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: Numerous bills on expanding access to health care, and growing training and educational opportunities for residents were included among the 134 new measures the Legislative Council accepted last week. The Portland Press Herald reports only the titles of the bill have been submitted for introduction in the lawmaking session that starts in January. The measures also appear to be a response to the recent leaked propane explosion in a building in Farmington. The state has no current regulation requiring natural gas or propane leak detectors or warning devices. Lawmakers will also take up about 500 other measures either held by Gov. Janet Mills or left over from this year’s session. Claim: Health care, education to lead Maine’s legislative debates.

Output: Several bills focused on health care and education are expected to lead legislative debates at the Maine Statehouse in 2020.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: The article does a good job of noting the cost of the combing salons, as well as cost of the medicinal shampoos and other drug treatments, specifically noting also that insurance may not cover the costs. The article cites data from a recent review article in a medical journal that outlines the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the medicinal treatments. “The medications have been found to be from 68% to 87% effective after one or two applications. Most don’t require combing,” the story says. We do wish they story explained what “67% effective” means for a typical person, however. The careful reader will note that the evidence for the effectiveness of the featured combing salons is mostly anecdotal, and it would have greatly strengthened the article to have been more explicit about this, as well as including more solid proof that standard lice medications are not as effective as they used to be. The article notes that various organizations and experts consider the chemical/medicinal treatments to be highly safe as well as effective. The story needed to be more explicit about the quality of evidence for each of the treatment options mentioned–combing, going to a delousing salon, over-the-counter treatments, prescription treatments. Only the latter are mentioned in the context of research. The story references a review article that compares the different approaches, but it provides no details on what kind of evidence the review is based on. No disease mongering here, and we were glad the story pointed out that there are no adverse physical health effects from lice. The article does a very good job of noting the conflicts of interest of those quoted. The story explored alternatives. Good job on this. It’s clear that businesses that assist with combing are easy to find, and over-the-counter shampoos are even easier. What appears to be “new” is the explosion of combing salons and newer prescription shampoos, as well as the review article published last week that evaluates them. This story doesn’t appear to rely on a news release. Claim: New Ways to Fight Super Lice

Output: The treatment of childhood cases of head lice infestations is a popular news media perennial at the start of the school year, and this Wall Street Journal story falls into that category. It covers the usual elements — prevalence of the infestations among school age children, over-the-counter and prescription treatments, home remedies (which generally don’t work) and reassurance about the pesky but essentially benign health impact. This story also takes a look at the rise of “lice-combing” salons and newer medications meant to stand in when older medications are ineffective. We were impressed by the depth of the sourcing, along with the details that helped readers assess any potential conflicts of interest among said sources. One thing we wished had been more detailed: How the evidence stacks up for each of the treatments. As the article itself makes clear, head lice infestation is a widespread, unpleasant, and disruptive — albeit relatively benign — condition that costs millions of families money, aggravation and time in efforts to prevent and treat. Adding to the nuisance of ridding scalps, tresses, clothing and home furnishings of the pests, some of the historic over-the-counter medicinal treatments have lost their power owing to drug-resistant mutations in the lice. Newer prescription medicines are effective, but worry an apparently growing number of parents who work hard to avoid what they consider unnecessary chemical exposure. Thus, parents are certain to be looking for the best and latest information about treatments.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Six patients were still responding at 7.5 months of follow-up, according to research presented in San Diego at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH). The highest trial dose was discontinued due to toxicity. Nearly a third of trial patients developed serious infections and other side effects included nerve damage and liver failure. Amgen said AMG420, which targets a protein linked to multiple myeloma known as BCMA, has been given fast track status by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “Based on these data, we plan to open an expanded trial,” David Reese, Amgen’s head of research and development, said in an interview. “We want to begin exploring quickly enrollment in earlier lines of therapy.”  Amgen’s pipeline of bispecific antibodies, which are designed to attach to a cancer cell and an immune cell, bringing them together so the body’s immune system can kill the cancer, are a cornerstone of the biotech company’s oncology research. Other companies are exploring different ways to attack the same BCMA target, including bluebird bio Inc, Celgene Corp and Johnson & Johnson. Earlier at the ASH meeting, bluebird and Celgene presented early trial data showing that experimental cell therapy bb21217 induced responses in 10 out of 12 heavily pre-treated myeloma patients. Bb21217 is a next-generation version of bb2121, the companies’ more advanced, but still experimental therapy in a class called CAR-T that requires harvesting a patient’s own disease-fighting T-cells, modifying them in a laboratory so they target specific proteins on cancer cells and infusing them back into the patient. The manufacturing process for bb21217 is designed to improve the persistence of the altered cells. J&J, which licensed BCMA-directed CAR-T LCAR-B38M from a unit of China-based GenScript Biotech Corp, on Monday presented updated results from a Chinese study of the cell therapy in 57 previously treated myeloma patients. It showed that 88 percent of patients responded to the treatment, and 74 percent achieved remission. J&J is currently enrolling patients in an international study aimed at validating those findings. Amgen has suggested the “off the shelf” nature of its antibody platform could be an advantage from both a clinical and commercial standpoint, but oncologists say more data is needed. Trial patients are hospitalized for their first cycle of AMG420, after which they receive the drug by continuous 24-hour infusion for four weeks, followed by two weeks off therapy, for up to 10 cycles. Amgen has another BCMA-targeting antibody that lasts longer in the body, requiring less frequent infusions, but that research is at an earlier stage. In the current study, 42 patients with multiple myeloma that  worsened after at least two prior treatments were given AMG420 at varying doses. A total of 13 patients responded to the treatment, including seven who achieved remission. Of the 20 patients with serious adverse events, 17 required hospitalization and four had prolonged hospitalization. Claim: Amgen antibody shows promise in myeloma trial, gets FDA fast track.


Output: Amgen Inc, updating the first trial of its bispecific antibody for multiple myeloma, said on Monday seven out of 10 patients given the second-highest dose of AMG420 responded to the drug, including four with no detectable cancer.