TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Amid warnings from public health officials that a 2020 outbreak of a new coronavirus could soon become a pandemic involving the U.S., alarmed readers asked Snopes to verify a rumor that U.S. President Donald Trump had "fired the entire pandemic response team two years ago and then didn't replace them." The claim came from a series of tweets posted by Judd Legum, who runs Popular Information, a newsletter he describes as being about "politics and power." Legum's commentary was representative of sharp criticism from Democratic legislators (and some Republicans) that the Trump administration had ill-prepared the country for a pandemic even as one was looming on the horizon. Legum outlined a series of cost-cutting decisions made by the Trump administration in preceding years that had gutted the nation's infectious disease defense infrastructure. The "pandemic response team" firing claim referred to news accounts from Spring 2018 reporting that White House officials tasked with directing a national response to a pandemic had been ousted. Rear Adm. Timothy Ziemer abruptly departed from his post leading the global health security team on the National Security Council in May 2018 amid a reorganization of the council by then-National Security Advisor John Bolton, and Ziemer's team was disbanded. Tom Bossert, whom the Washington Post reported "had called for a comprehensive biodefense strategy against pandemics and biological attacks," had been fired one month prior. It's thus true that the Trump administration axed the executive branch team responsible for coordinating a response to a pandemic and did not replace it, eliminating Ziemer's position and reassigning others, although Bolton was the executive at the top of the National Security Council chain of command at the time. Legum stated in a follow-up tweet that "Trump also cut funding for the CDC, forcing the CDC to cancel its efforts to help countries prevent infectious-disease threats from becoming epidemics in 39 of 49 countries in 2018. Among the countries abandoned? China." That was partly true, according to 2018 news reports stating that funding for the CDC's global disease outbreak prevention efforts had been reduced by 80%, including funding for the agency's efforts in China. But that was the result of the anticipated depletion of previously allotted funding, not a direct cut by the Trump administration. And as the CDC told FactCheck.org, the cuts were ultimately avoided because Congress provided other funding.

SOLUTION: The Trump administration fired the U.S. pandemic response team in 2018 to cut costs.

PROBLEM: Amid mounting global concern over the public health implications of so-called e-cigarettes, Touraine said they faced the same fate as traditional ones: a ban on smoking in public spaces and sales to minors and a blackout on media advertising. In a country where the pungent waft of Gaulloises and Gitanes once seemed an unassailable part of cafe culture, smokers have long been banished to outdoor terrace seats. The near-odorless electronic alternative - battery-driven devices that allow users inhale odorless nicotine-laced vapor rather than smoke - are gaining ground in no-go zones such as bars, cafes, trains, waiting rooms and offices. A government-commissioned report said this week that around 500,000 people in France had turned to e-cigarettes, which are designed to look like cigarettes although some come in different colors, and recommended a crackdown on public use. Health officials in many countries say the impact of electronic cigarettes on health needs further study. Another worry they cite is that the electronic alternative will increase the general temptation to smoke, including enticing those who have quit to start again, or that smokers may use them alongside rather than instead of regular cigarettes. "This is no ordinary product because it encourages mimicking and could promote taking up smoking," said Touraine, who announced her plans at a news conference. In the United States, the number of smokers who have tried out e-cigarettes doubled to one in five in 2011 and the number of all adults trying it doubled too, to 6 percent, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In France, a country of 66 million, the government says tobacco smoking kills some 66,000 people a year and another 5,000 are killed through passive exposure to smoke. The expert in charge of the French report advised against an outright ban on e-cigarettes, however, saying they still seemed safer than tar-laden tobacco. Electronic cigarettes, whose invention is widely credited to a Chinese pharmacist a decade ago, usually comprise disposable cartridges of liquid such as propylene glycol that is easily turned to vapor and can contain artificial flavors alongside concentrated liquid nicotine.

SOLUTION: France to ban electronic cigarettes in public.

PROBLEM: But months later, when her daughter saw a TV ad for a law firm asking ovarian cancer victims who used talcum powder to come forward, Giannecchini realized a possible link: She had been using Johnson & Johnson's baby powder for most of her life. "I used it for 45 years, from age 15," Giannecchini, now 63, said Friday. "I was still using it." On Thursday, a St. Louis jury awarded more than $70 million to Giannecchini, of Modesto, California, wrapping up a monthlong trial. It was the third big verdict awarded by a St. Louis jury against Johnson & Johnson in ovarian cancer lawsuits this year. Combined, the three awards amount to nearly $200 million. Giannecchini said she was happy with the verdict, but it doesn't make up for the cancer fight and ongoing health problems caused by chemotherapy. "There's not enough money in the world to pay for fighting the cancer," she said at a news conference arranged by her lawyers. A spokeswoman for Johnson & Johnson said in a statement that while the company sympathizes with women and their families impacted by ovarian cancer, it will appeal the latest verdict "because we are guided by the science, which supports the safety of Johnson's Baby Powder." About 2,000 women nationwide have filed similar suits over concerns about health damage caused by extended talcum powder use. Lawyers are reviewing many additional cases, many of them generated by television ads by law firms. In February, a St. Louis jury awarded $72 million to relatives of an Alabama woman who died of ovarian cancer. Another jury awarded $55 million in May to a South Dakota survivor of the disease. But two cases in New Jersey were thrown out by a judge who said there wasn't reliable evidence that talc leads to ovarian cancer, an often fatal but relatively rare form of cancer. Ovarian cancer accounts for about 22,000 of the 1.7 million new cases of cancer expected to be diagnosed in the U.S. this year. Factors known to increase a women's risk of ovarian cancer include age, obesity, use of estrogen therapy after menopause, not having any children, certain genetic mutations and personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer. Talc is a mineral that is mined from deposits around the world, including the U.S. The softest of minerals, it's crushed into a white powder. It's been widely used in cosmetics and other personal care products to absorb moisture since at least 1894, when Johnson & Johnson's baby powder was launched. But it's mainly used in a variety of other products, including paint and plastics. Much research has found no link or a weak one between ovarian cancer and using baby powder for feminine hygiene, and most major health groups have declared talc harmless. Still, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies genital use of talc as "possibly carcinogenic." Attorneys with Onder, Shelton, O'Leary & Peterson, the firm that handled all three St. Louis cases, cited other research that began connecting talcum powder to ovarian cancer in the 1970s. They cite case studies showing that women who regularly use talc on their genital area face up to a 40 percent higher risk of developing ovarian cancer. The firm has also accused Johnson & Johnson of marketing toward overweight women, blacks and Hispanics the very same women most at-risk for ovarian cancer. Wylie Blair, an attorney for Giannecchini, said the firm is working with about 1,700 additional plaintiffs. Another trial is scheduled for February. Blair said there has been no talk with Johnson & Johnson concerning a class-action settlement. "Acknowledging that a seminal product that everybody identifies with the company has been causing a horrible disease for all these years is going to be a tough pill to swallow for them," Blair said. Giannecchini said that as of now there is no evidence of cancer, but she won't know for years if she is free of the disease. "One day at a time," she said. "Just stay hopeful."

SOLUTION:
Talc verdict winner: Money can't make up for lost health.