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: Shares of the company traded marginally down at $132.47, after having closed up 1.7% on Monday. (bit.ly/2ZkZGze)    J&J said that the FTC had issued a “civil investigative demand,” or CID, the equivalent of a subpoena to determine if the contracting practices were legal. Pfizer Inc filed a lawsuit against J&J in 2017, saying its rival’s contracts with health insurers for blockbuster rheumatoid arthritis drug, Remicade, were anticompetitive and aimed at blocking sales of Pfizer’s biosimilar called Inflectra. Pfizer said in the lawsuit that J&J had contracted with many insurers to give discounts in exchange for giving preference to Remicade, and to only pay for Inflectra in cases where Remicade proved to be ineffective. Inflectra was approved in 2016 while Remicade went on the market in 1998. Remicade is an infused treatment for chronic autoimmune disorders and costs about $4,000 per dose, or $26,000 a year, Pfizer said in the lawsuit. J&J has denied any wrongdoing and is fighting the Pfizer lawsuit. Pfizer said in a statement that it had received a CID in June. “As Pfizer’s complaint alleges, J&J’s unlawful conduct is designed to prevent Inflectra from being able to compete on its primary point of differentiation – price. Today, Inflectra has an average selling price (ASP) that is more than 22% lower than Remicade,” the company said in a statement. “Despite these facts, J&J has not lost substantial volume or share of sales – counter to what should occur in a competitive market.”  Biosimilars are intended to be lower-cost alternatives to expensive biotech medicines. But since they are made from living cells and it is not possible to make an exact copy of the branded medicine, they are not automatically substituted for the existing branded drug the way a generic drug would be. The drugs treat ailments like rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Claim: J&J says FTC probing efforts to protect arthritis drug Remicade.
[EX A]: The Federal Trade Commission issued civil subpoenas to Johnson and Johnson in June as part of an investigation into whether contracting practices for its blockbuster rheumatoid arthritis drug, Remicade, violated antitrust laws, the company said in a regulatory filing on Monday.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: We’ll rule this not applicable because, in general, most people have ballpark knowledge of how much chocolate costs. The story did not mention that dark chocolate is typically more expensive than milk chocolate — especially for the premium brands with very high concentrations of cocoa solids. A brief explanation would have been helpful. The story went the extra mile here, providing the absolute rates of stroke seen in the groups consuming the lowest and highest quantities of chocolate. “Among those with the highest weekly chocolate intake — more than 45 grams — there were 2.5 strokes per 1,000 women per year. That figure was 7.8 per 1,000 among women who ate the least (less than 8.9 grams per week).” These statistics weren’t provided in the study text, suggesting that the writer made the calculations based on data contained in one of the study tables. We applaud the extra effort made to provide meaningful statistics to readers! Close call here, but the story goes a step further than WebMD when discussing the possible adverse effects of consuming too much chocolate. In addition to warning that chocolate has a lot of fat, sugar and calories, it explicitly notes that eating too much of it “could be counterproductive.” WebMD offers no comparable warning and suggests that eating more chocolate than was consumed in this study would result in similar health benefits. This story was much more cautious in its depiction of the findings than the competing WebMD coverage. Most important, it was careful to explain high up that the study found only a correlation between chocolate intake and lower stroke risk. As one of the study authors explains: “Given the observational design of the study, findings from this study cannot prove that it’s chocolate that lowers the risk of stroke.” We also appreciate the story’s more nuanced language regarding which constituents of chocolate might be responsible for possible benefits. Whereas WebMD states unequivocally that flavonoids and antioxidants “deserve the credit” for these benefits, Reuters says more judiciously that  flavonoids “may be responsible for chocolate’s apparent effects on health.” [Emphasis ours.] “Whether that theoretical benefit translates into real-life benefits remains to be proven by rigorous studies, however,” Reuters appropriately adds. There was no disease-mongering. This was the only major shortcoming — no independent perspective. An expert in epidemiology might have pointed out, for example, that the data on chocolate consumption were collected from subject self-reports, and therefore should be viewed cautiously. The availability of chocolate is not in question. The story appropriately notes that there is a stronger statistical association with dark chocolate as opposed to milk chocolate. The story notes that previous research has linked higher levels of chocolate consumption with improved heart health. The story includes comments attributed to a direct email from one of the study authors, so we can confirm our overall impression that this story wasn’t based on a press release. Claim: Chocolate lovers have fewer strokes, study finds
[EX A]: Starting with the headline, this story is careful to explain that the study observed fewer strokes in those who ate more chocolate; it doesn’t suggest that the chocolate prevented strokes. It also features excellent use of statistics, a more explicit description of potential harms, and mentions alternative approaches to prevention. The only major shortcoming was a lack of an independent perspective on the findings. Some journalists may balk at our insistence that stories about observational studies include appropriate discussion of the limitations of the evidence. In only 378 words, this story provides another example that this can be done – and it doesn’t require the length of a full medical journal article to do so.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) rejected Lemtrada for launch in the world’s biggest drug market on the grounds that Genzyme had not shown its benefits outweighed its “serious adverse effects”, Sanofi said on Monday. The FDA also demanded Sanofi carry out further clinical trials using different designs and methods prior to approval, Sanofi said. The company said it strongly disagreed with the decision and planned to appeal. The FDA ruling could impact the value of Sanofi’s Genzyme takeover, since the latter’s shareholders had received so-called contingent value rights (CVRs) entitling them to future payments of up to $14 a share if certain goals were met. The CVRs, which are traded in the United States under their own stock market quote, slumped 63 percent to an all-time low of 30 cents. They were worth $2.10 in October, but tumbled the following month after a review by an advisory panel to the FDA raised questions over the design of the clinical trial and Lemtrada’s potential to cause cancer and other conditions. Shares in Sanofi were down 0.9 percent at 75.88 euros at 1522 GMT, the biggest losers in a flat CAC 40. Germany’s Bayer, which has an option to co-promote Lemtrada in the United States, saw its shares fall 1 percent. Sanofi said on Monday it did not expect to meet the CVR milestone of U.S. approval for Lemtrada by the end of March. Other milestones are related to the drug’s sales and would likely be hard to reach without the U.S. market. Analysts on average had expected Lemtrada to generate annual sales of $707 million by 2018, according to forecasts compiled by Thomson Reuters. “Genzyme’s takeover was about catching up in biologics, having a greater footprint in the United States, and also largely for Lemtrada,” said Eric Le Berrigaud, analyst at Bryan Garnier & Co. “This is unquestionably a setback, as without a U.S. market such a product doesn’t have the same potential.”  The brokerage, which had forecast peak Lemtrada sales of $400 million in the United States, said it was scrapping the U.S. market from its forecasts. It argued it would take Sanofi at least three years to conduct the studies demanded by the FDA, and that, given an increasingly crowded market for MS drugs, it could opt out of what could be a lengthy and costly process. But Renaud Murail, a fund manager at Barclays Bourse, said Monday’s development was no big surprise for investors who had already factored in the risk of U.S. rejection. “Genzyme remains Sanofi’s gem and this is only a half-defeat,” he said. A U.S. law firm acting on behalf of purchasers of the CVRs has launched a class action alleging Sanofi misled investors over Lemtrada’s efficacy, safety and prospects. A Sanofi spokesman said it was reviewing the FDA letter and evaluating its next steps, including the appeal timeline. Genzyme chief David Meeker said: “We strongly believe that the clinical development program, which was designed to demonstrate how Lemtrada compares against an active comparator as opposed to placebo, provides robust evidence of efficacy and a favorable benefit-risk profile.”  Lemtrada is designed to treat relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis, the most common form of the disease. It was approved in September by European regulators in a market dominated by rivals Biogen Idec, Novartis and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. Multiple sclerosis is a chronic, autoimmune condition which affects more than 2 million people worldwide and up to 500,000 in the U.S. It attacks the central nervous system and can cause muscle weakness, pain and cognitive difficulties. Lemtrada is given via an intravenous drip and designed to reprogram the immune system, but can make the body more vulnerable to other diseases. The multiple sclerosis market is increasingly moving away from injectable treatments in favor of pills such as Novartis’ Gilenya and Biogen Idec’s Tecfidera. Some analysts expect that Lemtrada, partly handicapped by its risk profile and injectable form, will be reserved for patients for whom other treatments are ineffective. Sanofi also has an oral treatment, Aubagio, developed by Genzyme and which has already been approved in the U.S. and Europe. Analysts on average expect Aubagio sales to reach $854 million by 2018, according to Thomson Reuters data. ($1 = 0.7258 euros) Claim: Sanofi MS drug suffers setback in key U.S. market.
[EX A]:
Sanofi’s Lemtrada multiple sclerosis treatment has failed to win approval from U.S. regulators, dealing a setback to a drug which was at the heart of the French drugmaker’s $20 billion takeover of biotech firm Genzyme.