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: "Former state Rep. Nicholas Gorham made a surprising claim last month in a commentary in The Providence Journal. ""The fact is that we have a General Assembly that has no explicit constitutional authority to impose income, sales, estate and the myriad of other taxes upon us, yet it taxes the people as if there were no limitations on its authority to tax the people,"" he wrote in the piece, published Dec. 30. The legislature can’t legally levy taxes? This called for a PolitiFact audit. First, a history lesson. When King Charles II granted a royal charter to the colony in 1663, the document, preserved in a metal and glass case at the State House, established ""a form of pure government by an elected assembly presided over by a nearly powerless, elected governor,"" according to an account on the General Assembly’s website. The Assembly’s supremacy continued when Rhode Island became a state, and was reaffirmed in the state’s first Constitution, adopted in 1842. Article VI, Section 10 spelled it out, saying ""the General Assembly shall continue to exercise the powers it has heretofore exercised, unless prohibited in this Constitution."" The state Supreme Court consistently interpreted that to mean the power of the General Assembly was unlimited unless authority to do something was specifically given to another branch of government. Things changed in 2004, when the General Assembly, responding to pressure from good government groups, passed ""separation of powers"" legislation, a set of proposed amendments to the state Constitution. The amendments made it clear the government is divided into three separate branches, banned legislators from serving on any executive-branch boards or commissions, and gave the governor power to appoint members of agency boards. And they eliminated the catch-all Section 10. Voters approved the amendments 2-to-1. So is Gorham right that, because of 2004 vote, the General Assembly lost its ""explicit"" authority to tax? On a literal level, yes. The only reference to setting taxes in the current Constitution is a section that says that the Assembly can set the manner in which property valuations are conducted. But legal experts say on a practical level, implicit can be as good as explicit. Former state Supreme Court Justice Robert G. Flanders Jr., who stepped down in early 2004, says that although much was changed by the 2004 amendments, much abides. From the days of Parliament and the English kings, he said, the power to levy taxes has rested in the legislative body, a legal tradition that was carried on in England’s colonies in the Americas. ""Inherent in the legislative power is the power to tax,"" Flanders said. ""You wouldn’t need an explicit grant."" Richard Raspallo, legal counsel to House Majority Leader Nicholas A. Mattiello, agreed, saying there are several examples of legislative power that is assumed despite a lack of specific language in the Constitution. ""Where is it explicitly stated in the Constitution that the General Assembly has the authority to require Rhode Island citizens to follow traffic rules, or have a license, or grant people the right to marry, or require people to have certain educational standards in order to work in certain fields?"" he said. ""At some point, the General Assembly has been granted power by the people to legislate for the common good,"" he said. ""That includes the imposition of taxes to pay for the welfare of the citizenry."" Gorham indirectly acknowledged that, but said the ambiguity shows the need for a state constitutional convention to settle the matter definitively. (Voters will be asked in November whether a convention should be convened.) As he wrote in his commentary: ""Of course, I plan to pay my taxes, but you really have to wonder sometimes. If the people really wanted to get taxes — and, yes, borrowing — under control and on the people’s terms, the Constitution, just the way it is, would be a great place to start. Let the revolution begin!"" Our ruling Nicholas Gorham said the Rhode Island General Assembly ‘‘has no explicit constitutional authority’’ to levy taxes. History tells us he’s right. Had he suggested that the lack of explicit language meant no one had to pay taxes, we’d view his claim in a far different light. But he didn’t, so we rule it . (If you hear a claim you'd like us to check, email us at [email protected] And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)" Claim: "The General Assembly ""has no explicit constitutional authority to impose income, sales, estate and the myriad of other taxes upon us."
[A]: Nicholas Gorham said the Rhode Island General Assembly ‘‘has no explicit constitutional authority’’ to levy taxes. History tells us he’s right. Had he suggested that the lack of explicit language meant no one had to pay taxes, we’d view his claim in a far different light. But he didn’t, so we rule it True. (If you hear a claim you'd like us to check, email us at [email protected] And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)


[Q]: Paragraph: "The story mentions that 30 capsules of OSR#1 cost $60. It would have been nice had the story also included information about the amount of active ingredient per capsule and the manufacturer’s recommended dosage. This would have allowed readers to make a better calculation as to the financial impact of treatment. This is critical information considering these costs will be borne out of pocket by anyone using OSR #1. The story juxtaposes a light-hearted ""success story"" with information about the industrial uses of OSR #1 for removing toxic heavy metals from contaminated soil. This is a clever way of way of emphasizing that the use of this product is based entirely on anecdote. The story clearly states that there is no credible evidence supporting the efficacy of the product. The harms of this product are impossible to quantify, given that it doesn’t seem to have been studied in humans or in animals. The story notes that other chelating drugs carry ""significant risks"" and ""can strip the body of metals necessary for health."" It would have been nice to see more specifics about what chelators can do, but the story satisfies the critierion. The story states that medical searches turned up no papers about OSR#1, and that the company which makes the product provided no published studies about its use. The story rightly suggests that this total lack of evidence should be deeply troubling. The story doesn’t exaggerate the prevalence or severity of autism, or of the potentially toxic compounds sometimes used to treat it. The story quotes multiple experts on pharmacology and an FDA spokesperson. It also quotes from an interview with Boyd Haley, president of the company which makes OSR #1. It attempted to get a reaction from Kim Stagliano, an OSR #1 proponent, but this effort was not successful. While the story mentions that there other are chelation drugs out there, it could have mentioned that there are educational strategies which can be helpful for children with autism and which have better evidence to support their use. The story states that OSR#1 is, according to the manufacturer’s website, available only through dentists’ or doctors’ offices. It notes, however, that the Tribune was able to buy 30 capsules of the product directly from a compounding pharmacy listed on the site. We are impressed that the Tribune went to these lengths to establish the product’s availability. The story provides a fairly detailed pedigree for OSR #1 and discusses its similarity to other chelation therapies used in the treatment of autism. It also gives credit to blogger Kathleen Seidel for being the first to raise concerns about OSR #1 in her blog, Neurodiversity.com The story is well sourced and is not based on a press release." Claim: Industrial chemical OSR#1 used as autism treatment
[A]: "The product known as OSR #1 contains a chemical originally intended for clean-up of toxic waste at industrial sites. This story by the Chicago Tribune (which was republished by the Los Angeles Times) examines how, despite a total lack of any research on the product in humans, OSR #1 ended up being marketed as a ""dietary supplement"" for children with autism. The story does an especially good job of pointing out the regulatory gaps which can allow risky, poorly researched products to be sold as ""cures"" to desperate parents and caregivers. It’s an example of health journalism doing what it’s supposed to do, and doing it well. Autism is a serious disorder which affects a growing number of children and their families and for which there are few good treatment options. This is a situation ripe for abuse by overzealous advocates and unscrupulous marketers of uNPRoven therapies. As Boyd Haley, president of the company that make the the OSR#1 supplement, puts it: ""There are so many snake oil salesmen out there, it’s just incredible."""


[Q]: Paragraph: It’s good that the report states the price of the device–above $200,000–and that at least one insurer does not pay for its use. But the story should have stated what it costs a patient to get treated with the device, and who bears any additional costs. The story says the device’s efficacy is uNPRoven, but it does not explore the body of inconclusive data. There is a 2007 study that shows 5 years of outcome data. The fact that that study did not demonstrate improved outcomes suggests the device does not have big, measurable benefits. The story would have been stronger had it referred to this study. The story reports that the extra time required to do a navigation-assisted surgery may lead to more complications. The story would have been stronger if it had mentioned the potential risks associated with the surgeon learning curve. The story does an excellent job of stating, plainly and repeatedly, that there is no conclusive evidence the surgical device improves outcomes. The story doesn’t exaggerate the severity or prevalence of the underlying joint conditions. Neither does it make false claims for the relief the device can provide. The story does use one positive anecdote, which could be read to mean the navigational device contributed to the positive outcome. The reality is that most patients do very well with the surgery without the need for a navigational prompt to the surgeon.But since the story states repeatedly that the technology’s benefits are uNPRoven, this is not a serious flaw. The reporter interviewed four surgeons, three of whom use the device and one of whom does not. The reporter did not quote the device maker, an impressive show of restraint. A key shortcoming: The reporter did not explore potential conflicts of interest of the sources. Doctors who are early adopters of expensive new technologies often have relationships with the device makers. So do the medical facilities where the doctors practice. Such relationships should have been disclosed, or the lack of relationship should have been plainly stated. The story indicates that most surgeries are done without the navigation device, and that other similar devices are in development. The story names four Iowa institutions that have the computer assisted surgery device. It also names four surgeons who use it. Ideally the story would stated how many of the devices are in use in Iowa, Des Moines or the U.S. But the story includes sufficient information to be rated satisfactory under this criterion. The report makes clear that the device has been in use for a few years but is still considered investigational. By reporting how many surgeries certain centers and surgeons have done with the device, the story provides an adequate view of its clinical use. There is no evidence that the story relied solely or largely on a news release. Claim: GPS-like system helps surgeons align joints
[A]:
Too often when a reporter learns about a developing medical technology used locally, the result is a gee-whiz rave. This well-reported, judiciously written story on navigation-assisted joint surgery is a welcome exception. The story plainly says the surgical technique has not been proven effective. The reporter interviewed four physicians about its value, including one who has not used the machine. The story discusses the potential benefits and harms without falsely emphasizing either one. The reader takeaway is that there is an interesting but uNPRoven new technology available for local joint replacement surgery. Some may want to talk to their doctors about it, but none will go expecting a miracle treatment certain to improve outcomes. The story could have been improved in two ways:   It’s not clear who is paying the cost of using the machines if insurers do not. It’s also not clear what the cost difference is between navigation-assisted and conventional joint replacement surgery. The story did not report on potential conflicts of interest. It’s not known whether any of the physicians quoted has worked as a researcher or consultant for the device maker. The reporter should have asked and reported the answer.