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: The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) said it was investigating 14 fake or unlicensed products to treat COVID-19, the respiratory disease caused by the coronavirus. So far 3,605 Britons have died from the coronavirus, the latest data show, and experts have said deaths will continue to rise until the effect of recent lockdown measures filter through and slow the spread of the disease in the coming weeks. MHRA said it was investigating fake self-testing kits, miracle cures and so-called “antiviral misting sprays”. “Don’t be fooled by online offers for medical products to help prevent or treat COVID-19,” Lynda Scammell, MHRA enforcement official said. “There is no medicine licensed specifically to treat or prevent COVID-19, therefore any claiming to do so are not authorised and have not undergone regulatory approvals required for sale on the UK market.”  Scammell added that MHRA was working alongside law enforcement agencies to combat the spread of fake and unlicensed medical products. Claim: Miracle cures? UK investigators go after fake coronavirus medicines.

Ex Output:
British authorities said on Saturday they were clamping down on bogus cures for the coronavirus, which currently has no specific licensed treatment.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: Made by Bayer AG and Onyx Pharmaceuticals Inc, Nexavar is  approved in the United States for kidney and liver cancer. Eight out of the first nine patients who took the drug saw  improvements in their ability to exercise, and six out of nine  had significant improvement in their right ventricular ejection  fraction, which measures the heart’s ability to pump blood to  the lungs. Four patients had decreased pressure in their pulmonary  artery, which supplies blood to the lungs. “What patients are telling us is they are able to do more  in their daily lives,” said Dr. Mardi Gomberg-Maitland of the  University of Chicago, who presented her findings at a meeting  of the American Thoracic Society in Toronto. The original  research on the drug was done at the University. She said the surprising thing is that the drug worked so  quickly. Patients saw benefits in only four months. The study is the first human trial to examine the  sorafenib, or Nexavar, in pulmonary hypertension, a disease in  which blood vessels feeding the lungs narrow, forcing the heart  to work harder. Like cancer, pulmonary hypertension is a disease marked by  abnormal cell growth, which narrows the arteries feeding the  lungs, reducing blood flow and taxing the heart. Sorafenib  appears to interfere with this process. The trial enrolled patients with stable disease who  continued to take their primary medications, which included a  continuous infusion of a drug called prostacyclin and Pfizer  Inc’s Viagra or sildenafil. Both relax blood vessels that feed  the lungs. Gomberg-Maitland said this therapy typically slows  progression of the disease, but does not reverse it. They added sorafenib for 16 weeks, but at a lower dose than  cancer patients use. Most patients in the trial increased their exercise  capacity, as measured by time on a treadmill or a six-minute  walk test. They saw an average 8 percent improvement in their  right ventricular ejection fraction, a measure of the heart’s  pumping power. Side effects included mild hair loss and skin reactions. The study was designed to last only 16 weeks, but all of  the patients continue to take the drug, some now for more than  a year. “What is exciting about this is all of the patients feel  better and nobody wants to come off the medication,”  Gomberg-Maitland said in a telephone interview. The study was intended to test the safety and dosing of the  drug. It was funded by The Doris Duke Foundation and the  University of Chicago. The researchers now plan to study the drug in 40 to 60  patients at different research centers. Claim: Nexavar helped in pulmonary hypertension study.

Ex Output:
The cancer drug Nexavar is showed  promise in a small study of people with pulmonary hypertension,  a debilitating condition marked by high blood pressure in the  arteries that supply the lungs, U.S. researchers said on  Monday.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: The story does not give any estimate of the cost of Doppler ultrasound examinations. The story clearly states the reduction in fetal death rates the review authors calculated by combining the results of the studies ithey looked at. It reports the absolute risk calculation of fetal or newborn deaths (1.7 percent among women who did not receive ultrasound monitoring vs. 1.2 percent among those who did). This reporting of absolute (as opposed to relative) risk reduction is a strong point of the story since it conveys to readers that while the intervention did improve outcomes, the underlying risk is small. We only wish, however, that the story had cited the Number Needed to Test that was included in the study – 203 would need to be tested in order to find one case of fetal distress that would otherwise not have been seen using other routine exams. The story notes that there has been concern that the use of Doppler ultrasound might increase unnecessary interventions, including cesarean section deliveries in cases where it is not actually needed. It says the studies indicated that Doppler ultrasound appeared to lead to better decisions about cesarean sections and inductions of labor. The story explains that this report is a review of other studies. It also points out some shortcomings in the underlying studies. The story also includes a comment from one of the study authors that since the technique is established in current practice it is unlikely that there will be future studies of the use of the technology in high-risk pregnancies. The story clearly states that the evidence on the use of Doppler ultrasound applies only to high-risk pregnancies and that there is no evidence the examinations should be done in low-risk pregnancies. There is no information in the story that appears to come from an independent source. Comments from experts in the field would have helped put the authors’ comments into perspective. The story says other types of testing, including electronic fetal-heart monitoring, may also be done during high-risk pregnancies. The story notes that Doppler is an established technique used to monitor high-risk pregnancies. The story notes that Doppler ultrasound is an established technology and that most of the studies reviewed were done in the 1990s. The story does not appear to rely solely on a news release. It says the lead researcher was interviewed. Claim: Ultrasound may cut deaths in high-risk pregnancies

Ex Output:

This story clearly explains that a new review of the available evidence from published trials backs the use of Doppler ultrasound to monitor high-risk pregnancies. Notably, the story reports the absolute risk calculation of fetal or newborn deaths (1.7 percent among women who did not receive ultrasound monitoring vs. 1.2 percent among those who did), rather than trumpeting a large reduction in relative risk. By including the absolute risk numbers, the story helps readers understand both that the test appears to reduce the death rate and, importantly, that the overall risk of fetal or newborn death in developed nations is very small, thus putting the results in perspective. This story also pointed out that there is some uncertainty about the findings because of concerns about the quality of the underlying studies including in the review. What’s more, it highlights the point that the studies included only women who had high-risk pregnancies and that there is no evidence to suggest the use of Doppler ultrasound to monitor low-risk pregnancies. The story would have been ranked as satisfactory on all criteria if it had reported the typical cost of Doppler ultrasound monitoring and included an independent source in addition to the lead author of the review. When there is concern about potential problems with a pregnancy, Doppler ultrasound is a commonly recommended test used to help make decisions about cesarean section, induced labor or other interventions; thus misuse of the test could lead to inappropriate interventions.