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.

Paragraph: The lawsuits were the latest by states and local governments against drugmaker Purdue Pharma as the country grapples with an opioid epidemic. About a dozen states have also targeted Richard Sackler, the company’s former leader, or members of his family. “Purdue and the Sacklers traded the health and well-being of Californians for profit and created an unprecedented national public health crisis in the process,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said at a news conference announcing the legal action by his state. “We will hold them accountable.” Becerra, echoing allegations lodged against Purdue Pharma by others attorneys general across the country, said the company falsely introduced OxyContin in the 1990s as a safe and effective treatment for chronic pain. However, the California’s lawsuit alleges that Purdue and Sackler knew in 1997 that drugs containing oxycodone, such as OxyContin, were widely abused. Still, company representatives marketed it as not being addictive and downplayed the potential for abuse, the suit states. In a statement Monday, Purdue Pharma and former directors of the company denied the allegations and vowed to defend against the “misleading attacks.” It noted that OxyContin represents less than 2% of total opioid prescriptions and is still approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for its intended use as a painkiller as prescribed by doctors and dispensed by pharmacists. “Such allegations demand clear evidence linking the conduct alleged to the harm described,” spokesman Robert Josephson said in a statement. “But we believe the state fails to show such causation and offers little evidence to support its sweeping legal claims.” A spokesman for Sackler did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The family has faced a backlash in recent years amid a growing public outcry around opioid addiction. In addition, activists have targeted institutions, such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art, that the family has supported through large contributions. The museum has said it will no longer take money from members of the family linked to the drugmaker. Purdue stopped marketing OxyContin to doctors last year. It settled a lawsuit by the state of Oklahoma in March for $270 million. The company previously said it is pursuing several options, including bankruptcy, which could upend pending litigation by states as well as about 2,000 local and tribal governments across the country. The lawsuits filed Monday allege that Purdue Pharma pushed doctors to prescribe opioids for longer periods of time at higher doses. “Our complaint alleges that their unrelenting sales visits to doctors and deceptive practices led to a marked increase in opioid prescriptions, and a corresponding increase in the number of Mainers suffering from opioid use disorder,” Maine Attorney General Aaron M. Frey said. Maine’s lawsuit names Richard Sackler, Jonathan Sackler, Mortimer D.A. Sackler and Kathe Sackler — all of whom have served on the board of Stamford, Connecticut-based Purdue Pharma. States have also cracked down on doctors who overprescribe the drug. Hawaii Attorney General Clare Connors said in a statement Monday that she has filed lawsuits alleging violations of Hawaii’s Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices Law. One complaint alleges Purdue deceptively marketed OxyContin and other opioids. Another says manufacturers and distributors sold more opioids than could be “legitimately prescribed.” Meanwhile, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said opioids are the main driver of drug overdose deaths. Opioids were involved in 47,600 overdose deaths in the U.S. in 2017, according to the agency. In 2017, it says, prescription opioids were involved in 1,172 overdose deaths in California; 100 overdose deaths in Maine; and 58 in the District of Columbia. Maine set a state record for total drug overdose deaths in 2017 with 417. Jordan Basileu joined Becerra in announcing California’s lawsuit. He said he was prescribed opioid painkillers at 18 following a car crash and became addicted. “People think, ‘it’s from a doctor. How bad can it be?’” Basileu said of the drug. Basileu said he overdosed four times before getting sober three years ago. “I’m still cleaning up the mess that opioids got me in to,” he said. ___ Associated Press reporters Adam Beam and Caleb Jones contributed to this story. Jones reported from Honolulu. Claim: More states sue opioid maker alleging deceptive marketing.
California, Hawaii, Maine and the District of Columbia filed lawsuits Monday against the maker of OxyContin and the company’s former president, alleging the firm falsely promoted the drug by downplaying the risk of addiction while it emerged as one of the most widely abused opioids in the U.S.

Paragraph: "The effort to pass a sweeping immigration law has shifted to the Republican controlled U.S. House of Representatives where it faces a much tougher challenge than it did in the Senate. Supporters say that any hope for success lies in compromise. House Republican leaders say the Senate bill falls short in significant ways, but Democrats argue that it already contains major concessions. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., a long-time advocate for immigration reform from Chicago, highlighted how much his side was willing to give up to get the Senate bill through. ""They said to immigrants, 11 million of them, they said, tell you what we're going to do: For 10 years, you pay every tax possible, but you don't get a single benefit,"" Gutierrez said on CNN’s State of the Union. Gutierrez gave some examples: Immigrants with provisional legal status would not get help paying their health insurance premiums under Obamacare, and they would get no credit for any Social Security taxes they paid during the time they worked illegally. In this fact-check, we explore the terms of the deal in the Senate bill. Are they as stark as Gutierrez presents, or is the picture more complicated? Gutierrez’s staff clarified that he was using shorthand to refer to means-tested federal benefits.That would include some of the country’s largest programs such as Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF or welfare), and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP or food stamps). What the Senate bill says The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act allows immigrants without documents to get permission to live and work in the country legally. The Social Security Administration expects that nearly three-fourths of the estimated 11.5 million people here will qualify for what is called Registered Provisional Immigrant, status, or RPI. A smaller number of agricultural workers would qualify for a separate program called the blue card. Neither program grants citizenship or permanent legal status, but they provide a pathway to both. Applicants would need to pay a fine, a fee, and pass a criminal background check to qualify for provisional status. The bill has a specific provision that goes to Gutierrez’s claim. For both RPI and blue card holders, it says, ""An alien who has been granted blue card (or RPI) status is not eligible for any Federal means-tested public benefit"" and to be clear about what those benefits are, the bill refers to a law passed about 15 years ago. In 1996, Congress defined the public benefits that undocumented immigrants couldn’t get. That law listed ""Any retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, food assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other similar benefit."" Numerous agencies have interpreted this to mean Medicaid and Medicare, SNAP, energy assistance and so forth. The Senate bill also expressly blocks immigrants with temporary status from receiving any health insurance premium subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. However, individuals can use their own money to buy their insurance through the clearinghouses called exchanges. ""Rep. Gutierrez is broadly correct, but not 100 percent,"" said Leighton Ku, a professor in the Department of Health Policy at George Washington University who analyzed immigrant use of public benefits in a paper for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. ""If they are poor enough and meet other eligibility criteria, for example, if they are a child or a low-income parent, RPIs may be eligible for emergency Medicaid, as are unauthorized immigrants."" The 1996 law built in some exceptions for immigrants without legal documents. In addition to Medicaid paying for emergency medical treatment, young children are eligible for reduced school lunch programs and standard immunizations. The Women, Infant and Children program, WIC, can subsidize grocery bills for young families. So for children, women who are pregnant or have recently delivered, and medical emergencies, current law allows benefits for the undocumented and the Senate bill does not change that. Lastly, on the tax side, the Senate bill says ""an alien may not file an application for registered provisional immigrant status ... unless the applicant has satisfied any applicable Federal tax liability."" In other words, these provisional residents must pay Uncle Sam. Regarding the 10 years Gutierrez mentioned, some immigrants under provisional status might be eligible for permanent resident status, a green card, sooner. If that happens, then they would gain access to public benefits in less than 10 years. However, both Social Security and Medicare require that a person or their spouse pay into the system for 10 years before they can claim any benefits. This applies to everyone, native born or not. And both programs are available only to citizens or permanent residents. People with provisional status would have Social Security and Medicare taxes deducted from their paychecks but would be ineligible to use those programs for 10 years. A dispute over benefits The U.S. Code defines public benefits, but there are some who say the list is incomplete. Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that favors limited immigration, said the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit provide aid to lower income workers through the tax code. A working family that owes no taxes and meets other criteria can apply and receive thousands of dollars from the government. ""Gutierrez is mistaken,"" Camarota said. ""These large programs are explicitly available to those in RPI status. Low income immigrants typically work and have children, so their use rates of these two programs are very high, as it will be for RPI folks."" Immigration reform advocates agree that provisional residents would gain from the tax credits. But Tanya Broder, senior staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center, counters that blocking their use of these credits would be a first for the tax code. ""Individuals granted RPI status are required to pay the same taxes and are subject to the same deductions from their income as all other taxpayers,"" Broder said. ""Denying them the ability to claim the EITC would create an unprecedented two-tiered tax system for lawfully present workers."" Regarding the accuracy of Gutierrez’s statement, he was using the federal definition of benefits, and while lawmakers could decide otherwise, we take current law as our guide. For many years, Camarota and others have noted that the children of undocumented immigrants born in the United States are deemed citizens and are eligible for benefits. Their family members could indirectly benefit. The Senate bill makes no change in that. Our ruling Gutierrez said that immigrants with provisional status would pay every tax and get no benefits. His staff said he was talking about means-tested benefits, and to a large extent, Gutierrez was in line with what the Senate immigration bill says. It requires unauthorized immigrants to pay taxes, and so long as they are in a provisional status, they would not be eligible for food, housing or medical assistance. There are exceptions under current law that would allow them to get some public benefits, but these are limited and in any event, the Senate bill does not change the status quo. A subset of immigrants, children brought to the country at a young age and agricultural workers, would be eligible for green cards in less than 10 years, but the majority, about 70 percent, would have to wait the full time." Claim: "Luis Gutierrez Says under the Senate immigration bill, newly legalized immigrants will ""pay every tax possible, but you don’t get a single benefit"" for 10 years."
Gutierrez said that immigrants with provisional status would pay every tax and get no benefits. His staff said he was talking about means-tested benefits, and to a large extent, Gutierrez was in line with what the Senate immigration bill says. It requires unauthorized immigrants to pay taxes, and so long as they are in a provisional status, they would not be eligible for food, housing or medical assistance. There are exceptions under current law that would allow them to get some public benefits, but these are limited and in any event, the Senate bill does not change the status quo. A subset of immigrants, children brought to the country at a young age and agricultural workers, would be eligible for green cards in less than 10 years, but the majority, about 70 percent, would have to wait the full time.

Paragraph: Again, no treatment is involved. Speculation about the relative costs of high red meat vs. high white meat diets would not be productive. The reporter does a fair job describing the study and the findings. The article includes such details as size of the study population, the duration of the study and the method of data collection. But, as already discussed, this kind of study can’t establish cause-and-effect or risk. Just statistical associations. However, once it started describing risk, it did that incompletely as well. It compaes the relative risk of death by heart disease and cancer in the highest- vs. lowest-red meat consumption groups for both men and women. But the story suffers because it describes the findings only in terms of relative risk–men who ate the most red meat had a 27 percent higher risk of dying from heart disease compared to those who ate the least, for instance. But the story fails to put these percentages into context. In the example above, about 1.2 percent of the men who ate the most red meat died of heart disease during the 10-year study, compared to .06 percent of those who ate the least red meat Looking at male deaths by all causes, about 4 percent of the red meat group died, compared to about 2 percent of the least-red-meat group. Overall, about 13 percent of study participants died during the 10-year study. This is not to suggest the findings are insignificant. But reporters should always include absolute data to help readers understand the size of the risk an individual faces. (But , as already stated, risk language was risky in this story to begin with.) The story focuses plainly on the death risks of the diets studied. However, risks are stated only in relative terms, not in absolute terms. We won’t penalize the story for that here, but we do under “quantification of benefits.” The report is based on results of a large, prospective epidemiological dietary study. The reporter mentions the important caveats: that the study group may be healthier than the general adult population, and the data is based on self-reports of eating habits, which can be unreliable. We’ve already commented on the “association does not equal causation” issue, so we won’t rule this criterion unsatisfactory for that flaw. Because the story confuses association with causation, it indeed does commit disease-mongering repeatedly. It may frighten readers into thinking that cause-and-effect has been established when, in fact, only a statistical association has been established. For example, the story says: It’s a common pitfall of such stories. Association does not equal causation. It’s not journalists who get it wrong. Scientists and physicians commonly express this incorrectly. But that doesn’t make it acceptable. Most stories we saw on this study stated this incorrectly. The reporter does an excellent job sourcing the story. Sources include The reporter gets extra points for including two industry sources. While their thoughts appear very late in the story, including them both makes the story seem–and actually be–more credible. There are no financial conflicts to report. In several places, the article appropiately indicates that limiting red meat in the diet may improve health. The reporter carefully avoids implications that more extreme options, such as a meatless diet, would cut death risk more. This is a study of subjects’ voluntary diets, so no “treatment” is involved. The story makes no claims for the novelty of this kind of research or this general finding. In the second paragraph the report states that these findings “bolster[s] prior evidence” about the risks of diets high in red meat. Given the number of sources cited, the story does not appear to rely on the Archives of Internal Medicine press release or any other news release. Claim: Study: Lots of red meat increases mortality risk

This story covers a big study that reports a statistical association between a diet high in red meat and a higher death rate. The report does a number of things well:  It indicates early on that the results support previous findings and current recommendation about red meat, while adding new data. It quotes a variety of sources, including two self-interested representives of the meat industry who question the findings. This attention to the opposition enhances rather than undercuts the report’s credibility. It translates the findings into dinner-table terms: high consumption in this study is defined as about a quarter pound hamburger per day, low is 5 ounces per week. That’s really useful to readers. The report has two significant shortcomings. The language of the story – e.g., “lots of red meat increases mortality risk” – suggests that cause-and-effect has been established when this kind of observational study simply CAN NOT establish causation. It can only point to statistical association. The story never made that clear. So even discussing “risk” is an overstatement. Then, when choosing to discuss “risk,” it used only relative data [“a 22 percent lower risk of death” by cancer for low-red eaters, for example], not the absolute data [1.3 percent compared to .06 percent]. But once the story started using “risk” terminology without explaining that cause-and-effect and risk cannot be firmly established by such a study, it had already missed the mark. We know we hold the bar high with this expectation that stories explain the quality of the evidence. But it is not simply splitting hairs; it is inaccurate to use language that does not fit the evidence. Journalists and should consumers should review the excellent guest column by Mark Zweig and Emily DeVoto, entitled “Does The Language Fit the Evidence? – Association Versus Causation.” One of our medical editors wrote to me about this topic: “I can tell you, the average practicing physician (one of the presumed target audiences for the medical literature) has a less than firm grasp of this difference! I have been teaching evidence-based medicine for years, and it seems that our residents finally get this by the end, but I don’t think it’s a skill that was routinely taught in medical training before the past decade or two, nor one that sticks with most docs.” None of this denigrates the importance of the study or the quality of the work. But all studies have limitations and news about research should explain those limitations.