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: Given that this is an illegal substance banned by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, cost as a therapeutic would be difficult to ascertain. We liked that the story took pains to explain that approval of this drug faces many hurdles. This is a tough one. While the story tells us what percentage of patients benefited from treatment, it does not, in fact, quantify the extent of those benefits–which is precisely what this category is designed to assess. However, the story does do a good–and thorough–job of describing the benefits in qualitative terms. That said, if the story had only chosen one or two examples of changes in the standardized measures of depression or anxiety, this would have received an enthusiastic “Satisfactory” rating. One strong word of caution though: The story cites one source as saying that psilocybin may one day be used to treat a wide range of mental health issues ranging from drug addiction to obsessive-compulsive disorder. The story offers no evidence to support these claims, which were made by a source associated with an organization that exists specifically to promote research on hallucinogens. Substantial claims require substantial evidence. The story would have been much stronger if it had eliminated the unsubstantiated remarks from the source — particularly since they had no bearing on the subject of the story. The story addresses this issue thoroughly. Well done. The story does a good job of both describing the design of the studies and explaining why the study design is relevant. For example, the story notes: “But both [studies] were considered to be double-blind placebo trials — the gold-standard of medical research in which subjects are left to guess whether they have gotten the active study drug or an inactive lookalike.” This is the sort of thing we like to see. However, we did want to note that in the NYU study, researchers did state in the limitations section that there was “limited blinding” — how did that possibly affect the outcomes? No disease mongering here. However, the story should have been more cautious about claims of benefit for conditions ranging far beyond the scope of the research at hand, which focused on mental health problems among people with advanced cancer. The story clearly states who funded the studies, and what that organization’s long-term goals are. Further, the story clearly identified individuals quoted in the story who have ties to the studies or the funding organization. Lastly, the story incorporates input from an independent expert. However, the story would have been stronger if there had been a skeptical take on the research, which saw in some other coverage, such as this New York Times piece. The story does not address other treatment options for anxiety or depression, such as talk therapy or other pharmaceutical interventions. The story does a good job here. For example, the story notes: “[F]inding drugs like psilocybin effective is by no means the final hurdle to their widespread availability. None are currently in production, and no for-profit pharmaceutical company would likely invest millions of dollars to bring to market a pill intended effectively for one-time use.” Well done. This is a close call. The story does do a good job of placing the work in context in regard to overall research involving hallucinogens. That’s enough to earn it a “Satisfactory” rating. However, the story doesn’t mention any of the work done in the past 10 years on the use of psilocybin specifically to address anxiety in cancer patients, such as this 2007 study, this one from 2011, or this one from 2013. Are the results from the two new studies consistent with these earlier findings? Do they differ in a meaningful way? That would be good to know. The story does not appear to rely on a news release. Claim: Ingredient in magic mushrooms is shown to ease anxiety and depression in cancer patients in one dose
[A]: The story focuses on two recent studies that find a single application of the hallucinogen psilocybin is effective at providing meaningful relief to cancer patients suffering from severe depression or anxiety. The studies were published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology, and can be found here and here. In some ways, the story is thorough, addressing potential side effects and conflicts of interest very well. The story discusses the potential benefits in depth, which is good, but fails to quantify those benefits — which is problematic. The story also does a good job of placing the work in context, highlighting the increasing profile of research into the use of hallucinogens as therapeutic tools for mental health problems. However, the story would have been even stronger if it had discussed the existing literature on the use of psilocybin to address anxiety in cancer patients. We also reviewed two news releases related to the research:   Depression and other mental health struggles are common and significant among people with cancer, especially terminal cancer. This makes it especially important for reporters to write responsibly about studies like those discussed in this story. You want to give readers enough information to help them make informed decisions. You don’t want to raise false hopes, or sensationalize the work. Overall, this story does a nice job of handling a delicate subject well.


[Q]: Paragraph: Roughly half of Yellowstone’s 4,600 bison are estimated to have been exposed to brucellosis, a bacterial infection that can sometimes cause cows and bison to miscarry. Worries that infected bison may endanger cattle in states such as Montana that border Yellowstone had prompted the powerful ranching lobby to endorse biobullets - absorbable projectiles packed with vaccine. They would cut disease rates among bison by as much as 35 percent over 30 years. The proposal was the latest decades-long efforts to ease conflicts between livestock interests and wildlife advocates over management of Yellowstone bison. Park officials said they decided against the remote vaccination program because of its $9 million price tag, questions about its effectiveness and the possible impact on the millions of visitors who flock to the park to view iconic Western wildlife like bison. The measure would have required shooting the animals once a year for three decades, raising questions about how increased human interaction could affect bison within the wild herd. “We have concerns about how that repeated contact might impact bison behavior and their visibility to park visitors,” said Yellowstone spokesman Al Nash. Nash said there was no documented case of wild bison transmitting brucellosis to cattle, which he said signifies the success of existing measures designed to separate the park’s herd from domestic livestock. Those practices include returning bison that leave the park, testing and vaccinating bison that leave Yellowstone, and slaughtering some infected animals. Errol Rice, executive vice president of the Montana Stockgrowers Association, said the threats posed by infected bison to Montana’s brucellosis-free certification, which protects the market value of cattle, warranted using biobullets. He said the program would have lessened the public outcry that erupts when wandering bison are corralled and shipped to slaughterhouses. “The capture and removal of bison has been a challenging issue for the park and Montana. Remote vaccination would have helped alleviate the public relations burden we have to deal with when bison migrate out of Yellowstone,” he said. Stephany Seay, spokeswoman for Buffalo Field Campaign, a bison advocacy group, applauded the park’s decision not to shoot bison with vaccine. “It was a mismanagement scheme based on a livestock model. We don’t vaccinate skunks against rabies or mosquitoes against West Nile virus,” she said. Claim: Yellowstone managers reject vaccinating bison with biobullets.
[A]: Yellowstone National Park managers have rejected a plan to use air rifles to shoot the nation’s last herd of purebred bison with so-called biobullets containing a vaccine against a cattle disease, in a decision that has riled the U.S. livestock industry.


[Q]: Paragraph: No mention of cost – a signficant issue in the context of alleged overdiagnosis. The story succinctly summarized: The story explained: “the blood-thinning drugs used to treat blood clots increase the risk of bleeding in the brain or gastrointestinal tract, for example. According to the new results, such complications rose from three to five per 100,000 people hospitalized with PE per year after doctors began using chest CT scans.” It also reported: “CT scans expose patients to radiation, for example, which can increase the likelihood of developing cancer. And the dyes used to enhance the scan also cause kidney damage in a significant portion of people.” Our medical editor who reviewed this felt strongly that an unsatisfactory grade was warranted for the following reasons. There are important limitations to consider. The diagnosis of pulmonary embolism prior to CT was always fairly uncertain because pulmonary angiography (the true gold standard) was rarely done due to complications of the test. Therefore, the baseline trends for incidence of pulmonary emboli are probably not very reliable. There are also lots of other tests and approaches used for PE diagnosis that could have influenced things in either direction, as well as trends/improvements in treatment of PE. Relying on discharge diagnoses from inpatient samples should always be used with caution. A validation procedure with a subsample of cases could have added more strength in the reliability and validity of the diagnoses. Perhaps if an independent expert’s perspective had been included, some of this may have been addressed. No disease-mongering of pulmonary emboli. No independent source was quoted. It would have been interesting to solicit opinions from radiologists, for example, that might have placed some of this in a different light. The dilemma was framed appropriately at the end: The story states that chest CT scans are “being used in millions of patients every year in the US.” The relative novelty of the new analysis was clear from the story. It stated: “The new findings add to other evidence showing that medical testing is on the rise across the U.S., although in many cases the impact on overall health remains unclear.”  It’s clear that the story did not rely solely on a news release. Claim: Lung scans may lead to overdiagnosis: study
[A]:
We identified three shortcomings – all easily addressed. Costs weren’t mentioned – a big factor in a story about overdiagnosis and overtreatment. No independent expert was quoted. Had there been an independent voice, perhaps some of our comments about evaluating the limitations of the evidence would have been addressed. Putting hard numbers to concerns about overdiagnosis and overtreatment is a vital health policy issue – and important for journalists to track, as Reuters did with this story.