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: A Berne court found the man guilty of causing bodily harm and spreading the virus which can cause Aids, court secretary Rene Graf told Reuters. He did not give any further details. Prosecutors had sought a sentence of 15 years in jail, according to media reports. “The accused and nobody else is responsible for infecting the 16 people,” Swiss news agency SDA quoted court president Urs Herren as saying, adding the man’s motive could have been to seek attention, exact revenge, or prove his omnipotence. The 54-year-old from the Swiss capital Berne had consistently denied the charges, blaming the victims for contracting HIV through unprotected sex and intravenous drug use, Swiss media reported. They did not reveal the man’s identity or nationality, in accordance with rules on Swiss criminal proceedings. The case came to the attention of the authorities after an HIV-positive patient told a hospital he suspected his infection was linked to acupuncture treatments he received from the man. The majority of the infected individuals were students of a music school run by the man, who also had an acupuncture practice. Some of the victims told the court he stabbed them with a needle from behind during treatment, SDA reported. Police stormed the man’s home a week ago after he stopped coming to the trial. The man, who was free on bail, had barricaded himself inside and was armed with a knife, issuing threats to police, according to media reports. Claim: "Swiss court jails ""healer"" for infecting 16 with HIV."
[A]: A self-styled healer was sentenced to 12 years and nine months in jail on Friday after a Swiss court found the acupuncturist guilty of infecting 16 people with HIV.


[Q]: Paragraph: "Patients used to pay $10,000 a year for cancer drugs, but now they’re paying $10,000 a month, according to HBO talk show host Bill Maher. That’s a message circulating on Facebook recently, promoted by the ""Bill Maher Fanpage."" A reader asked us to check it out. The quote comes from the Oct. 2 episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, where Maher discussed Turing Pharmaceuticals, the company that jacked up the cost of a life-saving drug from $13.50 to $750 essentially overnight. ""Not that (Turing CEO Martin) Shkreli is unusual for the pharmaceutical industry,"" Maher said on his show. ""Fifteen years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it’s $10,000 a month because this cartel owns the U.S. government every bit as much as Mexican drug lords own theirs."" It’s well known that the cost of health care is on the rise, but has the annual cost of cancer drugs really increased so dramatically in just a decade and a half? Maher’s team sent us links to some news articles about the rising cost of cancer drugs, and we tracked down information that speaks to his claim. The best information we could nail down is the cost of anticancer drugs at launch, the initial price when the Federal Drug Administration approves a drug. These are the sticker prices set by the pharmaceutical companies, not the prices patients actually pay out of pocket, which are reduced by insurance payments, patient assistance programs and other discounts. Costs increases, though, are often passed on to consumers. Maher has a point that cancer drug costs are on the rise. We charted the launch costs of cancer drugs the FDA approved since 1999, using a list compiled by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. The second half of Maher’s statement -- that cancer drugs now cost about $10,000 a month -- is also on solid ground. Of drugs approved in 2015, the monthly average cost is $11,319. And experts in the field often cite that $10,000 figure themselves. Because many cancer drugs are not administered to patients for a full year, it’s difficult to determine an average annual cost, so the first half of Maher’s statement -- that they cost about $10,000 a year 15 years ago -- is hard to nail down. To his point, though, the monthly cost of a new drug was dramatically lower in 2000 than what it is now at about $4,634. One of the news articles that Maher’s team sent us is an academic article in the Journal of Oncology Practice that supports his statement. The report reads, ""The average cancer drug price for approximately one year of therapy or a total treatment duration was less than $10,000 before 2000."" Maher’s statement is ""in the ballpark,"" if not an understatement, said Rena Conti, a health economist at the University of Chicago who researches cancer drug prices. In a 2015 paper Conti authored with three other leading health economists, she examined the launch cost of anticancer drugs controlled for inflation and the benefit to the patient (how much it prolongs life expectancy). For example, in 1995, anticancer drugs cost $54,100 for an additional year of life, the study found. In 2005, drugs cost $139,100 for the same benefit, and the price grew to $207,000 in 2013. In the United States, pharmaceutical companies set their own drug prices. What’s pushing them to increase the costs? It’s not necessarily that cancer drugs are getting better and are thus worth more. Conti’s research concluded that just about one-fifth of the cancer drug cost increase can be attributed to a better product. There are two primary forces behind annual cancer drug cost increases, Conti said: First, pharmaceutical companies estimate a ""zone of indifference"" -- based on last year’s prices, how much more would buyers be willing to pay? Second, rebates and discounts for drugs have also increased over time, and this creates an incentive for drug companies to increase their costs alongside the discounts. Pharmaceutical companies defend drug price increases by emphasizing that the revenue funds innovative research and that drugs lower overall health care costs by treating illnesses. Because there’s no formal price regulation and competition in the industry is rare, ""It really is a system where there’s no downward pressure on drug prices,"" said Peter Bach, director of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Center for Health Policy and Outcomes in an interview with Fortune. Our ruling Maher said, ""15 years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it’s $10,000 a month."" The average annual cost of a drug isn’t easy to calculate, given the way cancer drugs are scheduled; many drugs aren’t used every month for an entire year. So the first half of the statement is hard to verify, though we did find one academic source that cites a similar figure. However, Maher has a point that the cost of cancer drugs has increased dramatically since 2000, when the average monthly price of a cancer drug, when it first hit the market, was about $4,600. In 2015, the monthly cost is over $10,000. Maher’s numbers are a little squishy, but they’re in the ballpark." Claim: 15 years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it’s $10,000 a month.
[A]: "Maher said, ""15 years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it’s $10,000 a month."" The average annual cost of a drug isn’t easy to calculate, given the way cancer drugs are scheduled; many drugs aren’t used every month for an entire year. So the first half of the statement is hard to verify, though we did find one academic source that cites a similar figure. However, Maher has a point that the cost of cancer drugs has increased dramatically since 2000, when the average monthly price of a cancer drug, when it first hit the market, was about $4,600. In 2015, the monthly cost is over $10,000. Maher’s numbers are a little squishy, but they’re in the ballpark."


[Q]: Paragraph: The burials, found underneath the cremated remains of an Ice Age toddler, date to about 11,500 years ago and provide new insights into mortuary practices of the people who lived in the area of the Upward Sun River site at the time. The largely complete skeletons were found in a circular pit with associated “grave goods” that included four antler rods and two stone projectile points, all decorated with red ochre, according to research carried out last year by a team led by University of Alaska anthropologist Ben Potter. In a paper published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team said skeletal and dental analyses indicate one of the skeletons was of an infant that died shortly after birth, while the other was of a late-term fetus. The site represents the youngest-aged late Pleistocene individuals known in the Americas, it said, as well as the continent’s only known prenatal burial dating from the period. The pair, both tentatively believed to have been female, were found buried about 16 inches (40 cm) beneath the cremated remains of a 3-year-old child that was previously excavated by the team during work at the site in 2010. “Two interred infants with associated grave goods and a third cremated child represent the earliest known human remains from the North American subarctic, and they provide evidence for novel mortuary behaviors at the end of the last Ice Age,” the authors wrote. The team, which included Joel Irish of Liverpool John Moores University, said the site shares characteristics with other burials from the same periods, including interment in pits, red ochre, and grave goods consisting of functional tools, as opposed to ornaments or trinkets. The archaeologists believe the stone projectile points were once attached to the antler rods to make tools or weapons, and could reflect the importance of hunting implements in the burial ceremony. But they said they also noted the predominance of fish and small game remains at the site. Claim: Scientists find rare burial site of Ice Age infant in Alaska.
[A]:
Archaeologists working in Alaska’s remote interior have discovered the burial site of an Ice Age infant and a late-term fetus believed to be the youngest remains found in the Americas dating from that period.