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.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: There’s no discussion of cost, even to mention that statins are relatively inexpensive these days and are mostly generically available. To its credit, the article does mention the cost of a calcium scan. We learn that “anywhere from 50 to 200 healthy people need to take a statin daily to prevent a single heart attack for five years.” That’s helpful information. It also notes that the observed benefit is less for older patients. The story could have added that even those numbers might disputed by some experts who perceive no meaningful benefit. For example, one review found being on a statin does not help people with low risk for heart disease live longer. The story does a service by highlighting the harms of statins. It explains: “The most common side effect of these drugs is muscle pain, which usually goes away if patients stop taking the medicines. People taking statins are also at a higher risk of developing diabetes, which is harder to reverse.” It also mentions the potential for overtreatment with the use of coronary calcium scans. However, we wish it had included absolute numbers. The story says harms are “uncommon,” but provides no data to back that up. Rates of adverse effects with statins have been measured at 1 to 10%, which makes them “common” in the definition of the European Medicines Agency. Also noteworthy is that some contend that adverse effects of statins have not been reliably reported. The story doesn’t explain the quality of the study, or of studies on which current guidelines are based. We don’t explicitly learn that this is a modelling study. In other words, this study consisted mostly of reinterpretations of math, not re-evaluations of real-life patients. The researchers said they were unable to obtain enough data on all possible harms and age-specific data on some harm outcomes, “so the risk thresholds we determined may still be too low.” There is no disease-mongering here. This story includes sources that weren’t involved in the study. The study’s authors reported no conflicts of interest. The story could have acknowledged the influence of pharmaceutical companies in creating guidelines for statin use. The alternative of not taking a statin was the key message here, and that’s laudable. However, we have a couple of concerns. First, we learn that “some statins were more effective than others, with atorvastatin (the generic name for Lipitor) being the best of the bunch.”  However, the story doesn’t explain on what basis some statins are “more effective.” In fact, some statins may be more effective at lower cholesterol, but the study found that no statin rises above others when it comes to the outcomes that counts most to patients — reducing cardiovascular deaths. Also, the story doesn’t mention lifestyle interventions — diet and exercise. The story makes it clear that statins are widely prescribed. The story states this an attempt to better weigh the benefits and harms of statin use. There was a good range of interviewees with no reliance on a news release Claim: Before Starting A Statin, Talk It Over With Your Doctor

Ex Output:
The story reports on a study that re-assessed who benefits from taking a statin to prevent heart disease, with different risk thresholds based on sex, age group, and statin type. It reports the view that current guidelines “haven’t adequately considered” the harms from taking these widely used drugs. The story laudably focuses attention on potential adverse events and a need for balanced decision-making. It also incorporated a variety of sources. In our view, the story could done a better job in discussing costs, the quality of evidence, and alternative strategies to prevent heart disease. Statins are among the most widely prescribed drugs, with their use encouraged under guidelines such as those of the American Heart Association of the American College of Cardiology. However, data isn’t crystal clear on the benefits and harms of statins for people who don’t already have heart disease. As a result, there’s concern that they are being overused. It’s laudable that some news organizations — including CNN as well as NPR — highlighted research that explores these complexities and points out the need for patients and physicians to weigh benefits and harms. The headline of this story is, in our view, a winner.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: The doctors went on strike on Sept.3 to protest against poor wages, in some cases less than US$100 a month. President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s government, which responded to the job boycott by firing 448 doctors and pursuing disciplinary action against more than 1,000 others, on Thursday offered to reinstate them if they returned to work within 48 hours. Zimbabwe is experiencing its worst economic crisis in a decade that has seen resurgent inflation soaring to three-digit levels, eroding salaries and bringing back bitter memories of the hyperinflation era of a decade ago. According to the Zimbabwe Hospital Doctors Association (ZHDA), the last wage offer by the government would see the doctors earning a total package, including allowances, of Z$3,900 (about US$240) per month. “Sadly, the moratorium has come without a new offer on the table having been communicated to us,” ZHDA said, explaining its rejection of the offer. The strike by junior and middle-level doctors has paralyzed state hospitals, used by Zimbabwe’s poor majority. Even before the strike, the hospitals had already been struggling with shortages of drugs and other basic products. Critics say President Emmerson Mnangagwa has failed to keep promises he made in last year’s election campaign to revive the economy by pushing through reforms, attracting foreign investment and rebuilding collapsing infrastructure. On Thursday Parirenyatwa Hospital, the country’s biggest, was deserted, with only a handful of desperate patients being attended to by nurses. Sheila Muzanenhamo, who lives in one of Harare’s poorest townships, Epworth, grimaced as she explained how she had been turned away from the hospital because there was no doctor to attend to her. “I have been here since dawn, hoping to get assistance but the nurses said they could not help me,” said Muzanenhamo. “They told me to go to private doctors, but I have no money to pay for that.” Claim: Fired Zimbabwe state doctors reject offer to return to work.

Ex Output:
Zimbabwe state doctors who were fired for going on strike have rejected a government offer to return to work, their union said on Friday.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: "Former state Rep. Nicholas Gorham made a surprising claim last month in a commentary in The Providence Journal. ""The fact is that we have a General Assembly that has no explicit constitutional authority to impose income, sales, estate and the myriad of other taxes upon us, yet it taxes the people as if there were no limitations on its authority to tax the people,"" he wrote in the piece, published Dec. 30. The legislature can’t legally levy taxes? This called for a PolitiFact audit. First, a history lesson. When King Charles II granted a royal charter to the colony in 1663, the document, preserved in a metal and glass case at the State House, established ""a form of pure government by an elected assembly presided over by a nearly powerless, elected governor,"" according to an account on the General Assembly’s website. The Assembly’s supremacy continued when Rhode Island became a state, and was reaffirmed in the state’s first Constitution, adopted in 1842. Article VI, Section 10 spelled it out, saying ""the General Assembly shall continue to exercise the powers it has heretofore exercised, unless prohibited in this Constitution."" The state Supreme Court consistently interpreted that to mean the power of the General Assembly was unlimited unless authority to do something was specifically given to another branch of government. Things changed in 2004, when the General Assembly, responding to pressure from good government groups, passed ""separation of powers"" legislation, a set of proposed amendments to the state Constitution. The amendments made it clear the government is divided into three separate branches, banned legislators from serving on any executive-branch boards or commissions, and gave the governor power to appoint members of agency boards. And they eliminated the catch-all Section 10. Voters approved the amendments 2-to-1. So is Gorham right that, because of 2004 vote, the General Assembly lost its ""explicit"" authority to tax? On a literal level, yes. The only reference to setting taxes in the current Constitution is a section that says that the Assembly can set the manner in which property valuations are conducted. But legal experts say on a practical level, implicit can be as good as explicit. Former state Supreme Court Justice Robert G. Flanders Jr., who stepped down in early 2004, says that although much was changed by the 2004 amendments, much abides. From the days of Parliament and the English kings, he said, the power to levy taxes has rested in the legislative body, a legal tradition that was carried on in England’s colonies in the Americas. ""Inherent in the legislative power is the power to tax,"" Flanders said. ""You wouldn’t need an explicit grant."" Richard Raspallo, legal counsel to House Majority Leader Nicholas A. Mattiello, agreed, saying there are several examples of legislative power that is assumed despite a lack of specific language in the Constitution. ""Where is it explicitly stated in the Constitution that the General Assembly has the authority to require Rhode Island citizens to follow traffic rules, or have a license, or grant people the right to marry, or require people to have certain educational standards in order to work in certain fields?"" he said. ""At some point, the General Assembly has been granted power by the people to legislate for the common good,"" he said. ""That includes the imposition of taxes to pay for the welfare of the citizenry."" Gorham indirectly acknowledged that, but said the ambiguity shows the need for a state constitutional convention to settle the matter definitively. (Voters will be asked in November whether a convention should be convened.) As he wrote in his commentary: ""Of course, I plan to pay my taxes, but you really have to wonder sometimes. If the people really wanted to get taxes — and, yes, borrowing — under control and on the people’s terms, the Constitution, just the way it is, would be a great place to start. Let the revolution begin!"" Our ruling Nicholas Gorham said the Rhode Island General Assembly ‘‘has no explicit constitutional authority’’ to levy taxes. History tells us he’s right. Had he suggested that the lack of explicit language meant no one had to pay taxes, we’d view his claim in a far different light. But he didn’t, so we rule it . (If you hear a claim you'd like us to check, email us at [email protected] And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)" Claim: "The General Assembly ""has no explicit constitutional authority to impose income, sales, estate and the myriad of other taxes upon us."

Ex Output:

Nicholas Gorham said the Rhode Island General Assembly ‘‘has no explicit constitutional authority’’ to levy taxes. History tells us he’s right. Had he suggested that the lack of explicit language meant no one had to pay taxes, we’d view his claim in a far different light. But he didn’t, so we rule it True. (If you hear a claim you'd like us to check, email us at [email protected] And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)