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.

Example Input: Paragraph: Once an illness is added to the list of approved conditions, the board cannot remove it because state law does not give the board authority to do so, according to board spokeswoman Tessie Pollock. Petitions will be reviewed early next year. AIDS, Alzheimer’s disease, and Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS, are among the 21 current approved illnesses, along with cancer, epilepsy, glaucoma and Parkinson’s disease. Earlier this year the board rejected petitions seeking to add anxiety and autism spectrum disorders as qualifying conditions. The board will for the first time open up a public comment period, beginning after its Jan. 8 meeting, said executive director Stephanie Louka. Final decisions on new accepting conditions would come after several months. ___ This story was first published on Dec. 25, 2019. It was updated on Dec. 27, 2019, to correct the name of the State Medical Board of Ohio spokeswoman. She is Tessie Pollock, not Tessa Pollock. It was also updated to clarify that the board says state law does not give it the authority to remove conditions from the list of approved conditions for which doctors can recommend medical marijuana to patients. Claim: Board to consider new conditions for medical marijuana use.
Example Output: The state Medical Board is accepting new petitions through the end of the year from those seeking to add illnesses as qualifying conditions for physicians to recommend medical marijuana to Ohio patients, cleveland.com reported.

Example Input: Paragraph: There were nearly 1,000 drug-related deaths in Scotland last year. Correct, there were 934 registered in 2017. The UK has the highest death rate in the EU from drugs. Estonia had the highest rate of drug-related deaths per million people aged 15 to 64 in the EU, based on research using data from 2015 and 2016. The UK placed joint-third alongside Ireland. Scotland’s drug-related death rate is the highest in the EU. Correct if you compare Scotland to a league table of EU sovereign countries. This is based on a comparison of the drug-related death rate per million people aged 15 to 64 in 2015 and 2016. Claim 1 of 4 Claim: Scotland’s drug-related death rate is the highest in the EU.
Example Output: Correct if you compare Scotland to a league table of EU sovereign countries. This is based on a comparison of the drug-related death rate per million people aged 15 to 64 in 2015 and 2016.

Example Input: Paragraph: The story frames the discussion in terms of income to the company, but doesn’t address the costs to patients or society. The story said the estimated market for a drug that could alter the course of Alzheimer’s “could be worth more than $10 billion in yearly sales.” Some discussion of the cost to society of treating Alzheimer’s would have been a good addition. Or, the story could have explored the cost per patient using the potential revenue estimates to give readers a sense of how much a drug like this might cost. There was no mention of the size of the benefit observed. A STAT news story on this same trial noted that the study failed to meet its primary endpoint, which means the trial failed. As in many past Alzheimer’s drug trials, the company found positive results only in a sub-group of patients. As we’ve written previously, in larger subsequent studies, the drugs have all failed. The story said reported side effects included reactions at the sites of the infusion and swelling around blood vessels observed with brain imaging, and that the companies “said they plan to present the results in detail at [an] academic conference.” The story could have been clearer on how common these side effects are and how serious they were. According to the companies’ news release, infusion-related reactions “were mostly mild to moderate in severity. Incidence of ARIA-E (edema) was not more than 10% in any of the treatment arms, and less than 15% in patients with … the highest dose per the study protocol safety and reporting procedures.” These are concerning potential harms for which no one knows the long-term consequences. Cautions were given early and often about the uncertainty of the evidence. For example, a secondary headline cautioned it’s “too soon to say drug marks real advance,” while the lead mentioned that “a string of failures shadow the efforts” to develop a treatment for Alzheimer’s. The second paragraph further tempered expectations: Alzheimer’s has proved an especially tough drug target. Approved therapies only relieve symptoms temporarily, and one experimental treatment after another promising to stymie the neurodegeneration has ultimately failed to work. Some pharmaceutical companies, after costly failures, pulled out. Also mentioned high in the story was the data were preliminary and based on “a mid-stage study looking for the right dose.” Further down readers were informed of uncertainties around outcomes measures and analytical methods and the need for independent review. There was no disease-mongering. The story offered some perspective on the impact of the the disease: “An estimated 5.7 million Americans live with Alzheimer’s, a figure expected to rise as the population ages, the Alzheimer’s Association says.” In addition to business analysts, the story quoted Lon S. Schneider, an Alzheimer’s researcher at the University of Southern California’s Keck School of Medicine, who “warned against reading too much” into the announced results. The story mentioned there are 126 therapies in clinical development, according to  the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, with beta amyloid being the most common drug target being tested in human trials. It also mentioned approved therapies that “only relieve symptoms temporarily.” There is also evidence that a healthy lifestyle can be of benefit to people at risk for Alzheimer’s and those with early symptoms. The story made clear this drug is still in development. The story explained that this is one of many attempts to find a treatment for Alzheimer’s. The story didn’t rely on the companies’ news release. Claim: Drugmakers Call Experimental Alzheimer’s Drug Study Positive
Example Output:
This story covered the announcement of “positive” early results for an experimental Alzheimer’s drug called BAN2401, an antibody that attacks beta-amyloid clumps, and which appeared to trigger a surge in the stock prices of two companies developing the drug. The story did an exemplary job of tempering positive spin from the get-go, with cautions in the headline and lead about the financial interests at stake, past failures of Alzheimer’s treatments, and need for more data. It also alluded to the huge potential market for any drug that could arrest or cure Alzheimer’s. Business stories about unproven treatments must explain the news driving investors without creating false hopes for patients. That can be a tall order. Alzheimer’s — which has no cure or treatment to stop its progression — is a particularly good example of an area where business stories can elevate expectations of vulnerable patients and their families, only to see them dashed when fuller data becomes available.