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 Input:
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

Ex Output:
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.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: The article states that acupuncture costs $45 to $100 per session. It does not say how this compares to other treatments and whether the cost of care is the same, more or less than alternatives. The story states the proportion of patients who successfully responded to each therapy, and clearly explains that “real” acupuncture was no better than sham needling. But it does not define success or otherwise quantify how much people improved clinically in either relative or absolute terms. For a treatment to be considered successful, a patient must have reported either a 33% improvement in pain or as little as a 12% improvement in function during an interview conducted over the telephone 6 months after enrollment. Nonethless we’ll grade this criterion as satisfactory. The story did not mention harms from any of the treatments patients received. Previous research suggests that acupuncture poses few risks when performed with sterile, disposable needles. The article describes the largest randomized controlled trial to date investigating the effectiveness of acupuncture for treating chronic low back pain, and reports its published results. It discusses the three treatment groups studied and potential reasons for the outcomes observed. There are no obvious elements of disease mongering. The story explains that the study participants were people with chronic low back pain. These results wouldn’t apply to other back pain conditions. The article cites one of the study’s coauthors and two physicians who appear to be users and/or proponents of complementary therapies. It would have been interesting to hear from a skeptical observer. The story lists the therapies received by patients assigned to the conventional medicine group. The literature suggests that these treatments generally provide very modest benefits. The article does not mention other therapies that may be effective for managing chronic pain and improving flexibility and strength. These include cognitive therapy alone or in combination with intensive exercise and strengthening. Acupuncture is estimated to be the third most popular complementary therapy for chronic low back pain. Though the article does not say much about its availability, readers are likely to be familiar with it. The story notes that this is the largest study yet of acupuncture for chronic back pain, suggesting that the treatment is not new. There is no obvious use of text from a press release. Claim: Acupuncture, real or fake, called best for lower back pain

Ex Output:
This article reports on the largest randomized controlled trial to date investigating the effectiveness of acupuncture for treating chronic low back pain. It explains that both acupuncture and sham needling are more effective than conventional medical therapies, but that “fake acupuncture works nearly as well as the real thing.”       In addition to describing the quality of the evidence, the story mentions several other treatment options, tells the reader the cost of acupuncture, and hints at its novelty. The story neglects to mention harms. (A recent systematic review reinforces the study’s finding that acupuncture poses few risks; see Spine 2005;30:944-63). And it also provides an incomplete picture of the treatment’s apparent benefits. Although it notes the proportion of patients who improved with each therapy, it does not define success or otherwise quantify how much people improved clinically–in either relative or absolute terms. For a treatment to be considered successful, for example, a patient could have reported as little as a 12% improvement in function during an interview conducted over the telephone 6 months after enrollment. This is important information if people are to weigh the apparent benefit of a therapy against its cost. The article cites one of the study’s coauthors and two physicians who appear to be users and/or proponents of complementary therapies. They attempt to explain why needling seems to work. To provide some balance, the study’s coauthor suggests that the apparent benefit could merely be the result of patients’ expectations of improvement from acupuncture, on the one hand, and of poor results from conventional medicine on the other. (Unfortunately, the researchers did not measure patients’ expectations.) It would have been interesting to hear from others. Some might point out that the new study shows that acupuncture and sham needling are only more effective than treatments that are not themselves very effective. Others might make the case that acupuncture provides no specific treatment effect and is unethical to use—because it could be construed as prescribing a placebo. People with chronic low back pain are desperate for anything that will help. When a large new study provides apparently strong evidence to buttress a therapy that previously had little high-quality evidence to support it, readers might also benefit from more context. A major systematic review that analyzed 35 randomized trials involving 2861 patients recently concluded that acupuncture appears to confer modest, short-term pain relief, but that the quality of the studies was not very good. The reviewers were careful not to overstate the benefits of acupuncture (Spine 2005;30:944-63). Overall, this was a good article that would have been helped by some more context.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: The Republican lawmaker’s proposal is similar to legislation introduced recently in Florida and Alabama, while limiting its availability to a handful of medical research facilities. Peake’s interest in the issue was prompted by a constituent’s 4-year-old daughter, who suffers from a seizure disorder. “When I saw her, she reminded me so much of my granddaughter, who is about the same age,” said Peake. “It made me realize that if this was my child or my grandchild, I’d be moving heaven and earth to get this legislation passed to provide some hope and relief to these families.”  Medical marijuana in various forms is currently legal in 20 states, and at least 10 other states are considering legalizing it, including Florida, Alabama, Kentucky and Tennessee, said Erik Altieri, spokesman for the Washington-based pro-marijuana group, NORML. “Traditionally, this was the realm of Democratic lawmakers. But we’re beginning to see a lot more Republicans get behind this issue,” he said. “It really seems like finally, legislators are catching up with the will of the people.”  None of the 20 states where medical marijuana is currently legally available are in the south, Altieri said. If the Georgia medical marijuana bill is enacted, patients would not be able to obtain the drug from their corner drugstore, Peake said. The drugs would be dispensed by five university research centers in the state. Georgia law already allows medical marijuana to be prescribed at medical research facilities for cancer patients and to relieve eye pressure for glaucoma sufferers, though a state board has never been authorized to administer the program, according to Peake. In Alabama, a bill called Carly’s law, initiated to help a toddler with violent seizures was filed in the first days of the 2014 Alabama Legislative session that convened January 14. The bill, which is still in committee review, also makes it legal to possess a prescribed medical grade extract known as cannabidiol, or CBD, which is non-intoxicating. Florida lawmakers are also considering legalizing CBD, which has shown promising results for controlling seizures. The strain is low in TCH, the psychoactive compound that gives users the feeling of being high. The product has no value to traditional marijuana consumers and comes as an oil. Passage of the bill in Georgia would be tough, said Peake, but added it had the key backing of the Medical Association of Georgia (MAG). The association’s president William Silver told Reuters that MAG supported marijuana use for medicinal purposes in academic settings. Claim: Georgia bill would seek limited access to medical marijuana strain.

Ex Output:

Georgia state representative Allen Peake introduced a bill on Tuesday that would legalize a non-psychoactive strain of marijuana strictly limited to patients with severe seizure disorders.