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 Q]: The decision by Cleveland County District Judge Thad Balkman in Norman, Oklahoma, came in the first case to go to trial out of 2,700 nationally by states, counties and cities seeking to hold drug companies responsible for the deadly epidemic. Balkman reduced the amount he had awarded in August by $107 million after agreeing with New Brunswick, New Jersey-based J&J that he had made a math error. J&J said it will appeal, and that the award and finding of liability were "neither supported by the facts nor the law." A spokesman for Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter said that office is reviewing the decision and will formally respond within the next few days. Opioids were involved in almost 400,000 overdose deaths from 1999 to 2017, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Following a non-jury trial, Balkman ruled in August that Oklahoma had proven that J&J engaged in misleading marketing about the benefits of painkillers, and that their addictive risks caused a public nuisance in the form of the opioid crisis. Hunter had sought to have J&J pay $17 billion to help fund addiction treatment and other services to repair damage from the opioid epidemic over the next 30 years. Balkman, however, awarded only enough money for one year of programs, saying Oklahoma failed to support its claims regarding the need to abate the epidemic in future years. Following the August ruling, Oklahoma asked Balkman for permission to return to his courtroom annually to prove those costs, but Balkman on Friday maintained his prior ruling. J&J, meanwhile, argued that it deserved a $355 million credit, reflecting pre-trial settlements by the drugmakers Purdue Pharma LP and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Balkman concluded on Friday that state law did not allow such credits. Last month, J&J and four other companies proposed a $48 billion settlement framework to resolve all of the opioid cases they face, with J&J paying $4 billion. Lawyers for the local governments have opposed the proposal. If approved, the settlement would let J&J resolve some of the thousands of product liability lawsuits it faces. The company also faces litigation over whether its baby powder causes cancer, a claim it denies.
[EX A]: Oklahoma judge reduces Johnson & Johnson opioid payout to $465 million.

[EX Q]: Five cases of H7N9 bird flu infections have been diagnosed in central Anhui province since Dec. 8, and two people have died, state media reported. In Shanghai, officials said this week that a man was diagnosed with H7N9 and is being treated in a city hospital. Another case has been reported in Xiamen in coastal Fujian province, where poultry sales have been halted. In rural Jinzhai county in Anhui province, local officials on Thursday announced a two-week closure of a meat market after a shopkeeper was diagnosed with H7N9. The provincial government also issued a warning on social media urging residents to avoid buying and slaughtering live chickens themselves. A major H7N9 bird flu outbreak in humans first struck China in March 2013, killing more than 40 people and devastating the poultry industry. The strain is less virulent than the H5N1 strain that the World Health Organization says has killed more than 370 people.
[EX A]: Bird flu infects 7 people in China this month, killing 2.

[EX Q]: The article comments that Benlysta will be far more expensive than current treatments but doesn't give an order of magnitude. Nonetheless, we'll give it the benefit of the doubt. The story provided quantitative information about meaningful improvement of symptoms, comparing two doses of the drug with placebo. However the story gave no insight about what symptoms it was measuring and whether the difference between the two doses significantly differed from one another. It should have provided more detail about the nature of the improvements observed. The story did not include any insight about potential harms or side effects that have been seen to date with the use of this drug. The story was clear that the information about this drug comes from a phase 3 clinical trial and that the results have not yet been published or examined by outside experts. It would have been better for readers if the story had included some insight about the type of symptoms that were monitored and measured as well as the particular subset of patients that were included in the study. No overt disease mongering. The story included quotes from a company spokesperson, a clinician who is a consultant for the company, and a clinician with expertise in lupus who does not appear to have overt ties with the company. The story would have been more informative to readers had several clinicians with expertise in treating people with lupus been interviewed as part of this story. The comments of those involved with drug development or promotion have limited credibility. The story discusses that the medication reported on is used in addition to the typical treatments used for treating lupus. It did not, however, provide any insight about which segment of the lupus patient population might benefit. As such, it did not provide readers with sufficient information about when additional treatment with Benlysta might be considered. The story was clear that the drug Benlysta is currently being studied in clinical trials and is not available for use. The pipeline for effective lupus drugs has indeed been dry for quite a while. The article indicates that this is a novel product of genomic technology. Does not appear to rely exclusively on a press release.
[EX A]:
Trial for New Lupus Treatment Is Called Promising