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: Health officials confirmed six mumps cases earlier this month at McHenry County Jail, which contracts space to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In a Wednesday letter the Democrats cite “serious concern” about conditions and urge a “thorough and urgent” policy review. The group seeks details on the outbreak. They are U.S. Reps. Jesus Garcia and Lauren Underwood and U.S. Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth. ICE officials say each detainee receives a medical examination upon arrival at the facility. Immigration and health officials have previously said the infected detainees were isolated and those exposed were quarantined. Mumps is a contagious virus causing swollen glands, puffy cheeks, fever and, potentially, hearing loss and meningitis. Claim: Senators urge review after mumps cases at immigrant center.

A: Congressmen and senators from Illinois are urging a review of health policies after a mumps outbreak at a northern Illinois county jail that houses immigrant detainees.
****
Q: Paragraph: Given that this is an illegal substance banned by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, cost as a therapeutic would be difficult to ascertain. We liked that the story took pains to explain that approval of this drug faces many hurdles. This is a tough one. While the story tells us what percentage of patients benefited from treatment, it does not, in fact, quantify the extent of those benefits–which is precisely what this category is designed to assess. However, the story does do a good–and thorough–job of describing the benefits in qualitative terms. That said, if the story had only chosen one or two examples of changes in the standardized measures of depression or anxiety, this would have received an enthusiastic “Satisfactory” rating. One strong word of caution though: The story cites one source as saying that psilocybin may one day be used to treat a wide range of mental health issues ranging from drug addiction to obsessive-compulsive disorder. The story offers no evidence to support these claims, which were made by a source associated with an organization that exists specifically to promote research on hallucinogens. Substantial claims require substantial evidence. The story would have been much stronger if it had eliminated the unsubstantiated remarks from the source — particularly since they had no bearing on the subject of the story. The story addresses this issue thoroughly. Well done. The story does a good job of both describing the design of the studies and explaining why the study design is relevant. For example, the story notes: “But both [studies] were considered to be double-blind placebo trials — the gold-standard of medical research in which subjects are left to guess whether they have gotten the active study drug or an inactive lookalike.” This is the sort of thing we like to see. However, we did want to note that in the NYU study, researchers did state in the limitations section that there was “limited blinding” — how did that possibly affect the outcomes? No disease mongering here. However, the story should have been more cautious about claims of benefit for conditions ranging far beyond the scope of the research at hand, which focused on mental health problems among people with advanced cancer. The story clearly states who funded the studies, and what that organization’s long-term goals are. Further, the story clearly identified individuals quoted in the story who have ties to the studies or the funding organization. Lastly, the story incorporates input from an independent expert. However, the story would have been stronger if there had been a skeptical take on the research, which saw in some other coverage, such as this New York Times piece. The story does not address other treatment options for anxiety or depression, such as talk therapy or other pharmaceutical interventions. The story does a good job here. For example, the story notes: “[F]inding drugs like psilocybin effective is by no means the final hurdle to their widespread availability. None are currently in production, and no for-profit pharmaceutical company would likely invest millions of dollars to bring to market a pill intended effectively for one-time use.” Well done. This is a close call. The story does do a good job of placing the work in context in regard to overall research involving hallucinogens. That’s enough to earn it a “Satisfactory” rating. However, the story doesn’t mention any of the work done in the past 10 years on the use of psilocybin specifically to address anxiety in cancer patients, such as this 2007 study, this one from 2011, or this one from 2013. Are the results from the two new studies consistent with these earlier findings? Do they differ in a meaningful way? That would be good to know. The story does not appear to rely on a news release. Claim: Ingredient in magic mushrooms is shown to ease anxiety and depression in cancer patients in one dose

A: The story focuses on two recent studies that find a single application of the hallucinogen psilocybin is effective at providing meaningful relief to cancer patients suffering from severe depression or anxiety. The studies were published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology, and can be found here and here. In some ways, the story is thorough, addressing potential side effects and conflicts of interest very well. The story discusses the potential benefits in depth, which is good, but fails to quantify those benefits — which is problematic. The story also does a good job of placing the work in context, highlighting the increasing profile of research into the use of hallucinogens as therapeutic tools for mental health problems. However, the story would have been even stronger if it had discussed the existing literature on the use of psilocybin to address anxiety in cancer patients. We also reviewed two news releases related to the research:   Depression and other mental health struggles are common and significant among people with cancer, especially terminal cancer. This makes it especially important for reporters to write responsibly about studies like those discussed in this story. You want to give readers enough information to help them make informed decisions. You don’t want to raise false hopes, or sensationalize the work. Overall, this story does a nice job of handling a delicate subject well.
****
Q: Paragraph: "The story does not mention the cost of the test. Since most costs will be covered by the patient and not by the insurance company, this is vital information for the consumer. The story adequately quantifies the benefits of treatment. Because this study had no control group, there is no way to directly compare screening to no screening – and the story explains that. Furthermore, the story rightly points out that the study looked at survival at 10 years as the outcome (although the study only followed patients for an average of 3 years and 10-year survival was estimated), not mortality, leaving open the question about whether or not screening actually extends life or if it only pushes forward the time of diagnosis (a situation known as lead-time bias). The story mentions that abnormal scans can lead to biopsies and that the scans may pick up cancers that ""grow so slowly they will never pose a health problem."" The story should have also mentioned radiation exposure as a potential harm and described the consequences of false positive test results. The story adequately describes the design of the current study and, very appropriately, points out the limitations – that is, lack of controls and the use of 10-year survival as an outcome instead of mortality. These are very important caveats. By accurately describing the prevalence and seriousness of lung cancer, the story avoids disease mongering. The story quotes multiple independent sources, providing much needed balance in the story. The story mentions x-rays and no screening as alternatives to CT scanning. The story does not discuss if the lung cancer screenings are available, or how widely available the screening scanners may be. The story should have mentioned that the tests are being advertised by private screening centers and some hospitals, but are not generally covered by insurance. The story states that screening for lung cancer is not a new idea, but that screening with CAT scan is relatively new. Because the story quotes multiple independent sources, the reader can assume the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information." Claim: Cancer Study Finds Promise in CAT Scans for Smokers

A:
"This story reports on the results of a study on lung cancer screening published this week in the New England Journal of Medicine. Lung cancer is a common and deadly disease that can be effectively treated if caught early. Unfortunately by the time symptoms appear it is often too late for treatment to be effective. It would seem, therefore, that lung cancer would be a prime target for screening, much in the way that we already screen for breast cancer. On the surface, this study appears to indicate that all people at ""high risk"" (current or former smokers) could benefit from screening. But the reality is that the question of whether screening for lung cancer is effective remains to be answered. This story does a good job of representing what this new study tells us while providing the reader with the information needed to critically evaluate its usefulness. The story adequately quantifies the benefits of treatment. Because this study had no control group, there is no way to directly compare screening to no screening, and the story explains that. Furthermore, the story rightly points out that the study looked at survival at 10 years as the outcome (although the study only followed patients for an average of 3 years and 10-year survival was estimated), not mortality, leaving open the question about whether or not screening actually extends life or if it only pushes forward the time of diagnosis (a situation known as lead-time bias). The story mentions that abnormal scans can lead to biopsies and that the scans may pick up cancers that ""grow so slowly they will never pose a health problem."" The story should have also mentioned radiation exposure as a potential harm and described the consequences of false positive test results. The story does not discuss if the lung cancer screenings are available, or how widely available the screening scanners may be. The story should have mentioned that the tests are being advertised by private screening centers and some hospitals, but are not generally covered by insurance. The story also does not mention the cost of the test. Since most costs will be covered by the patient and not by the insurance company, this is vital information for the consumer."
****