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: Sooner or later, the Grim Reaper comes for us all, but sometimes his mode of operation almost defies explanation. Take the 2004 demise of 24-year-old Phillip Quinn of Kent, Washington, who was done in by his lava lamp. An icon of the 1960s and 1970s that experienced a resurgence in popularity in the mid-1990s, lava lamps are generally considered benign items of the sort one might happily stare at for hours while in a marijuana-infused haze. They consist of blobs of wax suspended in a liquid enclosed by a glass or plastic container, the blobs rising and falling when the container is heated by a bulb at the base of the unit. The motion of the blobs is slow and rhythmic, almost hypnotic. It is therefore hard to conceive that one of these slow, soothing light shows could kill a man. Yet one did. Phillip Quinn was found dead in his trailer home with shards of glass from a lava lamp embedded in his chest, including a shard that pierced his heart. According to the medical examiner's reconstruction of the events that caused the young man's death, Quinn had been heating the lamp on the kitchen stove and likely had been standing in front of it when it exploded, then stumbled into his bedroom and died. "Why on earth he was heating a lava lamp on the stove, we don't know," said Kent Police spokesman Paul Petersen. Quinn's death was ruled an accident.

Answer: A man was killed by an exploding lava lamp.

Question: His wife beat a more formidable challenger. Molly Crosby, a 32-year-old mother of five, had been dealing with bouts of coughing and congestion all summer. Some preliminary exams in Green Bay showed a spot on her right lung. That led the Crosbys to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., for additional tests. A carcinoid endocrine tumor was found. The tumor isn't as dangerous as other forms of cancer but was disconcerting for an otherwise healthy, nonsmoker. "We found out the day before we reported to camp," Crosby said on Wednesday. "We were at Mayo the two or three days leading up to training camp, when they did all their scans and got the final prognosis." Crosby flew back to Green Bay for the start of training camp. After a subpar 2018 season, Crosby had to beat out Sam Ficken. Crosby managed to keep his focus and retained the job for a 13th season. "I've trained a long time in compartmentalizing different situations," Crosby said. "Whenever I was home, I was fully home. The organization was unbelievable through training camp, just giving me time to be with Molly and be with the family and help where I could throughout the day and evening. I just tried to be fully in on both things. I have felt a lot of freedom in this. "I love doing what I'm doing but the importance of taking care of family and being there for Molly and the kids, when I look back on it, it was a special camp. I was able to really fully immerse in both things. It was nerve-wracking, too. Day in and day out, it was coming in, having to work and compete at a high level, and then going home and flowing back into a normal routine. Then, we'd sit down at night and you'd remember that surgery was coming and Molly had cancer. Those things were heavy." That surgery was at the end of the preseason, with part of Molly's right lung removed. While she will go back to Mayo for a scan in mid-October, Crosby said the doctors are positive they got rid of the tumor and she will not require radiation or chemotherapy. Since 2009, the NFL has held its annual "Crucial Catch" campaign to raise money for the American Cancer Society. It was a campaign that had already hit home for Crosby. A grandmother died of breast cancer and a sister-in-law is in her third year battling ovarian cancer. Now with his wife's diagnosis, the fight against cancer has grown more meaningful. "That's what it's about is early detection," he said. "It's getting routine checkups. Don't take it for granted. The numbers, with our technology, are amazing with prevention but treating it if you catch it early enough. That's one of the big things is pushing that. Let's try to get earlier detection so we can fight this thing. "With Molly's cancer, it's always been really important to me but I'm going to continue to push the charge forward and make sure that everybody gets the care. We feel so fortunate with the care that we got. Hopefully, everybody gets the same care and the same prognosis that we got." The Packers (3-1) will play at the Dallas Cowboys (3-1) on Sunday. Some of Crosby's finest professional moments have happened at AT&T Stadium. In the 2010 season, the Packers won the Super Bowl in Arlington. A playoff game in the 2016 season against the Cowboys marked the highlight of his career. His 56-yard field goal with 1:33 to play gave the Packers a 31-28 lead. Dallas tied the score, but Crosby booted a 51-yarder on the final play for a 34-31 victory. "The two minutes in that game were the most exciting two minutes I think I've ever had in a game," he said. "To be able to execute it twice in that situation was awesome." ___ More AP NFL: https://apnews.com/NFL and https://twitter.com/AP_NFL

Answer: Wife's cancer diagnosis hits home for Packers' Crosby.

Question: "The story covers cost in the very last two lines. Adequate quantification of benefits seen in the study. Story says ""few eye-related complications"" were reported in the Lucentis group, but didn't say what few means or what they were. We don't think that's quite adequate. Adequate job explaining how the study was done and what it means. No disease mongering in the story. One quote from the head of the National Eye Institute. But he didn't really evaluate evidence only talked about hope. Meantime, no mention that Genentech funded the trial (a strength of the NYT story was its discussion of the ""pay for play"" aspect of the research) and no mention that Dr. Bressler disclosed financial ties to Genentech. From the Times: Some doctors criticized the organizers of the trial for testing Lucentis rather than another Genentech drug, Avastin, which works in the same way as Lucentis. Although it is a cancer drug, Avastin is often used off-label for eye diseases because it is far cheaper than Lucentis, costing only $20 to $100 a dose, compared with $2,000 for Lucentis. Avastin is undercutting sales of Lucentis, which totaled $1.1 billion in the United States last year. Organizers of the trial conceded that a major reason Lucentis was chosen was that Genentech, which is now owned by Roche, agreed to provide the drug free of charge and to contribute $9 million in additional financing but only if Lucentis were used. "Obviously you can't underplay $9 million," said Dr. Ferris of the eye institute, which is part of the part of the National Institutes of Health. But he said there were other factors as well, like a belief that Lucentis might have been the better drug. Dr. Philip J. Rosenfeld, a professor of ophthalmology at the University of Miami, said the decision was "clearly a case of pay to play" since Genentech's money dictated the choice of drugs. At least the story mentioned the uncertainty about whether Lucentis is any better than the cheaper Avastin, and mentioned an upcoming trial comparing the two in age-related macular degeneration. The story explains that Lucentis was approved 4 years ago for another cause. Story explains the drug is already approved for another use, and it also at the very end mentions that an older and much cheaper drug is also effective. It's clear the story did not rely on a news release."

Answer:
Drug Reverses Diabetes-Related Vision Loss