Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

Example Input: Paragraph: “Independents need to know they can invest their vote in the Democratic Party,” Carter said Tuesday during his annual report at his post-presidential center and library in Atlanta, where he offered caution about the political consequences should Democrats “move to a very liberal program, like universal health care.” That’s delicate — and, Carter acknowledged, even contradictory — advice coming from the 93-year-old former president, and it underscores the complicated political calculations for Democrats as they prepare for the November midterms and look ahead to the 2020 presidential election. “Rosie and I voted for Bernie Sanders in the past,” Carter noted. He was referring to his wife, Rosalynn, and their support for the Vermont senator, an independent who identifies as a democratic socialist, over establishment favorite Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary. At another point, he pointed to California’s environmental policies — limits on carbon emissions, stiffer fuel-efficiency standards — as the model for combating climate change. Still, Carter stressed, Democrats nationally must “appeal to independents” who are souring on the current administration. Trump’s job approval rating, according to Gallup, has dipped to 40 percent, mostly because of declining support among independents. Carter alluded to arguments from self-identified progressives that Democrats will sacrifice votes on the left if they don’t embrace the liberal base: “I don’t think any Democrat is going to vote against a Democratic nominee,” and he insisted that he’s not asking the left to sacrifice its goals, only to see that winning elections is necessary to accomplish any of them. There is some historical irony in Carter’s analysis. He came to the White House in 1976 from the moderate wing of the Democratic Party, and he clashed with party liberals, drawing a spirited primary challenge in 1980 from Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy. Carter prevailed, but he was wounded, abandoned by Kennedy’s most liberal supporters and unable to win over independents who helped deliver a landslide for Republican Ronald Reagan. Carter’s latest handicapping comes near the conclusion of a midterm primary season that has seen Democratic primary voters move the party to the left. In some states and districts, that means nominating full-throated advocates of single-payer health care, a $15 minimum wage and abolishing or at least overhauling the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. In other races, it means nominees who back more cautious moves to the left, such as background checks before certain gun purchases, a “public option” health insurance plan to compete alongside private insurance policies, step raises for the minimum wage and an immigration overhaul that offers legal status to some immigrants in the country illegally. Carter did not delve into those distinctions, instead offering a sweeping condemnation of his latest successor to remind Democrats of the stakes. He denounced the administration’s latest environmental policy proposal to make it easier for energy companies to release methane gas that contributes to climate change. He singled out Trump’s policy of separating immigrant families at the border, including those seeking asylum. “America is inherently committed to human rights, and I think in the future we will let that prevail,” Carter said, “but for the next two years, I can’t predict the imprisoned children are going to be any better off — unfortunately.” Carter has previously criticized Trump for his repeated falsehoods, and he’s chided Trump for his hardline support for Israel over Palestinians. Yet Carter has found common ground with Trump on other foreign policy fronts, and did so again Tuesday. While avoiding any mention of the special counsel’s investigation into whether Trump’s presidential campaign coordinated with Russia in the 2016 U.S. election, Carter said he has engaged for years with Russian President Vladimir Putin concerning the ongoing Syrian civil war. “I have his email address,” Carter said, adding that he and Putin share the same Russian river as their favorite spot for salmon fishing. That friendship, Carter said, means when Russia and other nations hold multilateral talks about the Syrian conflict, “Quite often they invite the Carter Center. ... They do not invite the U.S. government.” Carter also praised Trump for meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Carter repeated his frustrations with the last Democratic president, Barack Obama, for not engaging more directly with the insular Asian nation. Carter said he’s not sure Trump has made real progress yet with North Korea, but he endorsed calls for the U.S. to formally declare an end to the Korean War and normalize relations with Pyongyang. “Let them be part of the community of nations,” he said. “I think that would be enough in itself to bring an end to the nuclear program in North Korea.” ___ Follow Barrow on Twitter at https://twitter.com/BillBarrowAP Claim: Jimmy Carter cautions Democrats not to scare off moderates.
Example Output: Former President Jimmy Carter sees little hope for the U.S. to change its human rights and environmental policies as long as Donald Trump is in the White House, but he has a warning for his fellow Democrats looking to oust the current administration: Don’t go too far to the left.

Example Input: Paragraph: Dock Phillip Ellis, best remembered as the winningest pitcher on the champion 1971 Pittsburgh Pirates baseball club, was also one of his sport’s more colorful personalities, although his exploits were generally overshadowed by those of players (Curt Flood, Richie Allen, Reggie Jackson) more talented and more controversial. Ellis’ intolerance for slights which he perceived to be related to the color of his skin was well-established long before he reached the major leagues (he declined to play on his high school’s baseball team because it was coached by a “racist,” and while in the minor leagues he once took a bat into the stands in pursuit of a racially-motivated heckler), and he was the subject of several headline-grabbing altercations during his prime years in the big leagues:    “I know the orders came from [baseball commissioner] Bowie Kuhn, and I don’t like it. Look around, there are fellows who wear white shoes in practice. Some wear jackets. Others don’t wear hats. I wasn’t going to say anything, but since they seem to be aiming in my direction, I’m going to say things. They didn’t put out any orders about Joe Pepitone when he wore a hairpiece down to his shoulders.”    But, oddly enough, the most notorious aspect of Dock Ellis’ playing days wasn’t disclosed until several years after he had retired, and it involved an accomplishment that is usually the highlight of any pitcher’s career. On 12 June 1970, Ellis hurled the first no-hitter of the 1970 season as he blanked the Padres 2-0 in the opening game of a double-header in San Diego. Ellis’ feat was a bit unusual in that he seemed particularly wild that day, walking eight batters and hitting one, but many pitchers have achieved stellar results despite laboring with obvious control problems. (Yankee hurler Bill Bevens came within one out of throwing a no-hitter against Brooklyn in the fourth game of the 1947 World Series despite issuing the Dodgers an astounding ten bases on balls.) In post-game interviews Ellis said he had been thinking about a no-hitter from the fourth inning onward and attributed his wildness to his efforts to keep the ball away from hitters: “I know guys who don’t want to talk about it, but if you’re going to throw [a no-hitter], you’re going to throw it. The ball I was throwing was moving. I was keeping the ball away from the hitters. That’s why I walked so many.” Fourteen years later, however, Dock Ellis revealed an alternative explanation for his lack of control that day: he was under the influence of LSD at the time. According to accounts he gave the press in April 1984, Ellis had spent the morning of 12 June 1970 relaxing in his home town of Los Angeles, under the mistaken belief that the Pirates had the day off. Ellis said he ingested LSD around noon, but at about 1:00 PM his girlfriend picked up a newspaper and discovered that not only were the Pirates scheduled to play a double-header in San Diego that evening, but Ellis was slated to start the first game for Pittsburgh. Ellis’ companion hustled him off to the airport by 3:30 PM and got him on a flight to San Diego, where arrived at 4:30 PM, in time for the double-header’s 6:05 PM start. Ellis told reporters he remembered little of what took place during the game itself:  “I can only remember bits and pieces of the game. I was psyched. I had a feeling of euphoria. I was zeroed in on the [catcher’s] glove, but I didn’t hit the glove too much. I remember hitting a couple of batters and the bases were loaded two or three times. The ball was small sometimes, the ball was large sometimes, sometimes I saw the catcher, sometimes I didn’t. Sometimes I tried to stare the hitter down and throw while I was looking at him. I chewed my gum until it turned to powder. They say I had about three to four fielding chances. I remember diving out of the way of a ball I thought was a line drive. I jumped, but the ball wasn’t hit hard and never reached me.”  Any assignment of a “True” status to this story must be a guarded one: only Dock Ellis knows whether or not he actually took LSD the day he pitched his no-hitter, and even if he did ingest LSD that day, judging the extent to which the drug (which can affect different people in different ways) was affecting him by the time he took part in that evening’s game is problematic. Baseball is a difficult game to play at the major league level, even for skilled professionals free from the effects of mind-altering substances, yet Ellis managed to pitch a complete game that evening, apparently did not act so unusually that his teammates or manager took notice, and was quite lucid while conducting post-game interviews with the press. (Of course, since it’s a long-standing baseball superstition that players should avoid speaking to a teammate who is in the midst of pitching a no-hitter, the other Pirates likely had little or no interaction with Ellis in the dugout during the latter half of the game.) Although Ellis might correctly be described as having been “under the influence of LSD” during his no-hitter, quite possibly the drug’s primary effects had peaked and were wearing off by game time. Dock Ellis’ recollections are also somewhat questionable. Donald Hall’s 1976 biography, Dock Ellis in the Country of Baseball, initially stated that Ellis had been drinking (vodka) before his no-hitter. Ellis maintained that he never pitched again while under the influence of LSD after his 1970 no-hitter, but he later said he had also taken the drug before the 1974 Cincinnati game in which he intentionally threw at the first several batters. And that admission came after he had previously stated that he took “pep pills,” not LSD, before that 1974 game. Then he said in 1985 that he “never pitched a game in the major leagues I wasn’t high.” Claim: Pittsburgh Pirates pitcher Dock Ellis hurled a no-hitter while under the influence of LSD.
Example Output: An unfortunate aspect of Dock Ellis’ admission is that he is now remembered by many people (especially those too young to have seen him play during his heyday with the Pirates) as “the guy who pitched a no-hitter on drugs,” a characterization which not only slights a baseball career that included some very fine moments, but also obscures the many acts of charity and conscience in which Ellis engaged both during and after his playing days: he worked with the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections to rehabilitate black prisoners, helped start the Black Athletes Foundation for Sickle Cell Research, and served as the coordinator of an anti-drug program in Los Angeles before passing away from liver disease in 2008.

Example Input: Paragraph: The news release does not mention costs. While a new therapy may not have an established price, the release could have stated “no price is available for this drug.” What would be even better is some context for what women suffering from postpartum pay typically for counseling and medications. The release notes that  there was a reduction in depressive symptoms of 17 points for those on the drug, and 12.8 for those in the placebo group based on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. The absolute reduction in the rating scale is given for each group. This information would have been much more helpful if the release also clarified the magnitude of the scale and whether a 4.2-point difference is clinically meaningful. The release contains one somewhat vague sentence on harms. The most common (≥10% of subjects) adverse events following during brexanolone injection administration were headache, dizziness and somnolence. Readers would also be interested in details on whether the drug is safe for nursing infants. That’s not mentioned. The double-blinded randomized trials are described in detail and readers are able to judge the quality of the evidence. The published study includes an important limitation of the research that’s not mentioned in the release: The trials assessed women for only 30 days; the effects of the treatment beyond 30 days are “unknown.” There is no disease mongering. The release explains how common postpartum depression is worldwide. The release notes that Sage Therapeutics funded the research. Sage Therapeutics is the developer of brexanolone injection and sponsor of the trials. A New Drug Application is currently under review by the FDA and brexanolone injection has been granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation. The FDA has assigned a Prescription Drug User Fee Act target date of December 19, 2018. What the release doesn’t tell us is that both quoted researchers disclosed financial ties with Sage Therapeutics. This information was included in the studies published in the Lancet. SM-B reports personal fees from MedScape and grants from Sage Therapeutics, awarded to the University of North Carolina … DRR reports personal fees and has stock options in Sage Therapeutics…. The release mentions that women currently can receive antidepressants for postpartum depression, but that the new drug being studied goes to work relieving symptoms faster than traditional antidepressants — days rather than weeks. The release notes that the drug is currently under FDA review, with a decision on its approval expected by the end of the year. The release notes that the new drug would be a novel treatment for postpartum depression, if approved. There is no unjustifiable language. Claim: Newly Published Results Show Investigational Treatment Brexanolone Consistently Reduced Depressive Symptoms Across Three Postpartum Depression Trials, Supporting Submission for FDA Approval
Example Output:
An injectable drug, brexanolone, showed some effectiveness in treating postpartum depression in two phase 3 double-blind randomized controlled trials including 247 women from 30 different research centers, according to research led by the University of North Carolina. Their research showed reductions in reported depression symptoms among study volunteers receiving either the drug or placebo (17 points for those on the drug, compared to a reduction of 12.8 points reduction for those on a placebo). This study about a potential new drug is important, but the way it is reported leaves holes for the reader. The research was funded by the drug maker, Sage Therapeutics, and the two researchers quoted in the release have financial links to the drug manufacturer. The release should have given us more context about the amount of improvement, and been straightforward about the conflicts of interest. The American Psychological Association estimates that up to one-in-seven women in the US suffer from some form of postpartum depression, and this disorder can linger for some of them and interfere with their bonding with their child. Existing treatments, such as talk therapy and antidepressants are not always successful and may take weeks to improve the situation. If approved by the FDA, the drug could be an advance in the treatment of postpartum depression which is common and sometimes serious.