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: "The world's fastest man says he's not scared of Zika since he can always outrun virus-carrying mosquitoes. Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt, who is preparing for this summer's Olympic games, was asked recently about the Zika epidemic in the host country of Brazil. No worries, he said. ""Because I'm fast,"" he joked in a May 18 interview on NBC's Today. ""They can't catch me."" This should be obvious: We are not saying that running is a Zika prevention method. (Here are some actual steps to take to avoid being bitten.) But we were curious whether Bolt really would outpace the mosquito. (People already have tried to figure out if Bolt can beat a cheetah. He can't.) To the stat sheet! Bolt currently holds both the 100 meter and 200 meter world records at 9.58 seconds and 19.19 seconds respectively. That corresponds to 23.35 miles per hour for the 100-meter dash, and 23.31 miles per hour for the 200-meter dash. Based on how he's performed in all past races listed by the International Association of Athletics Federations, Bolt's average speed is21.65 miles per hour. Even at his slowest, when he clocked 48.28 seconds at the 400-meter in 2001, he was still running at 18.53 miles per hour. The New York Times did an excellent job breaking down Bolt's prowess in this video from the 2012 Olympics. So Bolt runs in short bursts around 22 miles per hour. How does that stack up against mosquitoes? Many mosquito species in the Aedes genus (africanus, apicoargenteus, luteocephalus, vitattus, furcifer, albopictus, hensilli and polynesiensis) can transmit the Zika virus, but the main vector is Aedes aegypti. Female aegypti mosquitoes (the ones that bite) are estimated to have a cruising speed of 0.5 to 1.5 meters per second. That's the equivalent of 1.12 to 3.35 miles per hour a fraction of Bolt's speed, even at his slowest. In that sense, it's not a contest. Until you factor in stamina. Bolt runs short distances, while the mosquitoes are in it for the long haul. Researchers have documented lady aegypti flying continuously for two to nine hours, with an average of 2.2 hours. So Bolt, or really anyone, would have to run more than 7.37 miles in that time frame to outpace the mosquito. Kenya's Dennis Kimetto, Bolt's world record counterpart in the marathon world, ran 26.219 miles in 2 hours, 2 minutes and 57 seconds. He'd leave the mosquito nearly 20 miles behind with that pace. Kimetto. (AP) Bolt and Kimetto would have a lot more to worry about if the Zika vector was a desert locust or earworm, which have respective average air speeds of 21 and 17 miles per hour. But for now, Zika-carrying mosquitoes can't catch up to either man. Our ruling Bolt said Zika mosquitoes ""can't catch me."" The Olympic champion and world record holder clocks an average speed is 21.65 miles per hour in his races, with 23.35 miles per hour at the high end and 18.53 miles per hour at the low end. Female A. aegypti mosquitoes, the main vector for Zika, cruise between 1.12 and 3.35 miles per hour. That's a lot slower than Bolt, though the mosquitoes fly for much longer than Bolt sprints. Don't try this, people. (But if you do, send us a video!)

Answer: "Zika mosquitoes ""can't catch me."

Question: The story does not describe the costs of uterine artery embolization or how they compare to costs of surgery. The cost of UAE is quite high and for some women may not be covered by insurance. The story provides adequate quantification of some of the most important things for consumers to know, such as the fact that after a year, there were no differences in the quality of life of the women assigned to uterine artery embolization compared to those assigned to surgery and that 13% of those who underwent UAEhad a repeat hospitalization, mostlyfor surgical intervention because of failure of UAE to achieve the desired results. The story could have provided more quantification of other pieces of information that women would want to know, such as length of hospital stay, time to return to work, or risk of serious adverse events. The story does mention some of the potential harms of uterine artery embolization, such as the need for repeat procedures for treatment of recurrent symptoms and the fact that there are questions aboutsafety of pregnancy after the procedure. The story should have also mentioned the potential for ovarian failure, causing infertility, infection, delayed complications and a small risk of emergency hysterectomy. The story adequately describes the design of the current study. The story accurately describes the prevalence and symptoms of uterine fibroids. The story only uses quotes from the original article and accompanying editorial. It doesn't appear that the authors were even interviewed. The story should have quoted other clinicians/researchers who were not related to the study who could have provided some perspective on what this new information means for clinical practice. The story does mention alternative options such as myomectomy (surgical removal of the fibroids), hysterectomy (surgical removal of the uterus) in addition to uterine artery embolization. The story could have mentioned other treatments such as watchful waiting, pain medications orbirth control pills. The story does not state whether uterine artery embolization (UAE) is available and if so, how widely. And availability is a real issue. It requires expertise in interventional vascular radiology and an interest in the female pelvic anatomy. Facilities offering the procedure would need strong links between gynecologists and radiologists to provide coordinated assessment and care. This is not explained in the piece. The story implies that uterine artery embolization is a new procedure. The story could have mentioned that the procedure has been performed for more than 10 years in Europe and the US, although it has been limited to mostly academic hospitals. There is no way to know if the story relied on a press release as the sole source of information, although it is noteworthy that the story only uses quotes lifted from the published study and from an accompanying editorial. It doesn't appear that these people were actually interviewed.

Answer: Treating fibroids without surgery

Question: This story not only mentions the cost for this drug but also for other treatments for osteoporosis as well. The story did a great job of distinguishing among various fracture types and reporting both relative and absolute risk reduction for vertebra fracture. But then it was disappointing that the risk reduction for hip fractures and that of wrist, leg, or shoulder were reported as only relative risk reduction. Since the story characterized hip fractures as 'devastating', it should have provided the reader with some sense of how frequently they occur rather than simply indicating how often they result in a person entering a nursing home or dying within 5 years of having one. Nonethless, because of the elements that were well done, we'll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion. The story gave a rather complete listing of the potential harms associated with the use of this drug, including specific mention of those problems that are unique to this drug as compared with other medications used to manage bone loss. Although the list was complete, the story did not indicate the frequency with which these harms occurred. Nonethless, we'll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion. The story provided information about the clinical trial it described, including the number of people studied, the length of time they were studied and the impact on various types of fractures. The story only indicated lifetime risks of fracture (i.e. 1 out of every 2 women over the age of 50) and that 25% of people die within 5 years of breaking a hip without providing some context for these concerns. The 5 year risk of fracture for a woman aged 55 is not the same as that for a woman aged 75; similarly, there are other factors compounding the statistic about death following hip fracture. Since the drug is marketed as being for women who are postmenopausal, rather than simply parroting these seemingly alarming pieces of information, the story should have provided more context for these statistics. This was one weak point in an overall strong story but an important nuance that should not be overlooked. Comments about this drug and its potential utility from two clinicians noted as not having industry ties to this or other osteoporosis drugs were included in this story. This story compared the benefits, harms and costs for the new drug, with those treatments already on the market. The story opens with a statement about this drug's approval by the FDA. The story provided a useful explanation of how this medication differed from the other treatments available for osteoporosis. Does not appear to rely exclusively on a news release.

Answer:
The pros and cons of Prolia, Amgen's new osteoporosis drug