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 Q]: Paragraph: The bee, once widely found in the upper Midwest and Northeastern United States, was listed after U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration lifted a hold it had placed on a plan for federal protections proposed last fall by the administration of former President Barack Obama. Bumble bees are key pollinators of crops such as blueberries and cranberries, and are almost the only insect pollinator of tomatoes in the United States, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Conservation groups that had called for the new classification welcomed the move. “The listing helps mediate threats for this species and for all of those other animals out on the landscape that are suffering similar setbacks,” Rich Hatfield, senior biologist at the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, said by phone on Tuesday. The rusty patched bumble bee, or Bombus affinis, is one of 47 varieties of native bumble bees in the United States and Canada, more than a quarter of which face risk of extinction, according to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. The population and range of the bee, named for the reddish blotch on its abdomen, have declined by more than 90 percent since the late 1990s due to disease, pesticides, climate change and habitat loss, according to wildlife officials. The agency in September proposed safeguarding the bee, but the listing was delayed by Trump’s White House as part of a broader freeze on rules issued by the prior administration. Environmental advocacy group the Natural Resources Defense Council sued last month, arguing that suspending the listing without public notice or comment violated the law. The NRDC said on Tuesday it was evaluating the next steps in its legal fight. Government scientists said the delay, part of a standard review, was not expected to affect the insect’s conservation, Interior Department spokeswoman Heather Swift said in a statement on Tuesday. The agency “will work with stakeholders to ensure collaborative conservation among landowners, farmers, industry, and developers in the areas where the species is native,” she added. Bumble bees pollinate wildflowers and about a third of U.S. crops, according to the Xerces Society. A recent study by the Center for Biological Diversity found that more than 700 of the 4,000 bee species native to North America and Hawaii may be inching toward extinction. Claim: First U.S. bumble bee added to endangered species list.
[EX A]: The rusty patched bumble bee became the first wild bee in the continental United States to gain federal protection on Tuesday when it was added to the government’s list of endangered and threatened species.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The release does not mention cost. The FDA evaluates drugs without consideration of cost, so it’s understandable that they wouldn’t comment on it — and that’s why we’re rating this Not Applicable. But let’s be real here: The value of a new drug is a function not just of how well it works, but its cost-effectiveness. So we look forward to the day when any news release about a new drug — even one from the FDA — will include some mention of cost in its message. This release gives the preliminary results from a single study of 310 patients. Because the drug is experimental, long-term results haven’t been studied. Of the 310 patients enrolled in the lone trial upon which the approval is based, 14.8 percent showed some shrinkage of tumors during the assessment period lasting from 2.1 to about 13.8 months. For a subset of patients who were classified as having a positive response to PD-L1 expression, the response was 26 percent. As noted above, tumor shrinkage doesn’t always lead to improvements in survival or quality of life. It is a surrogate endpoint — a substitute — for the main outcome which is survival. Although this drug looks promising, to be fully transparent about its benefits as currently known, the release should have explained this. As noted in the “Summary,” another larger study is underway to assess the drug’s impact on extending life and improving quality of life. The release includes a description of side effects of this treatment. The most common ones included fatigue, decreased appetite, nausea, urinary tract infection, fever (pyrexia) and constipation. The release also mentions that patients taking the drug have an increased risk of infection and serious side effects that are “immune-mediated.” We would have liked a bit more context on what this term means for patients. The release outlines that this is the very first clinical trial of this compound for safety and efficacy, and under which regulatory paths the drug was assessed, including “breakthrough therapy designation, priority review status and accelerated approval.” We’re giving this release the benefit of the doubt and rating it Satisfactory for its bare bones description of the trial (and since we already addressed the lack of long-term survival data in the “Benefits” section.) As it stands, the results from the small trial were preliminary and short-term and did not reflect long-term survival. We would have liked to see a reference or link to the completed trial where one could look at the results to assess independently or learn more about the outcomes. We think the release should have provided more data on the patient demographics, the treatment regimen (dosing amount and schedule) as well as the range in tumor reduction. There is no disease mongering. This release describes the approval of a new drug by a regulatory agency, but we’d still like to know who sponsored the study that’s the basis for the approval. It’s not enough to state who markets the drug. The release does not give us very much information about alternatives. These patients had already received other therapy and their cancer had recurred, so it is implied that they had no other alternatives. But this isn’t stated very clearly. We can assume (and it seems evident) that the platinum-based therapy that the patients didn’t respond to initially is the usual treatment. The FDA’s approval of a drug clears the way for the drug sponsor to scale up production and begin marketing and selling the product. (The FDA doesn’t state this explicitly but it can be inferred.) A NYT article said the drug would be available in about two months. The release clearly states this product is first of its kind for this type of cancer. We found no unjustifiable language. Claim: FDA approves new, targeted treatment for bladder cancer
[EX A]: The Food and Drug Administration approved a new immunotherapy drug that acts as a “checkpoint” inhibitor in patients whose bladder cancer (urothelial carcinoma) has not responded to other chemotherapy. The drug, atezolizumab (marketed as Tecentriq), showed effectiveness in about 14 percent of 310 patients in a very preliminary study. The release notes that the trial measured tumor shrinkage as the main outcome. It didn’t note, as a NYT article did, and important for this type of trial, that it is unknown whether the treatment makes a difference in survival. A larger study is being done to examine this. Whether it makes a difference in quality of life is also important and will presumably be examined in the larger trial. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) estimates 76,960 new cases of bladder cancer and 16,390 deaths from this disease in 2016. This approval of a new drug for treating bladder cancer is part of a wider area of research into immunotherapy, in which drugs target mechanisms of the human immune response. Patients with the PD-L1 protein highly expressed in their tumors appear to be responding best to the drug. This drug is an example of targeted chemotherapy which is becoming more important as treatments can be fine-tuned to the cancers of individual patients. In patients with intractable cancers, immunotherapy appears to offer some new hope while also bringing sobering questions about affordability and disparity of access by income. The drugs are typically very expensive — with some estimates putting the treatment cost for a single patient as high as $1 million. When the FDA gives a compound a “breakthrough” designation, some physicians and patients can misunderstand what that means. That’s a topic recently explored in this post.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The building design is for a two-story, 16,000 square-foot addition to support current and future outpatient urgent care and mental health services. It also will offer a direct entrance with curbside access to urgent care. The addition will be next to the radiology, pharmacy and phlebotomy departments. The groundbreaking is scheduled for Friday. Construction is scheduled to start in October and is expected to take about two years. Claim: Mental health/urgent care addition planned for VA med center.
[EX A]:
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is holding a groundbreaking to kick off the construction of its new mental health/urgent care building in at the medical center in Manchester.