on recidivism, or repeat offenses, which is their intended target, and are ineffective in assessing and managing risk. Although there is some indication that registration and community notification may deter first-time adult offenders, the studies find that the deterrence doesn't extend to juveniles -- and that community notification likely increases repeat sex crimes and other crimes. With that information needed for clarification,"
The sex-offender registry has been around for a long time, and the research that's out there says that it has no positive impact on the public safety.