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: "Of more than 300 men and women who had the surgery, a third stopped playing sports entirely and 68 who were still active said they didn’t play as well as before, researchers reported in the American Journal of Sports Medicine. The anterior cruciate ligament, or ACL, is the ligament inside the knee that helps keep the joint stable. About 150,000 ACL injuries occur each year in the United States. “Less than 50 percent of the study sample had returned to playing sport at their preinjury level or returned to participating in competitive sport when surveyed at 2 to 7 years after ACL reconstruction surgery,” wrote Clare Ardern at La Trobe University in Victoria, Australia, who led the study. Ardern and her colleagues followed more than 300 men and women for two to seven years. Participants had either played Australian-rules football, basketball, netball or soccer before their surgeries. At 39 months post-surgery, 208 out of the 314 people who had the operation were still playing a sport, the researchers said. Of those 208, 68 said they played at a lower level than before their injury and 140 said they played about the same as before their injury. The remaining 106 participants either were not playing sports or did not complete the entire study. “Although almost all people returned to playing some form of sport, they did not play continuously for many years after their surgery,” Ardern told Reuters Health in an email. She also noted there may be other reasons why people stopped playing sports, such as fear of getting injured again or less confidence in performing. Of the 196 people who played competitive sports before their injury, 91 returned to their competitive sport. “This is a big injury,” said Edward McDevitt, a spokesman for the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, who was not part of the study. “Many athletes who choose surgery have a long and difficult road to face. If you’re not willing to go through it, then you might be better off just getting a brace.”   He added that while knee surgery does allow people to return to their sport, they couldn’t perform as well as doctors might wish. People who tear the ACL can either opt for physical therapy and surgery or just physical therapy alone. “Some people find that they are able to function well without surgery, provided they have adequate leg strength to support the injured knee,” Ardern said. “Other alternatives may be to avoid sports involving direction changes, jumping and landing or activities that make the knee feel unstable, or use knee braces and supports.”   McDevitt speculates that after surgery, some athletes may not have the same range of motion, preventing them from playing as before. ""I tell my patients, 'I can't make you like before, I'm not God. But I'll do the best I can to restore you back to the way you were,'"" he added. SOURCE: bit.ly/pWId18" Claim: After knee repair, half can't play sports the same.
After knee reconstruction surgery, half of people who played sports both competitively and just for fun don’t perform as well as they used to, according to an Australian study.

Paragraph: Moncef Slaoui, a former GlaxoSmithKline executive, will lead “Operation Warp Speed,” Trump’s push to accelerate the vaccine development process for COVID-19, according to an administration official. Slaoui is to serve in a volunteer capacity, and will be assisted by Army Gen. Gustave Perna, the commander of United States Army Materiel Command. The move comes as the president and White House aides hope to produce vaccines for the coronavirus faster than what many scientists believe is realistic. The administration is aiming to have 300 million doses to distribute to Americans by the end of the year, believing a reliable vaccine is the only way to promote an economic rebound. “Operation Warp Speed” is operating largely independently of the existing White House coronavirus task force, which is also shifting its focus toward vaccine development. The initiative is being promoted by White House senior adviser Jared Kushner, and involves officials from the Defense Department and the Department of Health and Human Services. On Tuesday, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the government’s top infectious disease expert, said a vaccine would not be available by the beginning of the next academic year. “The idea of having treatments available or a vaccine to facilitate re-entry of students into the fall term would be something that would be a bit of a bridge too far,” he said, “even at the top speed we’re going.” Claim: Trump to name former pharma exec as vaccine czar.
President Donald Trump is set to name a former pharmaceutical executive to lead his administration’s all-out effort to produce and distribute a coronavirus vaccine by the end of the year.

Paragraph: The CAR T-cell therapy is currently available only in clinical trials, where costs presumably aren’t an issue (a point the story might have made for readers who aren’t familiar with clinical trials). That leaves the question of how much this therapy may cost if it becomes more widely available. And this is where the story offers some valuable insight: “It is also far from clear that such a personalized approach — possibly costing hundreds of thousands of dollars — is economically viable on a large scale.” In other words, to quote the story again: “big questions surround the therapy.” The story provides a broad overview of multiple trials, rather than spending a lot of time on any specific study. That can be dicey, given variability between trial results. However, the story still manages to offer some real numbers — and grounds the benefits with qualifiers. For example, in referring to multiple trials in both adults and children, the story says that some trials have reported “remission rates of up to 90 percent.” The story then notes that “rates in other trials are considerably lower, and many patients relapse.” Elsewhere, the story quotes one researcher as saying “The treatment is great about getting people into remission but not at keeping everyone in remission.” The story then offers some information on one study by the same researcher, stating “39 of 42 patients went into complete remission. By a year, about half had relapsed.” That combination of real numbers, with a sobering qualifier, is important. What we would have liked to have seen: Along with remission discussion, some extra assessment of what the research shows on overall survival rates, and how long people on the drug can be expected to live. The story addresses potential harms. Early on, the it notes that “complications can be lethal,” and refers to a study in which several patients died due to brain swelling. Much lower down, the story refers to one patient’s “intense immune reaction that followed treatment,” involving a fever of 106 degrees Fahrenheit. Those aren’t all the risks, but it’s some of the major ones. The story makes clear that immunotherapies in general, and CAR T-cell therapies in particular, are garnering a great deal of attention in the medical research community. However, while we understand that the story is trying to get its arms around a large and growing number of clinical trials related to the therapy, it doesn’t offer much information about those trials. Readers learn that trials involve adults and children (which is an excellent point, and we’re glad the story makes it). And readers learn a little bit about the number of participants in one particular trial (as noted above, under Quantify Benefits). But readers don’t know how many relevant trials have been completed or how many are underway — much less any real detail about any given trial. The story is focused more on providing human faces to the fight against the disease. That can make for good storytelling, but it makes the story less valuable for those trying to learn more about the treatment itself, and what the limitations are of research like this where children’s lives are at stake. No disease mongering here. This is a tricky one. There are multiple sources in the article who speak to the research itself, and most of them are clearly identified as being involved with the research in some way. There appears to be at least one expert source who is not affiliated with any of the clinical trials, but that is inferred, rather than explicitly stated. What makes this tricky is that the story discusses multiple trials, without clearly identifying most of them. That makes it difficult to provide a judgment call here. When it’s a toss-up, we try to err on the side of the story, so we’ll give this a Satisfactory. The story makes a point of noting that, at present, CAR T-cell therapy is used only when all other courses of action — chemotherapy, bone marrow transplants, etc. — have failed. It’s clear from the story that this therapy is experimental, and currently available only in trials. The story is basically all about what makes this particular form of therapy novel. This story definitely involved a great deal of reporting, and does not appear to be based on a news release. Claim: This 8-year-old is free of cancer — for now — after a ‘breakthrough’ treatment

The story focuses on on the use of an experimental immunotherapy technique called CAR T-cell therapy to treat children who have been diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and who are no longer responding to conventional cancer treatments. The story does a good job of stressing that, while CAR T-cell therapy may be promising, it is far too early to determine how effective the treatment will be at keeping cancer from recurring. Important harms are made clear. Readers get the full sense of how experimental this treatment is, and how it’s a last-resort option. We do wish the story had provided more specifics on the clinical trial findings, though. The NIH estimates that there will be approximately 6,590 new cases of ALL diagnosed in the U.S. this year. The majority of those diagnosed with ALL (57%) are under the age of 20, with a median age of 15. Sixty-eight percent of those diagnosed survive at least five years. The impact of a cancer diagnosis in a child is difficult, or impossible, to quantify. In addition to the hardships the child has to endure, the diagnosis and treatment exacts an emotional toll on the family and loved ones as well. New information on treatments that can extend the lives, and quality of life, for these patients is clearly important — and affects entire families. It can be difficult to drill down into the numbers for drugs that are still undergoing clinical trials, but it is important for stories on subjects like this one to provide as much information as possible for patients, their families, and their healthcare providers. This story does many things well, but it may have done readers a greater service by focusing less on the experience of individual patients and more on the available research.