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.

Q: Paragraph: The Huntsman Mental Health Institute will aim to provide research-based treatment and help fund the University of Utah Health’s psychiatry department, according to a news release. The Huntsmans already have a major cancer research center in Utah that bears the family name. The late Jon Huntsman Sr. was the founder of a company that refines raw materials that go into thousands of products. His adult children said at a news conference that they hope the institute helps change the stigma and misperceptions about mental health. “Every family deals with mental health. We have either held the hand of somebody or had our hand held by somebody dealing with mental health,” said Christena Huntsman Durham, vice chairwoman of the Huntsman Foundation, the Deseret News reported. “We are so excited to put a name and a face to it and start addressing real issues and stop the judgment.” The donation, which will be given over 15 years, is the largest single gift ever given to the university, said University of Utah President Ruth V. Watkins. Claim: Huntsmans give $150M to start mental health institute.

A: A new mental health institute funded by a $150 million donation from the influential Huntsman family will focus on researching the genetic causes of the illnesses and provide more treatment to college students and rural residents, the University of Utah announced Monday.
****
Q: 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 admitted, 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: To beat Trump, Dems cannot scare off moderates.

A: 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.
****
Q: Paragraph: The story did not address costs. Because this ran in the U.S. edition of The Guardian, this is important and useful information for readers stateside, who often have substantial out-of-pocket drug costs. The research examined the side effect profiles of  lithium, valproate, olanzapine, and quetiapine and provided hazard ratios for the most commonly recognized side effects. The Guardian story reflects those findings in a qualitative way with some quantitative details, such as: “Meanwhile, lithium patients were less likely to put on weight than patients on the other drugs. While 15%-20% of those on the three other drugs were more likely to gain more than 15% of their body weight, just 10% of those on lithium put on the same amount of extra pounds.” The story does a reasonable job in outlining the side effects seen with the four drugs in question and provides them in context. The reader is told: “The researchers studied a nationally representative sample of 6,671 patients across the UK who were treated for bipolar disorder between 1995 and 2013. Of those, 2,148 had taken lithium, 1,670 had used valproate, 1,477 had been on olanzapine and 1,376 had taken quetiapine. They experienced side-effects including chronic kidney disease, thyroid disease, weight gain and high blood pressure.” These are important details, but we also wanted to see some nod to the caveats of the study, which were noted by the researchers in their paper in the “strengths and limitations” section. There is no evidence of disease mongering. Given the seriousness of the disorder and its prevalence, we would have liked to have seen read more on how many people it affects. Although the majority of the quotes come from a senior author of the research, the comments of Stephen Buckley, head of information at the charity Mind were welcomed and provided an important second voice. A few words from other clinicians would have been a bonus. The research examined the side effect profiles of the most commonly used drugs to treat bipolar disorder, it also discusses “talk therapy” (but not until the end of the story). The story makes it clear that the four drugs studied are indeed available. The story begins with: The new study is the first to compare the side-effects of the four main mood-stabilising drugs prescribed by the NHS.”  Based on our review of the medical literature, we agree. The story does not appear to rely on a news release. Claim: Lithium should be more widely used for bipolar disorder, researchers say

A:
This story is about a study on the frequency of different side effects of four drugs used in the treatment of bipolar disorders. The researchers conclude that lithium should be used more widely, given its lower rate of side effects. The story notes that lithium is documented by other studies to lower the risk of suicide, something that few treatments do in people with bipolar disorders–and a significant advantage given the substantial suicide risk in this group. It also notes that some of the drug’s bad reputation likely stemmed from the higher doses used in decades past and subsequent more side effects. All in all, the story hit many of the important points in explaining the findings, though we wanted to see some discussion on the limitations of this kind of research, as well as costs of the drugs. Bipolar disorder, previously known as manic depressive disorder, is relatively common with a lifetime prevalence of about 3% in general population. Understanding the side effect profile of the drugs used to treat this disease, along with their relative effectiveness in reducing the burden of disease, are both essential in identifying the best treatment options for people. Unfortunately, comparative effectiveness studies are uncommon, but those that have been done have shown that the newer drugs are not better than lithium in terms of effectiveness. This study adds the important finding that lithium’s side effects are also not as burdensome as thought. It’s vital that this new information is conveyed accurately to the public.
****