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.
--------
Question: Paragraph: The company earned $728 million, or 67 cents per share, in the fourth quarter. That compared with $827 million, or 74 cents per share, in the year-earlier quarter, when Lilly took charges for asset impairments and restructuring. “Company sales were stronger than thought, but a lot of that upside came from drugs that are already off patent or about to lose patent protection,” said Edward Jones analyst Judson Clark. Excluding special items, Lilly earned 74 cents per share, matching analysts’ average forecasts, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S. Shares in the company dropped 1.4 percent to 53.21, after earlier reaching their lowest in two weeks at $53.05. Lilly’s global sales fell 2 percent to $5.81 billion, but topped Wall Street forecasts of $5.46 billion. Sales would have been flat if not for the stronger dollar, which lowers the value of sales in overseas markets. Sales of Cymbalta, which lost U.S. patent protection last month, fell 38 percent to $883 million. But they came in about $100 million higher than Wall Street expected, analysts said. Lilly’s sales, earnings, and its share price, have been badly hurt since late 2011, when its Zyprexa schizophrenia drug lost U.S. patent protection. Once Lilly’s biggest product, with annual sales of $5 billion, it now has sales of only $1.5 billion. The situation worsened last month, when Cymbalta - which also had $5 billion in annual sales at its peak - began facing cheaper generics in the United States. The company’s “patent cliff” will become more daunting in March, when $1 billion-a-year osteoporosis drug Evista faces U.S. generics. “We haven’t wasted the crisis,” Chief Executive John Lechleiter said Thursday in a conference call with industry analysts. “We’re more agile, we’re leaner and I believe we’re better operators today.”  Lilly has cut more than 5,000 employees from its workforce in order to reduce annual costs by $1 billion over the last three years to deal with patent expirations on its drugs. It has also restructured itself to focus on cancer and diabetes - lucrative specialties that are two of the company’s longstanding strengths. Clark said sales of Cymbalta could eventually decline 80 percent, which has been the case for many other blockbuster medicines in recent years. He questioned whether gains for other products seen in the fourth quarter will be sustainable. Sales of many products over the quarter showed double-digit sales increases, including Lilly’s Humalog insulin, Cialis anti-impotence treatment, Forteo and Evista osteoporosis drugs, and Straterra for attention deficit disorder. But price increases in the United States accounted for much of those sales gains. The Indianapolis drugmaker is expecting a return to company sales growth next year, from increased sales of drugs that still have patent protection and from launches of new treatments for cancer and diabetes. It hopes to launch three new drugs this year: ramucirumab for stomach cancer, and dulaglutide and empagliflozin for type 2 diabetes - the most common form of the disease, which is closely linked to obesity. Although analysts have forecast annual sales of more than $650 million for ramucirumab, they are concerned the new diabetes drugs may have a hard time competing with similar drugs already on the market. The company has introduced no new products in recent years. In a recent interview, Lechleiter said it was time for Lilly “to go back on offense”, helped by a pipeline of nearly 40 medicines in mid- and late-stage studies, compared with only seven in those stages of development a decade ago. Claim: Lilly's quarterly sales largely offset Cymbalta slide.

Answer: Drugmaker Eli Lilly and Co’s quarterly revenue fell far less than expected, it reported on Thursday, as plunging sales of its Cymbalta depression treatment were largely offset by higher revenues for most of its other prescription drugs.


Question: Paragraph: The story notes the price “per squat” at various spas and the cost of a do-it-yourself Internet kit. We think the story’s discussion of possible benefits is far too extensive considering the total lack of evidence to support them. We understand the need to identify some of the claims made by boosters of the therapy, but the story devotes some three paragraphs to seemingly every possible ailment the baths (or the herbs used in them) are purported to treat. It also throws in an anecdote from a woman suggesting the baths helped her to conceive at the age of 45. The caveats about chai-yok stand a good chance of getting lost in this avalanche of discussion about benefits. Aside from burns — the potential for which would seem to be obvious — we’re not sure if there are any harms associated with herbal steam baths for the vagina. The procedure seems less invasive than a douche, which is associated with potential health risks. We’ll call this not applicable. The story states that there are no studies that document the effectiveness of chai-yok for any of the conditions it is claimed to treat. It notes that while there is some biological rationale for why heat in the perineal area might be beneficial, it is impossible to say whether these steam baths do any good. The concept behind chai-yok seems vaguely reminiscent of douching, a treatment that has long been promoted as necessary for vaginal health despite a lack of supporting evidence and indications of possible harm. But while the idea may tap into some of the same psychology that makes the normal vagina seem not quite clean or healthy enough, we don’t see any evidence of overt disease-mongering in this particular story. The story quotes two doctors with expertise in gynecology and fertility. It also solicits comments from a practitioner of traditional oriental medicine. We don’t think the story had to mention alternative treatments for all the myriad problems that chai yok can supposedly help with. But since the story suggests in several places that chai yok increases fertility, we think a brief mention of other approaches that are supported by medical evidence would have been appropriate in this case. The story didn’t provide this information. The story identifies several spas in Los Angeles and New York where vaginal steam baths are offered. It notes that the treatments “are not easy to find” across the country. The story acknowledges the roots of chai-yok in Korean medicine.The approach is described as extremely avant garde in the U.S. — a characterization which is probably accurate. Given the variety of sources quoted, we can be sure the story wasn’t based on a press release. Claim: Vaginal steam bath finds a place among Southern California spa options

Answer: We liked that this story points out early on that there is zero evidence to support the health benefits of herbal steam baths for the vagina, which are known in traditional Korean medicine as chai-yok. But we became confused when the story explained that the treatment is almost totally unheard of in the U.S., even among gynecologists and fertility experts. If there’s no evidence that chai-yok works and almost nobody knows about it or has tried it, what exactly makes this treatment worthy of an 850-word article in a leading national newspaper? There are limited journalistic resources to cover the seemingly limitless number of treatments that are out there. So we’d prefer to see journalists pursuing stories that aid the decision-making of a significant number of health care consumers. A story about herbal steam baths for the vagina seems unlikely to meet this objective.


Question: Paragraph: A “Republicans on Rape” graphic widely circulated online since 2014 collects various comments about that crime supposedly made by GOP politicians in recent years:  The remarks collected in that graphic were indeed all uttered by the persons to whom they have been attributed; below we offer four of the statements on video (also on YouTube), as well as the context in which they were made, and any clarifying remarks subsequently offered by their speakers. “Rape is kinda like the weather. If it’s inevitable, relax and enjoy it.” On 24 March 1990, Texas oilman Clayton Williams, the Republican nominee in the Lone Star State’s upcoming gubernatorial election, was preparing for a cattle roundup at his West Texas ranch while undesirable weather conditions threatened to spoil the event. As he sat around a campfire with ranch hands, campaign workers, and reporters, Williams likened that day’s cold, foggy weather to rape, saying, “If it’s inevitable, just relax and enjoy it.” Later that day Williams asserted that his comment had been a joke, and a few days later his campaign offered an apologetic statement about it: Mr. Williams said it was merely a joke and apologized “if anyone’s offended.” “That’s not a Republican women’s club that we were having this morning,” he said. “It’s a working cow camp, a tough world where you can get kicked in the testicles if you’re not careful.” Asked if some people might be offended, Mr. Williams said: “I’m not going to give you a serious answer. It wasn’t a serious deal. It wasn’t a serious statement.” But his campaign issued a statement in which Mr. Williams said: “I feel just terrible about this. I had no intention in my heart to hurt anyone, especially those women who have been traumatized by rape. “Looking back, I realize it was insensitive and had no place at the campfire or in any setting.” “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to shut that thing down.” On 19 August 2012, U.S. Representative Todd Akin of Missouri, a Republican who was challenging incumbent Democrat Claire McCaskill for her seat in the U.S. Senate, was interviewed by St. Louis television station KTVI. During that interview, Akin was asked whether he believed abortion was justified in cases of rape, and he responded by asserting that “legitimate rapes” rarely resulted in pregnancy: “It seems to be, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, it’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down.” After his words touched off widespread outrage, Akin then issued a statement maintaining that his remarks were “off-the-cuff” and that he “misspoke in this interview”: As a member of Congress, I believe that working to protect the most vulnerable in our society is one of my most important responsibilities, and that includes protecting both the unborn and victims of sexual assault. In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it’s clear that I misspoke in this interview and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year. Those who perpetrate these crimes are the lowest of the low in our society and their victims will have no stronger advocate in the Senate to help ensure they have the justice they deserve. I recognize that abortion, and particularly in the case of rape, is a very emotionally charged issue. But I believe deeply in the protection of all life and I do not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action. I also recognize that there are those who, like my opponent, support abortion and I understand I may not have their support in this election. Two years later, while appearing in another television interview with MSNBC to promote his new book Firing Back, Akin asserted that “legitimate rape” was a law enforcement term and that his original remark had been “intentionally misunderstood”: “Legitimate rape is a law enforcement term, it’s an abbreviation for ‘legitimate case of rape,’” he told Chuck Todd. “A woman calls a police station, the police investigate, she says ‘I’ve been raped,’ they investigate that. So before any of the facts are in, they call it a legitimate case of rape,” explained Aiken. Akin believes that everyone took what he said out of context. “This was intentionally misunderstood and twisted for political purposes. It doesn’t make any sense to say ‘a conservative is saying that rape is legitimate,’ that doesn’t even add up.” Time magazine noted that they were unable to find a law enforcement official familiar with the term “legitimate rape”: But is “legitimate rape” really a law enforcement term? We asked some experts. “I’ve taught police officers, and worked with police officers on every continent in the world, and that’s something I’ve never heard in my 50 years in law enforcement,” says Dr. James A. Williams, former Chief of Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces for the U.S Department of Justice, who also worked in municipal law enforcement in New Jersey. “I’ve never heard of that. Never.” Richard Lichten, a veteran of the LA County Sheriff’s Department and expert on sexual assault investigations agrees: “I have 30 years of experience, I’m qualified to testify in federal court on the way to investigate sexual assault crimes, and I’ve never heard of that,” said Lichten. “In all my life I’ve never heard of that.” “Rape victims should make the best of a bad situation.” On 20 January 2012, Rick Santorum, a former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania who was then campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination, appeared on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight program and was asked by that show’s host about his stance on abortion and whether he believed abortion was wrong even in cases of incest and rape. Santorum responded by saying that although a pregnancy resulting from a rape might be “horrible,” it was nonetheless a “gift of human life” and that “we have to make the best out of a bad situation”: MORGAN: On abortion, you did harden your position on that as you got older. Why was that? SANTORUM: Life. You know, when I decided to run for public life, I was informed very quickly people wanted to know what my position on that was. So I went through the process of trying to better understand the facts. It became very clear to me that life begins at conception and persons are covered by the Constitution and since life — people, a human life is the same as a person, to me it was a pretty simple deduction to make. That’s what the Constitution clearly intended to protect. MORGAN: But do you really — do you really — let me ask you this. Do you really believe, in every case, it should be totally wrong, in the sense that — I know that you believe, even in cases of rape and incest — and you’ve got two daughters. You know, if you have a daughter that came to you who had been raped. SANTORUM: Yes. MORGAN: And was pregnant and was begging you to let her have an abortion, would you really be able to look her in the eye and say, no, as her father? SANTORUM: I would do what every father must do, is to try to counsel your daughter to do the right thing. MORGAN: And they are looking at their daughter, saying, how can I deal with this, because if I make her have this baby, isn’t it going to just ruin her life? SANTORUM: Well, you can make the argument that if she doesn’t have this baby, if she kills her child, that that, too, could ruin her life. And this is not an easy choice. I understand that. As horrible as the way that that son or daughter and son was created, it still is her child. And whether she has that child or doesn’t, it will always be her child. And she will always know that. And so to embrace her and to love her and to support her and get her through this very difficult time, I’ve always, you know, I believe and I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created — in the sense of rape — but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you. As you know, we have to, in lots of different aspects of our life. We have horrible things happen. I can’t think of anything more horrible. But, nevertheless, we have to make the best out of a bad situation. “Even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.” On 23 October 2012, Richard Mourdock, the Republican candidate for one of Indiana’s U.S. Senate seats, was engaged in a debate with his Democratic and Libertarian rivals when he expressed his view that “life begins at conception” and that he would only allow abortions in circumstances in which the mother’s life was in danger: I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen. After the debate, Mourdock explained that when he said “it is something that God intended to happen,” he was referring to the creation of life and not the act of rape itself: Mourdock, seeking to clarify his comments in a press conference following the debate, said he had intended to say that “God creates life,” and that any interpretation of his comments to mean God “pre-ordained rape” were “sick” and “twisted.” “What I said was, in answering the question form my position of faith, I said I believe that God creates life. I believe that as wholly and as fully as I can believe it. That God creates life,” Mourdock said. “Are you trying to suggest that somehow I think that God pre-ordained rape? No, I don’t think that. That’s sick. Twisted. That’s not even close to what I said. What I said is that God creates life.” “In the emergency room they have what’s called rape kits, where a woman can get cleaned out.” On 23 June 2013, Jodie Laubenberg, a Republican member of the Texas House of Representatives, was debating a measure she had introduced to the House that included a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. When Rep. Senfronia Thompson proposed an exemption for victims of rape and incest, Laubenberg argued against that exemption, saying that when a victim seeks medical care after a rape, “they have what’s called rape kits, that the woman can get cleaned out, basically like” [a procedure known as D and C that is often performed after a miscarriage]. She also noted that emergency contraception is available. A few days later, after she was mocked over her remark, Laubenberg said she was “confused by Democrats’ questions and misspoke” and meant to say that rape victims could “obtain emergency contraception and other treatment” at medical facilities: Rape kits are used to collect evidence in hopes of prosecuting the perpetrator. They play no role in preventing pregnancy or serving as an abortion. Laubenberg was widely mocked on social media, and opponents of the bill called her comments evidence of the misguided science behind Laubenberg’s proposal. Laubenberg told North Texas talk radio host Mark Davis that she was momentarily confused by Democrats’ questions and misspoke. “What I was trying to say is, when a woman goes to the hospital, that they have the procedures there” to help her obtain emergency contraception and other treatment, she said. “No, rape kits do not cause an abortion.” As for the reaction, Laubenberg added: “If that’s the worst that you can complain about me, go ahead.” “If a woman has (the right to an abortion), why shouldn’t a man be free to use his superior strength to force himself on a woman? At least the rapist’s pursuit of sexual freedom doesn’t (in most cases) result in anyone’s death.” In February 2014, the Maine Democratic Party called for the resignation of Lawrence Lockman, a Republican member of the Maine House of Representatives, when a liberal activist made a blog post detailing negative public statements about gays, abortion and rape that Lockman had made years earlier: The post by Maine People’s Alliance activist Mike Tipping mined press clippings to unearth several offensive comments. In one, Lockman implied that HIV and AIDS could be spread by bed sheets and mosquitoes. In another, he said that the progressive movement assisted the AIDS epidemic by assuring “the public that the practice of sodomy is a legitimate alternative lifestyle, rather than a perverted and depraved crime against humanity.” In a 1995 letter in the Sun Journal in Lewiston, a reader quoted a press statement by Lockman, then part of the Pro Life Education Association, saying, “If a woman has (the right to an abortion), why shouldn’t a man be free to use his superior strength to force himself on a woman? At least the rapist’s pursuit of sexual freedom doesn’t (in most cases) result in anyone’s death.” Lockman responded to the controversy by issuing a statement affirming that he regretted his previous remarks: Most of the comments were made during the 1980s and 1990s, but Maine Democratic Party chairman Ben Grant issued a statement calling for Lockman’s resignation. Grant said the comments were “hateful, vicious and offensive” and he called Lockman a “disturbed individual who holds some of the most abhorrent beliefs ever heard from a public official in Maine.” Lockman released a written statement. Claim: A list collects statements about rape made by Republican politicians.

Answer:
“I have always been passionate about my beliefs, and years ago I said things that I regret. I hold no animosity toward anyone by virtue of their gender or sexual orientation, and today I am focused on ensuring freedom and economic prosperity for all Mainers,” he said.