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.

Q: From January to May, 42 cases of syphilis, a reportable sexually transmitted disease, were identified. That's an increase compared with the past five years, when an average of 20 cases were reported during those months. Health officials say between 2012 and 2016, there were on average about 80 total cases per year of the disease reported in New Hampshire, with 2016 having the highest number of 104 cases reported for the entire year. They say the outbreak in New Hampshire is consistent with national trends. Approximately 60 percent of cases have been in Hillsborough and Rockingham counties. Dr. Benjamin Chan, state epidemiologist, says it can be cured when a person is given the right antibiotics.

A: Health officials: Number of syphilis cases have doubled.
****
Q: That's the advice to care givers from a consortium of nutritional researchers following a two-year survey of what U.S. cancer patients prefer to eat and drink. The study released on Tuesday by the Cancer Nutrition Consortium aims to improve the lives of cancer patients by helping them get the meals they want while combating the weight loss and fatigue that often comes with aggressive treatment. Researchers surveyed 1,203 patients at seven of the world's leading cancer centers, including Dana-Farber and the Mayo Clinic, and found 40 percent developed more sensitive palates after starting treatments like chemotherapy and radiation. Some 52 percent of the surveyed patients said they were avoiding greasy or fried foods, 44 percent said they were avoiding spicy foods, and nearly a third said they were avoiding acidic foods like grapefruit. Most patients cited intolerance, while less than half said they were acting on the advice of doctors. Some 69 percent of patients said they preferred fruits and vegetables, around 60 percent favored soups and poultry, and more than half said they liked pasta and fish, according to the research. "Typically the patients ran for the healthier foods. But there were exceptions, and it is important to keep in mind that it is not one size fits all," said Kathy McManus, director of nutrition at Dana-Farber. The study also showed most patients staying away from beverages like beer, wine and soda, while gravitating toward healthier options like water and fruit juice. "Many of our patients suffer from problems getting adequate nutrition through treatment, and some of them are unsure about what they should be eating," said Terry Langbaum, chief operating officer for Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, which also participated in the study. "This research study involved the patients and truly helped us to better understand preferences," he said. The study was underwritten by Jeremy Jacobs, chairman and CEO of global food and hospitality service provider Delaware North Companies, and conducted by marketing firm WHP Research. The research recommends care givers develop recipes, prepared foods and menus that are tailored to the preferences of cancer patients, but is not intended to advance Delaware North's business, WHP President Wendy Price said. The Cancer Nutrition Consortium said it was launching a website that includes recipes designed by chefs and tailored to the findings of the survey. The bottom line for hospital kitchens putting together their menus in the oncology ward: "Limit greasy and fried food offerings since about one-half of patients are avoiding these types of foods," according to the study.

A: Broccoli not burgers: Cancer patients favor healthier foods.
****
Q: Although the physician-expert interviewed for the article works at an academic medical centerwhere there is conceivably a vested interest in root-cause and advanced immunotherapies instead of OTC symptomatic carethe article deserves gold stars for noting the costs of the newer sublingual tablet and drop treatments, and some important information about what most insurers will and won't cover. Ideally, the article would have also mentioned the costs of over-the-counter options to provide a comparison point. Even with a Q&A format, articles about allergies can be more useful by making sure to include relative and absolute rates of benefit from various treatments. This article leaves the readers with the idea that all or most people get relief from one or more of the triad of treatment approaches: avoidance of allergy triggers, OTC or prescription drugs like antihistamines and nasal steroids, and immunotherapies like allergy shots. But drawbacksand side effects should be made clear, so that the true benefit is more accurate. For example, while the article does note that successful immunotherapy often takes years, it doesn't report: The article duly notes the most common side effect of the newer sublingual drops treatment and the rare risk of serious side effects from allergy shots. The article could have been strengthened by including information on the side effects of OTC and prescription drug treatments. The article relies on the credentialed expertise of an allergy specialist, and the "Ask the Expert" format means it's mostly a "review" of best practices and what's available therapeutically. The interview subject makes allusions to trial data ("significant decrease" of symptoms, follow-up period) without giving information on the quality of the studies. This story didn't disease monger;allergies are certainly a common affliction. But, while this isn't enough to lose the Satisfactory rating, there was what we call "treatment mongering" because of the emphasis on immunotherapy for treatment. Most people won'tneed this level of treatment,and will do well with standard OTC and prescription medications. The format clearly excludes independent sources commenting on what the expert is saying. The interviewee himself might have quoted another source or two and strengthened his information, but overall, N/A seems reasonable. The article does a pretty good job of explaining alternatives to the relatively new immunotherapies, as well as some treatment cost comparisons. As stated earlier, the discussion was weighted toward immunotherapy and not OTC and prescription medications. The report makes clear what's FDA approved and what's not; and where to get the latest immunotherapies, and where people cannot get them. Good job on this. It seems reasonably clear that the timing is related to the fact that this is prime allergy season for readers. Although the intro makes a grab for a news hook, it's a pretty weak one, given that the "newest" immunotherapies have been available for at least a couple of years. But again, we don't think the article was intended to break any news or present anything as especially novel. The feature was not based on a release as far as we can tell from the university's news release site.

A:
More than shots, there's new help for allergy sufferers
****