instruction:
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.
question:
Paragraph: No mention of the cost of treatment. This is important if the surgery is not a permanent fix for acute sinusitis. Repeated operations and continued medications need to be compared to cost for traditional surgery. No quantitative estimate of the benefits of the new procedure. There was a study of 10 people that found “no safety concerns”, but readers should be told more about this very small group. What were the long term outcomes and did these patients eventually have to have further sinuplasty, more invasive surgery or continue to take medications to relieve sinusitits? The story mentions that a larger, randomized trial is underway to better understand the risks and benefits of sinuplasty compared to medication and traditional sinus surgery. Mentions that more information is needed and no one knows if balloon sinuplasty works as well as the more traditional surgical option for chronic sinusitis. Mentions that general anesthesia is still needed for balloon procedure and this comes with its own set of health risks. There isn’t much evidence for the story to report. The story did stress the importance of a randomized trial underway comparing medication, traditional sinus surgery and the newer balloon sinuplasty. Story describes this trial and the need for further evidence before this new procedure can be widely recommended. Mentions that this procedure should not have been FDA approved with so little quality evidence. No evidence of disease mongering. The story mentions that this procedure would be for chronic, not acute sinunitis and describes how these are different. Good balance of information on treatment options with input from otolaryngologists not affliated with the makers of the device who are able to provide perspective on the new procedure. They mention that further study is needed. There is a note that one of the physicans studying the new sinuplasty has no financial ties to Acclarent, maker of the balloon devices used in this type of sinuplasty. Mentions that this form of sinuplasty is not for everybody and that it may not prevent the need for more comprehensive surgery in which bone and tissue are removed. There is mention of other options including medication and the more traditional surgery, which is decribed as highly effective, but with a painful recovery and side effects such as scar tissue. Quantification of the incidence of this and other side effects of traditional surgery would be useful. The story is clear that the FDA approved the device but that it still needs to undergo further study via randomized controlled trials. Story mentions that this is a new procedure only offerred by 100 doctors. This story is a blananced presentation of sinuplasty and the information here does not appear to be from a press release. The are quotes from otolaryngologists not affliated with the makers of the device who are able to provide perspective on the new sinuplasty procedure. Claim: A balloon instead of a knife: Sinuplasty for ailing sinuses
answer:
This story provides a good balance of information on a new treatment option for chronic sinusitis, and there is corroboration with otolaryngologists not affiliated with the makers of the balloon device who are able to provide perspective on the procedure. The story clearly notes this procedure would be for chronic, not acute sinusitis and describes how these are different. The story explains that this form of sinuplasty is not for everybody, and that it may not prevent the need for more comprehensive surgery in which bone and inflamed tissue are removed to open the sinus passages. More information is needed on the safety and efficacy of balloon sinuplasty, and no one knows if this surgery works as well as traditional surgery for chronic sinusitis. The story mentions other options for treating chronic sinusitis, including medication and sinus surgery, which is described as highly effective, but with a painful recovery and side effects such as scar tissue. Quantification of the incidence of side effects with traditional surgery would be useful. While there is not much quantitative evidence available on the new procedure, the story stresses the importance of a randomized trial underway comparing medication, traditional sinus surgery and the newer balloon sinuplasty. There is adequate description of this trial and the need for further evidence before this new procedure can be widely recommended. There is a caveat that this procedure should not have been FDA approved with so little quality evidence: a study of 10 people that found “no safety concerns”, but readers should be told more about this very small group. What were the long term outcomes and did these patients eventually have to undergo further sinuplasty, more invasive surgery or continue to take medications to relieve their chronic sinusitis? The story explains that general anesthesia is still needed for the balloon procedure and this comes with its own set of health risks and additional costs. There is no mention of the cost of this newer procedure. This is important information if the surgery is not a permanent fix for chronic sinusitis. A cost comparison of the newer sinuplasty, which may require repeated operations, sinus medications and traditional surgery is needed.


question:
Paragraph: Keytruda is already approved as a cost-effective treatment in melanoma and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence also on Dec. 2 approved its use in the treatment of lung cancer patients who had started on chemotherapy, after Merck & Co cut the price further for the NHS. But trial data so far on the survival benefit of Keytruda as an initial lung cancer treatment has not been reliable enough,   according to NICE’s draft guidance, which will be subject to public consultation until 21 March. “The exact size of the overall survival gain for Keytruda compared to the current standard of care was uncertain because of the immaturity of the data,” a NICE spokeswoman said. Keytruda has proved effective in fighting non-small cell lung cancer in patients with high levels of a protein called PD-L1, which makes them more receptive to immunotherapy. The average cost of a course of treatment in Britain is around 29,000 pounds ($36,000) at the full list price but the NHS will pay less after getting a confidential discount. ($1 = 0.8042 pounds) Claim: UK rejects Merck's Keytruda as initial treatment for lung cancer.
answer:
Britain’s healthcare watchdog NICE, which assesses the cost-effectiveness of medical treatments, has stopped short of recommending the use by the National Health Service (NHS) of Merck & Co Inc’s immunotherapy drug Keytruda in newly diagnosed lung cancer patients, after giving the go-ahead in December for patients who had prior treatment.


question:
Paragraph: "While making a case for abstinence-only sex education, the right-leaning Texas Eagle Forum recently declared that sex isn't a mandated topic in Texas schools. The group states in its March 11 ""News & Notes"" e-mail blast: ""In Texas, schools do not even have to teach sex education."" Teaching the birds and bees, optional? ""In my understanding, it's a local level decision,"" said Pat Carlson of Fort Worth, the forum's Texas president. She pointed us to the state's education code, which requires each school district's board of trustees to establish a local school health advisory council, with at least five members, including parents, clergy and law enforcement officials. The council makes recommendations on the health curriculum taught in the district's schools. An excerpt from the law: ""Any course materials and instruction relating to human sexuality, sexually transmitted diseases, or human immunodeficiency virus or acquired immune deficiency syndrome shall be selected by the board of trustees with the advice of the local school health advisory council."" The law further states that ""before each school year, a school district shall provide written notice to a parent of each student enrolled in the district of the board of trustees' decision regarding whether the district will provide human sexuality instruction to district students."" Whether the district will provide human sexuality instruction? That doesn't sound like a requirement. However, schools do have to follow the state board of education's curriculum standards — Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills — according to a spokeswoman at the Texas Education Agency, which oversees primary and secondary public education. And that curriculum requires health teachers to teach sex education at appropriate grade levels. The state's guidelines for health classes state that in grades 9-10, for example, ""the student analyzes the relationship between unsafe behaviors and personal health and develops strategies to promote resiliency throughout the life span."" The student is expected to explore ""the relationship between the use of refusal skills and the avoidance of unsafe situations such as sexual abstinence... the importance and benefits of abstinence as it relate to emotional health and the prevention of pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases... discuss abstinence from sexual activity as the only method that is 100 percent effective in preventing pregnancy,"" and so forth. On the one hand, it sounds like local school districts can opt out of teaching sex ed. On the other, it sounds like they're required to spell out the particulars. There's another wrinkle. Last year, state lawmakers voted to no longer require high-school students to take a health course to graduate. But a TEA spokeswoman told us schools are still required to offer the course. Confused? Apparently, so is the state education agency. ""It's clear as mud, "" said David Anderson, the agency's legal counsel. ""There is some ambiguity that a school district has to teach parts of the state curriculum about human sexuality."" Anderson explained the history of this issue this way: ""When the curriculum was first written in 1995 — foundation curriculum and enrichment curriculum — and districts had to teach all of the foundation curriculum, like algebra, they did not have to teach every part of the enrichment curriculum. That's where health was."" Anderson noted that Attorney General Dan Morales issued an advisory opinion in 1998 stating that local school districts control the teaching of human sexuality in any enrichment curriculum (fine arts, foreign languages, technology, and health and physical education) — meaning school districts could choose not to teach sex ed. Anderson said lawmakers later amended state law to require districts to teach everything spelled out in state curriculum standards. Despite that change, Anderson said, local districts still control what — if anything — is taught about human sexuality. ""It's at least an open question if a school board is required to teach some part of the health curriculum which some people might regard as sex education,"" Anderson said. ""My guess is districts are making their (sex education) decisions locally and people are happy with that."" The only unquestioned mandate that school districts must meet, said Anderson, is the parenting and paternity awareness program taught as part of high-school health classes. He added, ""But I'm not sure everyone would think that means sex ed."" We asked the attorney general's office to weigh in. Its spokesman, Jerry Strickland, declined, saying: ""We don't provide legal opinions lightly; because of that, this would truly be an issue for TEA."" When we asked Anderson plainly if schools are required to teach sex education, he said: ""It's not a yes or no answer."" How's this for clarity? If the responsible state agency cannot answer ""yes,"" there is no requirement." Claim: In Texas, schools do not even have to teach sex education.
answer:

Texas Eagle Forum says Texas schools don't have to teach sex education