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.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "It is less surprising that neither story discussed costs, given that so few stories do. But sample costs could have been obtained by calling any of the numerous medical marijuana outlets in states where it is legal. Both stories did a decent job of quantifying the benefits.This story provided more details, though, including the differences in patient experiences between the three different concentrations of marijuana. It also repeated this important bit of information: ""There was also no difference in the quality of life or mood scores that participants reported when they were on any of the four treatments."" The story also does a great job of pointing out that the treatment duration of five days in each dosage phase is too short to judge utility for chronic pain, which is a long-term affliction. Neither story actually quantified the harms, but they both noted there were side effects. This story did a better job, though, by noting that the only dose that seemed to work also seemed to produce the most side effects and by raising the issue of long-term safety concerns. It also was the only story to answer the question that readers surely would have when reading about an illegal narcotic being used as medicine. Did these patients feel high as a result? This story says that most did not. Because of the additional information and context, the rating here is satisfactory. This story, unlike the competing WebMD piece, establishes in the first sentence — even in the first three words — that this was ""a small study."" It then discusses the limitations of the study at several points. The second sentence says, ""The pain reduction was ""modest"" – less than 1 point on an 11-point scale for the strongest marijuana – and patients reported no overall difference in their quality of life based on what they smoked."" The writer elegantly and succinctly described the study design — a complex randomized cross-over trial with double blinding and delved into an important feature of the study, that the subjects in retrospect may have been able to detect during which phase of their experience they inhaled placebo versus the most potent drug. This story avoids disease mongering, and, in fact, goes beyond that to note how few people actually suffer from the type of chronic pain that was the subject of the study: ""About 1 to 2 percent of adults in the U.S."" The story quotes two outside experts, one of whom is completely independent from the study and the journal, Dr Andrea Hohmann. Beyond that, we would bet that the reporter spent more time interviewing Dr. Mark Ware, the lead researcher, or at least asked tougher questions. Because Ware is more measured in this story than in the WebMD story. He even goes so far as to say, ""What about long-term safety issues?"" he asked. ""These need to be considered before the drug becomes prescribable."" As with the WebMD story, it would have been nice to see who funded the research. Unlike the WebMD story, this one did not point out the conflicts of interest of Dr. Henry McQuay. This story talks about a range of treatment options and even has the study’s lead author suggesting, that ""these patients should also be getting behavioral and physical therapy."" Strangely, neither story we reviewed pointed out that marijuana is illegal in most states and in Canada, where the study took place. The story could have, at a minimum, mentioned which states have medical marijuana laws or talked about whether any other countries currently allow cannabis to be sold in pill form the way it was used in this study. The story alludes to the fact that this study ""supports a limited number of trials that have suggested marijuana may be helpful for people suffering from chronic pain,"" indicating that the treatment is not very novel at all. It would have been nice to see more context around that. The WebMD story provides a little more information in this regard. If the news release is to be believed, ""This is the first trial to be conducted where patients have been allowed to smoke cannabis at home and to monitor their responses, daily"". That could have been made clear. The story goes well beyond the release. Here’s the release." Claim: Pot may provide some chronic pain relief: study

Output: The story did a great job evaluating the evidence, providing outside voices, discussing alternatives to marijuana smoking, and presenting both the benefits and the potential harms. It could have done a better job discussing possible costs, availability and conflicts of interest. From the headline to the last sentence, this report avoided overstatement of the applicability of the potential benefit and used clear incisive language that left the reader with a good understanding of the study and its implications. This topic lends itself to jokey, pun-filled writing, but this story played it straight. Chronic pain can ruin lives, and a breakthrough with an alternative approach would be important news. As this story makes clear, until some larger studies with fewer limitations are undertaken, we are far from the point where marijuana can be considered a safe and effective treatment for chronic pain.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: House Speaker Jose Oliva was unsparing in his criticism of what he called the “healthcare industrial complex,” including drug companies, hospitals and medical device companies that he said were “the great robber-barons of our time.” Oliva sought to build on some of health care initiatives of last year’s legislative session, including passage of a first-in-the-nation drug importation bill. “We did not choose healthcare as our priority,” he said. “No, it chose us. It chose us through the sheer audacity of the defenders of the status quo.” With a presidential election looming this fall, fierce partisan divides could influence the work of lawmakers. But an air of collegiality prevailed Tuesday, as bouquets festooned the chambers and the Capitol halls and rotundas pulsed with activity. Opening day was also important for lobbyists and the activists who seek to influence lawmakers and the legislation that will be crafted over the 60 days the Legislature has to complete its business before adjourning. While DeSantis enjoys strong relationships with lawmakers — particularly his fellow Republicans who run both chambers of the statehouse — he may not necessarily get everything he wants during his second year as the state’s chief executive. His $91.4 billion budget calls for major spending on the environment and education — including a nearly $1 billion outlay for teacher raises and bonuses. Some fiscally conservative lawmakers said they would give the spending intense scrutiny. On the eve of the Legislature’s opening day, thousands of educators and their allies descended on the Capitol to draw attention to the governor’s plan, calling it flawed because of potential pay inequities and because veteran educators and non-teaching school employees would be left out. Some key Republicans have also cast doubt on the governor’s plan to require employers to use a federally operated electronic database known as E-Verify to check the immigration status of workers. E-Verify has been opposed by agriculture, construction, tourism interests and other industries that rely on immigrant labor. Hundreds of bills await, encompassing education spending, health care, the environment and public safety — as well as approving the billions of dollars required to keep the country’s third-most populous state operating day to day. Legislative Democrats are pushing for stronger gun control measures, but face long odds to win over their Republican colleagues. Addressing a joint session of the state House and Senate during his State of the State address, DeSantis urged cooperation — particularly when it comes to approving his agenda on the environment and education. “This is Florida’s season of opportunity,” DeSantis told lawmakers. “We have the chance to build on a strong foundation, the chance to face the challenges before us and the chance to leave a legacy of success that will benefit our people now and in the future.” Rep. Chris Sprowls, a Republican who’s next in line to be House speaker, commended DeSantis for the sweep of his speech -- covering priorities, he said, that were crucial to Florida’s future. “The members of the House want to help the governor because we believe in the same thing,” Sprowls said. However, Sprowls declined to discuss the merits of specific legislation proposed by the governor, saying that task will be undertaken in the days and weeks to come. And while the governor’s agenda appeared “bright,” he said, “nothing is ever a slam dunk.” In his opening remarks, Senate President Bill Galvano, a Republican, reminded lawmakers of their weighty responsibility. “As we go into this session let us continue to show our constituents that we can exchange and debate ideas while maintaining civility and decorum,” he told the chamber. “That we can problem solve together. That we can put aside personalities and politics for good policy. And, that we are not a microcosm of Washington, D.C., but instead will continue to be an example for Washington, D.C.” Claim: Florida Legislature sets sights on education, health care.

Output: Florida lawmakers signaled that they would likely tackle education spending and health care costs but might seek to avoid a battle over forcing employers to verify the immigration status of workers, as the 2020 legislative session began Tuesday.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: This story doesn’t discuss how much the vaccines cost. Therefore, readers can’t compare the affordability of these vaccines to existing treatment options. The story says that four of the six patients had no cancer recurrence after 25 months in the first study, and in the second study, eight of the 13 patients remained tumor free after 23 months. But the studies cited are both phase I clinical trials designed to address safety, not efficacy. Any claims regarding the latter, especially given the limited number of subjects, would be highly speculative. Therefore, the headline is misleading. As noted in the final sentence of the article: “… The next step will be to test these personalized vaccines in larger clinical trials to see if they are better than existing treatments, if they improve survival, and what their long-term side effects could be.” We give the story credit for making an important point that waiting for the vaccine to be made might be detrimental to patients with advanced cancer. It says, “As the vaccine therapies are designed and generated specifically for each individual there is a lag time from enrollment to commencement of treatment—approximately four months—which may be too long from some patients with advanced cancer.” The story also notes that “Both vaccines were deemed safe” but it doesn’t discuss any side effects that may have shown up in the trials. What happened to the five patients who were not tumor free at 25 months? The story does mention that more research is needed to identify potential harms. The story mentions the types of studies that were conducted and the size of the trials. Both of these factors impact the claims that can be made from the research. And that’s important because the claims made seem out-sized compared to the very preliminary nature of the research. Phase I clinical trials are used to look at safety and side effects, not to make conclusions about the future success of personalized medicine. To its credit, the article includes a very important quote from one of the study authors that clarifies that no conclusions should be drawn from these preliminary studies: “It is still unknown whether these vaccines will extend the survival of cancer patients, or whether they are more effective than other recently developed immunotherapies. Additional clinical trials will be required to determine the utility of these individualised neoepitope vaccines.” There is no evidence of disease mongering in this story. The story incorporates insights from a few independent sources. This gives readers additional information about how the findings should be interpreted. However, no information is provided about potential conflicts of interest. The story doesn’t mention any other treatment options for melanoma by name but states that additional research is needed to determine the effectiveness of these vaccines in comparison to existing options. The story could have been improved by including information about the prevalence of cancer recurrence among cancer patients using existing treatment options such as surgery and chemotherapy. One of the trials described was conducted in people who had had surgery and no other treatment options. It would have been helpful to include the length of time to tumor recurrence in people who had not received any other interventions. Although not explicitly stated, most readers will understand that the vaccines are not currently available and have to undergo a lot more testing before they are available — if ever. The article discusses what is and isn’t new about the research in this section: “Cancer vaccines that are personalized to the patient—designed to help the immune system identify tumors as foreign bodies and destroy them—have been considered as a potential treatment for a number of years. But working out the unique mutations of each person’s cancer, a time-consuming and complicated process, must first be identified before a vaccine can be developed for them.” The story includes independent sources and does not appear to be reliant on a news release. Claim: CANCER BREAKTHROUGH: PERSONALIZED MELANOMA VACCINES ‘SAFE AND EFFECTIVE’ IN FIRST HUMAN CLINICAL TRIALS


Output: Ungrounded speculation or reasonable caution? Both are present in this Newsweek story on two very early trials of immunotherapy drugs being developed to protect against melanoma. While the headline calls the research “a cancer breakthrough,” quotes from researchers bring some much-need focus on the studies’ limitations. These are — after all — phase 1 safety trials with just six volunteers in one and 13 in the other. Far too small a group to make any claims about successful results. The article does tell readers what questions remain about the vaccines (such as do they extend life and how effective are they compared with other treatments), and the type of research studies that are needed to answer these questions. However, noticeably absent from the story is a discussion about the exorbitant price tag associated with immunotherapy. We’re seeing a lot of health news and PR releases devoted to immunotherapy trials so we’ve put together some tips for covering news on cancer immunotherapy drugs. Results from small, preliminary studies like these involving six and 13 volunteers should be viewed cautiously. Information about the effectiveness of a treatment is of limited consequence if patients cannot afford the treatment. There needs to be a discussion of cost so patients can determine whether such treatment is even possible for them.