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 Q]: Paragraph: There was no mention of the potential costs of screening women for vitamin D levels (as encouraged in the release in a statement from the principal investigator) or the cost of supplementation. The release does a good job of comparing data and providing explanations for the measurements used. We’ll award a Satisfactory for that precision, but as noted below under “Evidence,” there was no explicit caution regarding the fact that measurements of interleukin-6 (IL-6) are only surrogates for the effects of weight loss and vitamin D on clinical outcomes related to inflammation (e.g. cancer diagnoses). IL-6 levels dropped in both the placebo and vitamin D arms, and it’s not clear whether the statistically significant additional decline in IL-6 observed in the vitamin D group is clinically important. Because some of the participants were vitamin D-deficient and the dose of vitamin D provided was modest (2000 IU/d), this was a tough call. But supplementation is often so misunderstood, overhyped and oversold that some statement cautioning readers to pay attention to the specifics of this study and not apply its recommendations to everyone seems prudent. For the most part, the release provides a cautious and accurate description of what appears to be a well-conducted clinical trial in a well-defined population. For example, it notes that weight loss and vitamin D lowered inflammation LINKED to cancer — not that these things reduced cancer risk itself (something this study couldn’t establish). But as noted above, we would have appreciated an explicit acknowledgment that IL-6 is a surrogate marker for the clinical outcomes that people care about. And more importantly, we’re concerned about the closing comment that women should talk to their doctors about measuring their vitamin D levels to determine the most appropriate dose. The problem is there is no evidence supporting screening or treating to a level — and certainly not from this study. The US Preventive Services Task Force has concluded that evidence is insufficient to recommend routine vitamin D screening and the IOM has said that while there are data supporting the benefits of vitamin D supplementation with bone health and fall prevention, there is no evidence supporting benefits for cancer. While testing may be warranted in those with signs or symptoms of clinical deficiency, the statement made here implies that everyone should be tested so that an appropriate dose of vitamin D can be selected. That goes beyond the available evidence. It’s hard to argue that overweight, vitamin deficiency, chronic inflammation and cancer are not real threats, so no mongering apparent here. Funding sources are well documented. The study didn’t discuss alternative preventive measures or genetic causes of increased cancer risks. But this is such a broad and expansive topic that we don’t think the release should have been expected to address those myriad issues. We’ll rate this Not Applicable. Primary care physicians and other health providers are well positioned to monitor blood levels of vitamin D, along with dietary and exercise regimens. The news release makes that clear, albeit indirectly. As noted above, we think the release goes too far in suggesting that people ask their doctors about having their vitamin D levels checked. But we’ve already docked points for that, so we’ll award a Satisfactory rating here. The release makes a case for this being the first clinical trial of its kind; although it’s always difficult to make that statement absolutely, the writer of the release attributes the statement to the study author. As a general rule, it’s probably best to say “believed to be the first.”  While the release meets our standard here, we also wish it had delved a bit into the background of previous vitamin D research and the conflicting and confusing messages that research has generated. Without that context, the typical reader might wrongly jump to the conclusion, based on the wording of the lede and other parts of the release, that this study of vitamin D supplementation — because it was a controlled clinical trial — has somehow settled the important questions about the role of vitamin D and inflammation in cancer risk. The debate remains alive and well. None detected. Claim: Weight loss plus vitamin D reduces inflammation linked to cancer, chronic disease
[EX A]: This news release describes a randomized, controlled clinical trial designed to learn whether adding vitamin D supplements to substantial weight loss regimens would have a synergistic effect in reducing inflammatory chemicals in the bodies of overweight, older women with levels of vitamin D considered too low. The study, published in Cancer Prevention Research, has potential relevance for cancer prevention because inflammatory cytokines have been implicated in the genesis and progression of some cancers, as well as heart disease and other disorders. The release offers substantial details about the design, metrics and outcomes of the clinical trial and does a pretty good job of defining the possible reasons for the effects of chronic inflammation and weight loss on cancer development. It goes to some lengths to narrowly define the results and avoid overstatement. That said, the release ends on a sour note by encouraging readers to talk to their doctors about vitamin D testing — a recommendation not consistent with U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines and which is not supported by this research. Readers might also have been better informed if the release had offered more context regarding the many conflicting and sometimes confusing studies that have previously looked for links among vitamin D, inflammatory responses, diet, overweight, sun exposure and cancer. News releases that include the words “diet,” “overweight,” “vitamin,” and “cancer” are almost narrative nuclear events, often guaranteeing an explosion of coverage, souped up vitamin sales pitches, and lots of negative fallout whose half-life seems forever. Cancer remains the second biggest killer disease overall of Americans, and some experts believe that it will soon push heart disease and stroke out of first place. Thus cancer prevention is a deservedly hot topic, and it is no surprise that Americans are eager for information about ways to limit their risk. News releases that describe research on these topics have enormous power to inform and misinform.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Cuomo’s cautiously upbeat report at a daily briefing came as the daily death toll across the state, the epicenter of the pandemic in the United States, dropped to 540 on April 17, down from 630 a day earlier and the lowest in more than two weeks. The governor said total hospitalizations of patients being treated for COVID-19, the respiratory illness caused by the coronavirus, came to 16,967, a drop of more than 1,300 over the past three days. Intubations and admissions to intensive care units also continued on their downward trend. “If you look at the past three days, you could argue that we are past the plateau and we’re starting to descend which would be very good news,” Cuomo said. He said, however, that about 2,000 infected people were newly admitted to hospitals on Friday, which he characterized as “still an overwhelming number,” and reiterated that he would take a cautious approach to reopening businesses and schools. Cuomo repeated a call for the federal government to help coordinate and provide funding for the mass testing that he and other governors have said is needed to determine when it is safe for people to go back to work. Providing new details on the challenge, Cuomo said a survey of labs in his state revealed an inability to procure the chemical reagents needed to run the tests on machines supplied by private manufacturers like Roche Holding AG. “They bought the machine, they have the machine, they have the test, but they need the reagents to do a higher volume of tests,” Cuomo said, adding that makers like Roche are struggling to get the reagents from China. “That’s the logjam we are in.”  New York disclosed 7,090 new positive cases over the last 24 hours for a total of 236,732 cases, while deaths increased by 540 to 13,362, marking by far the largest number of fatalities of any state. Even with stabilizing numbers, Cuomo said the pandemic was taking a severe emotional and economic toll on people, and estimated the impact on society would prove to be the biggest challenge facing the country since World War Two. “On every level this is a terrible experience, Cuomo said. “It is as tumultuous a time as we have ever seen.” Claim: New York Governor sounds optimistic note as coronavirus numbers improve.
[EX A]: New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said on Saturday that a recent drop in hospitalizations and other improving metrics indicated the state may be past the peak of its coronavirus crisis and on a path toward stabilizing its battered healthcare system.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: At least 1.4 million Americans are using marijuana for their health, according to an Associated Press analysis of states that track medical marijuana patients. The number of medical marijuana cardholders more than tripled in the last five years as more states jumped on the bandwagon. The analysis is based on data from 26 states and the District of Columbia. The total climbs to 2.6 million patients if California, Washington and Maine are included, the AP estimates. States that expanded the use of medical pot for common ailments such as severe pain, post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety saw a boost in enrollment, the AP found. The U.S. government, meanwhile, both considers marijuana an illegal drug and a therapeutic herb worth more study. A look at the health claims and research on medical marijuana: THE EVIDENCE Besides chronic pain, there’s strong evidence marijuana or its ingredients can ease nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy and help with symptoms of multiple sclerosis. Several European countries have approved Sativex, a mouth spray containing THC and CBD, for multiple sclerosis symptoms. Last year, U.S. regulators approved Epidiolex, made from CBD, to treat two rare seizure disorders. THC causes marijuana’s mind-altering effect; CBD doesn’t get people high. British drugmaker GW Pharmaceuticals is seeking U.S. approval for Sativex. Other companies are pursuing Food and Drug Administration backing for products based on marijuana ingredients. Arizona-based Insys Therapeutics, which filed for bankruptcy protection Monday as it faced fallout over its marketing of an addictive opioid painkiller, is developing CBD drugs for two types of childhood epilepsy and a rare genetic disorder. Pennsylvania-based Zynerba Pharmaceuticals is working on a CBD skin patch for autism and fragile X syndrome, a genetic condition. Prescription drugs already on the market use synthetic THC to treat weight loss, nausea and vomiting in patients with AIDS or cancer. And researchers continue to study whether marijuana helps with PTSD, back pain and other problems. OPIOID ALTERNATIVE? New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and New Mexico allow medical marijuana for opioid addiction despite little evidence it works. But marijuana may be helpful in reducing use of opioid painkillers. The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, better known for its research on herbs and yoga, has set aside $3 million for studies to determine which of marijuana’s 400-plus chemicals help with pain. THC was excluded however. Its mood-altering effects and potential for addiction and abuse make it less useful for pain, said Dr. David Shurtleff, the agency’s deputy director. And THC has been studied more than the lesser-known compounds. CURE FOR CANCER? Despite online claims, there’s only weak evidence that marijuana’s ingredients might one day be used to treat cancer. Most studies have been in animals or in the lab. Results have been mixed. In one study, nine patients with an aggressive form of brain cancer had THC injected into their tumors; any effect on their survival was unclear. Another study found worrying evidence that marijuana might interfere with some cancer drugs, making them less effective. RESEARCHING AN OUTLAW MEDICINE The U.S. government grows marijuana for research at a farm in Mississippi and generally bans grant-funded studies of real-world products. But a mobile lab inside a white Dodge van allows University of Colorado Boulder researchers to study the potent strains of marijuana many patients consume without running afoul of the law. Study participants use marijuana in their homes, coming to the van for blood draws and other tests before and after using, said Cinnamon Bidwell who has federal grants to study marijuana’s effects on lower back pain and anxiety. With increased demand for research pot, the Drug Enforcement Administration created an application process for growers, but has not acted on more than two dozen applications. Such challenges are common for scientists studying an outlaw medicine, said Dr. Igor Grant, who directs the oldest marijuana research center in the U.S. at the University of California, San Diego. There, scientists are studying marijuana chemicals for children with autism and adults with a brain disorder that causes uncontrollable shaking. Established by state law in 2000, the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research once relied solely on California for funding. The center now has support from private foundations, a sign of growing public acceptance of the research. TRACKING PATIENTS Minnesota medical marijuana patients must regularly fill out surveys about their symptoms and side effects. That allows researchers to study how people with cancer react to marijuana. In one study, a third of cancer patients made only one purchase and didn’t come back during a four-month period. They may have died, or decided marijuana was too expensive or didn’t work. Of the rest, most reported improvements in vomiting, pain, disturbed sleep, anxiety and depression with few side effects. Marijuana can ease many symptoms “all at one time,” but more study is needed, said study co-author Dr. Dylan Zylla of the health care system HealthPartners. He has no financial ties to cannabis companies. Zylla is studying whether cancer patients can decrease their prescription opioid use while using marijuana. Marijuana “does seem to help patients,” he said, “but so much is unknown about the risks, side effects and drug interactions.” ___ AP data journalist Angeliki Kastanis in Los Angeles contributed to this report. ___ This Associated Press series was produced in partnership with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Claim: Marijuana health claims lure patients as science catches up.
[EX A]:
Marijuana has been shown to help ease pain and a few other health problems, yet two-thirds of U.S. states have decided pot should be legal to treat many other conditions with little scientific backing.