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.

Ex Input:
The story says the federal government is paying about $2,250 per patient for a standard 5-day treatment course. It also notes that the approved alternative treatments are less expensive. The story points out that the benefits of peramivir have yet to be proven and that it is being offered only because some patients are not helped by approved drugs or are they are so sick they need a drug that can be given intravenously. The approved antiviral drugs are currently available only in pill or inhaled form. The story should have mentioned the side effects seen in clinical trials so far, as well as the risk that patients could suffer harms like those sometimes seen in people who have been given similar antiviral drugs. These side effects are clearly spelled out in an FDA fact sheet prepared for patients and caregivers: "The most common side effects of PERAMIVIR are: diarrhea nausea vomiting white blood cell count decreased These side effects may go away after you stop receiving PERAMIVIR. These are not all the possible side effects of PERAMIVIR. Peramivir is still being studied so it is possible that all of the risks are not known at this time. Other medicines that are used to treat people with 2009 H1N1 flu have side effects that may also happen in people who receive PERAMIVIR. These side effects include: Signs of unusual behavior. People with the flu, especially children and adolescents, may be at a higher risk for seizures, confusion, or abnormal behavior early in their illness. These events may happen after starting PERAMIVIR or may happen if the flu is not treated. These events are not common. Patients should be watched for signs of unusual behavior. Allergic reaction or severe rash Not a lot of people have taken PERAMIVIR for 5 days or longer. Serious and unexpected side effects may happen. The side effects of getting any medicine by vein are brief pain, bleeding, bruising of the skin where the needle enters, soreness and swelling at that spot, and possible infection at that spot." Patient fact sheet available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/UCM187799.pdf Provider fact sheet available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/UCM187811.pdf The story points out more than once that peramivir is still being tested and that questions remain about its potential effectiveness. The story points out that the experimental drug is being offered only to patients who are already in the hospital and aren't being helped by approved drugs. The story did not point out that one of the supporters of faster and broader access to peramivir, Dr. Richard Whitley, has long been a booster of the drug, which is being commercially developed by a spin-off of the University of Alabama department he works in. See Whitley comments in a 2005 article promoting the potential of peramivir: http://main.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=87834 Here we also point out that the story profiled only one patient and includes a quote from the patient's father crediting peramivir with saving his daughter's life. The story does not give any examples of similar patients who either survived after getting approved drugs or who received peramivir and yet did not survive. Despite the clear caveats in the story, the reliance on only a single anecdote may give readers a skewed sense of the benefits of the unapproved drug. The story makes clear that the approved antiviral flu drugs are Tamiflu and Relenza. The story makes very clear that peramivir is experimental and is being offered only because some patients cannot take or aren't helped by approved antiviral drugs. The story is quite clear that peramivir is still being tested. The story does not appear to rely on a news release.

Ex Output:
New Drug for H1N1 Flu Offers Hope

Ex Input:
The committee sent letters to Juul Labs Inc, 35% owned by Marlboro maker Altria Group Inc, Fontem Ventures, Japan Tobacco Inc, and Reynolds American Inc, a unit of British American Tobacco Plc. The letter to Juul asked if the company has conducted or financed studies on the health implications of using its products and the effectiveness of Juul in helping users quit smoking. It asked if Juul has sent information to the Food and Drug Administration. Kaelan Hollon, a spokeswoman for Reynolds American, said the company is reviewing the letter and believes "minors should never use tobacco products, including vapor products." Japan Tobacco said in a statement it welcomes any opportunity to "set out the responsible approaches" it takes in its marketing. Juul and Fontem Ventures did not respond to requests for comment. The probe comes amid growing scrutiny of the e-cigarette industry by lawmakers. A separate House panel in July released internal Juul emails that committee staff described as attempts to "enter schools and convey its messaging directly to teenage children." James Monsees, Juul's co-founder and chief product officer, told the panel the company's target audience is adult cigarette smokers. Representative Frank Pallone, the Democratic chair of the committee, cited vaping-related lung illnesses recently reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. He requested answers and documents by Sept. 20. The CDC said on Wednesday it is investigating 153 possible cases of severe lung illness associated with e-cigarette use in 16 states. No deaths have been reported, they said.

Ex Output:
E-cigarette firms probed over health concerns by U.S. House panel.

Ex Input:
We'll give the story the benefit of the doubt for again leaning on an independent expert who says the technology is likely prohibitively expensive. While no dollar estimate is given, we think this is good enough for now. As with the harms, the story does quantify the benefits in one way. It says, "It could help avoid up to 98% of these screening procedures, according to the study, which appears in BMJ." It also says, "The new study included 753 pregnant women who were at high risk for having a child with Down syndrome. Of these, 86 women were determined to be pregnant with a child with Down syndrome." The story does quantify potential harms in one way by noting, "There were no false-negative results with the new test." We wish the story also spoke about false positives. False positives are certainly part of the stress and harms from any screening test that need to be considered. In this case, it appears the false positives were low but not negligible. The story adequately describes the study design. The story does avoid disease monitoring, but we wish it had included some of the data from the paper about the frequency of Down syndrome and even some of the other disorders. The LA Times blog piece managed to do this in much less space. The story provides a wealth of outside experts who provide great commentary and context about the study's findings. We wish more stories about screenings had quotes like these:"In a year or two, this test may be available, but it won't replace existing technologies, it will nudge its way into our armamentarium of available methodologies," says Mark I. Evans, MD,director of Comprehensive Genetics in New York City, and an obstetrician/gynecologist at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, also in New York City. "The bad news is that prenatal diagnosis is not just about Down syndromeDown syndrome represents about 50% of what we find, and this new test can help with that, but it may also give women a false sense of reassurance." The story tries to do a good thing by explaining at the very end that the new test is not a diagnostic test, as amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling are. Rather, it's a screening test. The distinction and the significance of that could have been made more clearly, but we give the story the benefit of the doubt. The story leans on an independent expert to say that the test is "not ready for prime time.in a year or two, this test may be available." The story does not establish the test's novelty, and this is largely because it does not provide the proper context. The study itself says, "In the past 20 years maternal age has been combined with ultrasonographic examination of the fetus and biochemical measurement of various proteins or hormones in the maternal circulation to improve identification of high risk pregnancies. This combined approach of screening can now identify more than 90% of affected fetuses, but there is still a need for invasive testing in 35% of the population." This means that as many as 95% of all women would not need invasive testing to begin with, so this test is only potentially a breakthrough for a small minority of women. BMJ actually makes the novelty question easy to answer by breaking it down this way: What is already known on this topic:Non-invasive prenatal detection of fetal trisomy 21 is achievable by massively parallel sequencing of maternal plasma DNAIts diagnostic performance and practical feasibility in the clinical setting has not been tested on a large scale. What this study adds:Among high risk pregnancies clinically indicated for invasive prenatal diagnosis, non-invasive detection of fetal trisomy 21 can be achieved with the use of multiplexed massively parallel sequencing of maternal plasma DNA at 100% sensitivity and 97.9% specificity, giving a 96.6% positive predictive value and 100% negative predictive value. The sequencing test could be used to rule out trisomy 21 among high risk pregnancies before proceeding to invasive diagnostic testing to reduce the number of cases requiring amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling." The story does not rely on a news release.

Ex Output:
Progress Toward Blood Test for Down Syndrome