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 Q]: Paragraph: Chazz Smith told a rally of over 80 people in the Capitol rotunda that his younger cousin had everything, yet opioids still took his life in 2016 . Authorities blamed counterfeit pills laced with fentanyl that looked like generic Vicodin. Smith said Prince’s death shows the power that addiction can hold on anyone. “We’ve lost legends, we’ve lost potential legends, and that’s a shame,” Smith said. The rally preceded a hearing before a House health and human services committee on a bill to require manufacturers and wholesalers that sell or distribute opioids in Minnesota to pay registration fees ranging as high as $500,000 for the biggest companies. The current fee is just $235. The measure is a different approach from the “penny a pill” tax that passed the Senate last year but stalled out in the House amid industry opposition. It would raise about $20 million annually to fund prevention, treatment and education programs, and to support county child protection agencies that have been swamped by the crisis. Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan told the gathering that passing the bill is a priority for Democratic Gov. Tim Walz. Bill sponsors said at a news conference that the industry should pay its fair share for a crisis that it helped create. They pointed out that more than 400 people died of opioid overdoses in Minnesota in 2017, according to the Minnesota Department of Health. “In communities across the state, it appears that this opioid crisis that we’re in really has no end in sight,” said Rep. Liz Olson, a Duluth Democrat. “Without this swift legislative action, there indeed might not be an end. Parents have lost children, teachers have lost students, our first responders are asked to respond to impossible situations, and no other family deserves to go through this.” Other leading sponsors include Rep. Dave Baker, a Republican from Willmar, and Sen. Chris Eaton, a Brooklyn Park Democrat, who have both lost children to opioid overdoses. Baker’s son, Dan, 25, died in 2011 of a heroin overdose after becoming addicted to opiate pain pills for a back injury. Eaton’s daughter, Ariel, was 23 when she died of a heroin overdose in 2007. “I don’t want other families to go through the trauma that I did,” Eaton said. Sen. Julie Rosen, a Republican from Vernon Center, said the manufacturers and distributors have been “kicking and screaming a little bit” but now tell her they want to be part of the solution. “I asked them, ‘What does that look like?’ and I have not received an answer,” she added. “We’re spending billions on an issue you helped create,” Rosen said. “I don’t think we’re asking for a whole lot for the amount that they are shipping and manufacturing for the state of Minnesota, and the amount of deaths that we have.” The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, also known as PhRMA, opposed last year’s bill. While the trade group says it supports ”an extensive set of policy recommendations ,” including measures to curb overprescribing, it opposes this year’s bill as well. “Unfortunately, what’s being proposed — taxing legitimately prescribed medicines that patients rely on for legitimate medical needs to raise revenues for the state — ignores evidence-based solutions, sets a dangerous precedent and ultimately won’t help patients and families,” Nick McGee, the trade group’s director of public affairs, said in an email to The Associated Press. Claim: Minnesota lawmakers: Tax drug makers over opioid crisis.
[EX A]: Lawmakers and activists are making a push to force drug companies to pay more of the costs of the opioid crisis, and they got a boost Wednesday from a cousin of the most famous Minnesotan to die from the addictive drugs, the late rock star Prince.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: There was no mention of the potential costs of screening women for vitamin D levels (as encouraged in the release in a statement from the principal investigator) or the cost of supplementation. The release does a good job of comparing data and providing explanations for the measurements used. We’ll award a Satisfactory for that precision, but as noted below under “Evidence,” there was no explicit caution regarding the fact that measurements of interleukin-6 (IL-6) are only surrogates for the effects of weight loss and vitamin D on clinical outcomes related to inflammation (e.g. cancer diagnoses). IL-6 levels dropped in both the placebo and vitamin D arms, and it’s not clear whether the statistically significant additional decline in IL-6 observed in the vitamin D group is clinically important. Because some of the participants were vitamin D-deficient and the dose of vitamin D provided was modest (2000 IU/d), this was a tough call. But supplementation is often so misunderstood, overhyped and oversold that some statement cautioning readers to pay attention to the specifics of this study and not apply its recommendations to everyone seems prudent. For the most part, the release provides a cautious and accurate description of what appears to be a well-conducted clinical trial in a well-defined population. For example, it notes that weight loss and vitamin D lowered inflammation LINKED to cancer — not that these things reduced cancer risk itself (something this study couldn’t establish). But as noted above, we would have appreciated an explicit acknowledgment that IL-6 is a surrogate marker for the clinical outcomes that people care about. And more importantly, we’re concerned about the closing comment that women should talk to their doctors about measuring their vitamin D levels to determine the most appropriate dose. The problem is there is no evidence supporting screening or treating to a level — and certainly not from this study. The US Preventive Services Task Force has concluded that evidence is insufficient to recommend routine vitamin D screening and the IOM has said that while there are data supporting the benefits of vitamin D supplementation with bone health and fall prevention, there is no evidence supporting benefits for cancer. While testing may be warranted in those with signs or symptoms of clinical deficiency, the statement made here implies that everyone should be tested so that an appropriate dose of vitamin D can be selected. That goes beyond the available evidence. It’s hard to argue that overweight, vitamin deficiency, chronic inflammation and cancer are not real threats, so no mongering apparent here. Funding sources are well documented. The study didn’t discuss alternative preventive measures or genetic causes of increased cancer risks. But this is such a broad and expansive topic that we don’t think the release should have been expected to address those myriad issues. We’ll rate this Not Applicable. Primary care physicians and other health providers are well positioned to monitor blood levels of vitamin D, along with dietary and exercise regimens. The news release makes that clear, albeit indirectly. As noted above, we think the release goes too far in suggesting that people ask their doctors about having their vitamin D levels checked. But we’ve already docked points for that, so we’ll award a Satisfactory rating here. The release makes a case for this being the first clinical trial of its kind; although it’s always difficult to make that statement absolutely, the writer of the release attributes the statement to the study author. As a general rule, it’s probably best to say “believed to be the first.”  While the release meets our standard here, we also wish it had delved a bit into the background of previous vitamin D research and the conflicting and confusing messages that research has generated. Without that context, the typical reader might wrongly jump to the conclusion, based on the wording of the lede and other parts of the release, that this study of vitamin D supplementation — because it was a controlled clinical trial — has somehow settled the important questions about the role of vitamin D and inflammation in cancer risk. The debate remains alive and well. None detected. Claim: Weight loss plus vitamin D reduces inflammation linked to cancer, chronic disease
[EX A]: This news release describes a randomized, controlled clinical trial designed to learn whether adding vitamin D supplements to substantial weight loss regimens would have a synergistic effect in reducing inflammatory chemicals in the bodies of overweight, older women with levels of vitamin D considered too low. The study, published in Cancer Prevention Research, has potential relevance for cancer prevention because inflammatory cytokines have been implicated in the genesis and progression of some cancers, as well as heart disease and other disorders. The release offers substantial details about the design, metrics and outcomes of the clinical trial and does a pretty good job of defining the possible reasons for the effects of chronic inflammation and weight loss on cancer development. It goes to some lengths to narrowly define the results and avoid overstatement. That said, the release ends on a sour note by encouraging readers to talk to their doctors about vitamin D testing — a recommendation not consistent with U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines and which is not supported by this research. Readers might also have been better informed if the release had offered more context regarding the many conflicting and sometimes confusing studies that have previously looked for links among vitamin D, inflammatory responses, diet, overweight, sun exposure and cancer. News releases that include the words “diet,” “overweight,” “vitamin,” and “cancer” are almost narrative nuclear events, often guaranteeing an explosion of coverage, souped up vitamin sales pitches, and lots of negative fallout whose half-life seems forever. Cancer remains the second biggest killer disease overall of Americans, and some experts believe that it will soon push heart disease and stroke out of first place. Thus cancer prevention is a deservedly hot topic, and it is no surprise that Americans are eager for information about ways to limit their risk. News releases that describe research on these topics have enormous power to inform and misinform.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The story mentions the daily cost of Crestor as well as the CRP test. The story does not adequately quantify the benefits of statins. The story uses language that makes the benefit appear larger than it is. By not presenting the rate of VTE in the study population, the story does not give the reader the adequate context to understand these numbers. In this study, the rate of VTE was 18 per 10,000 in the statin group versus 32 per 10,000 in the placebo group. The story does not adequately describe the harms or side effects of Crestor. The story mentions muscle problems and bleeding as potential harms, but does not mention kidney problems as a potential serious harm and the many side effects people experience, such as constipation and nausea. Interestingly, the subjects treated with Crestor had a small but statistically significant increase in diabetes seen during the trial. The story adequately describes the current study, however there are a few subtle points that are important to note. The story could have mentioned that VTE was not the primary endpoint of the original trial and that the population studied was not exactly healthy. 41% suffered from a condition known as metabolic syndrome (a condition that increases the risk of blood clots). So extrapolating the results of this single study to the general population is a bit of a stretch. The story doesn’t exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE). The story quotes multiple experts and indicates which experts were related to the study or not, and notes potential conflicts of interest. The story indicates that many doctors believe that other statins other than Crestor may provide similar benefits. Clearly Crestor is widely available. Whether the CRP test is also widely available is not clear. Using statins to treat inflammation is not a new idea and the story portrays it appropriately. Since the story quotes multiple experts, the reader can assume the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information. Claim: Study: Cholesterol drug lowers blood clot risk
[EX A]:
Overall this story did a good job on an interesting study. The story was well written and provided a reasonably balanced view of the study. There were several aspects of the study that could have provided readers with several important provisos. The results reported were based on a secondary outcome measure of the JUPITER study. The study was not designed to examine the effects of Crestor on the risks of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE)  as a primary outcome. The population under study was not otherwise healthy individuals as was implied. 41% suffered from metabolic syndrome, a condition that increases the risk of VTE. The study results were reported as absolute numbers. The absolute number of VTE events was calculated using both provoked (potentially caused by other conditions such as cancer, surgery, hospitalization or trauma) and uNPRovoked. The true absolute number of uNPRovoked events was 44. The story also failed to explain that the rate of VTE was 18 per 10,000 in the statin group versus 32 per 10,000 in the placebo group. So the story may make the benefit appear larger than it really is. However, to its credit, the story did not use the 43% relative risk reduction figure that dominated some news coverage of this study. The story also could have been improved by more fully describing the potential harms and side effects of statins. The story mentions muscle problems and bleeding as potential harms, but does not mention kidney problems as a potential serious harm and the other side effects people experience, such as constipation and nausea.