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 significant costs of both drugs were mentioned. Nice job. Good job describing the benefits reported in the two drug studies. The two papers present a bewildering array of statistics. This story did a nice job distilling the information into a couple of very understandable sentences. Good job explaining signifcant potential harms of both drugs – something competitors didn’t do at all. Nice job, including linking (in the online version) to the papers in the New England Journal of Medicine. No disease-mongering of melanoma. Several independent sources cited. The story adequately explained the comparisons between both new drugs and the older dacarbazine chemo drug. Vemurafenib was described as experimental and as “expected to be approved by the FDA within a few months.”  Ipilimumab was explained to be approved in March and already on the market. The relative novelty of both drugs was well explained. It’s clear that the story did not rely on a news release. Claim: Drugs Show Promise Slowing Advanced Melanoma
[EX A]: The story made strong, clear attempts to report in a restrained manner, using terms/phrases such as:  “notable progress” “do not cure” “might add two to several moths to expected lifespans” “To be sure, more than half of patients with metastatic melanoma would not be helped all that much by either drug.”   Stories about cancer – perhaps especially melanoma because of its treatment challenges – should balance promise with realistic context. This story did a better job of that than the competitors’ efforts we reviewed.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The release makes no mention of the cost of the drug in question, Tenofovir. A web search found that the cost for a month’s supply of the antiviral drug averages just over $1,000. For some patients, that cost may be prohibitive. The cost is an issue of particular concern for developing countries, but it is also true that the price may be much lower for them than in the United States. Many pharmaceutical companies offer their drugs at steeply discounted rates in poorer countries to expand access to life-saving medicines. The release clearly says that 68 percent of women receiving the drug reduced their viral load while only 2 percent of the women in the control group had that success. It also says that the transmission of hepatitis B from mother to newborn dropped from 18 percent to 5 percent, an important clinical outcome. The release includes a discussion of harms. It states that “tenofovir was well tolerated; only one participant treated with tenofovir voluntarily withdrew from the study due to nausea.”  It also says that researchers “found no significant differences between the tenofovir-treated group and the control group with regard to fetal development and infant growth.”  Lastly, it calls for longer term, observational studies to confirm the safety of fetal exposure to tenofovir treatment. The release provides a good overview of the randomized, placebo-controlled trial which was undertaken to gauge the efficacy of the drug in both reducing the viral load of hepatitis-B-positive mothers and reducing the rate of transmission of the disease from mother to newborn. It offers solid, numerical evidence of both outcomes. It describes the number of patients (200 pregnant women), defined what constituted a “high” viral load, and described the approximate length of treatment. It did omit a mention of whether the trial was blinded. This release does not commit disease mongering. The release notes that the research is funded by Gilead Sciences. It should also have mentioned that a corresponding author disclosed speaking and advising fees from Gilead, according to the published study. The release is comparing the use of an antiviral drug given to pregnant women versus the normal procedure of giving both a vaccine and immune globulin. The release doesn’t mention that tenofovir (marketed as Viread), the drug being tested, is already an FDA approved drug so many readers may not know that it’s available. It was approved by the FDA in 2001 for HIV and in 2008 for chronic hepatitis B. The release just barely implies novelty with this statement which suggests a change in treating infected women who are pregnant: “Based on the findings, the investigators recommend that women be tested for HBV viral load at week 28 of pregnancy. Those with a high viral load should receive tenofovir treatment starting at gestational week 30 until delivery to reduce the risk of transmission to their infants.” While the drug itself isn’t novel, positive outcomes from a controlled trial on pregnant women carrying the virus does seem to introduce a new treatment approach. This release does not use any unjustifiable language. Claim: Antiviral Treatment During Pregnancy Reduces Mother-to-Child Transmission of Hepatitis B
[EX A]: This news release describes a clinical trial testing whether an antiviral drug given to pregnant women in their third trimester reduces their hepatitis B viral load. The study also examined whether the drug limits the transmission of the virus from mother to baby. The answers to both questions are yes, suggesting a new strategy for dealing with the spread of this disease. The release does a good job describing harms, quantifying benefits and describing the study protocol. Because the cost of hepatitis drugs has been widely debated for the past few years, a mention of the drug’s cost would have made the release stronger. Almost 240 million people are infected with hepatitis B virus and about 780,000 die each year from the disease, according to the World Health Organization. The hepatitis B virus infects the liver and while many recover with treatment, it can become a chronic infection. Babies and young children infected with the virus are more likely to develop chronic hepatitis B. If administering a drug to infected mothers reduces the proportion of newborns getting the disease, it would be a considerable improvement in public health.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The price of the drug is not reported. The segment specifies that four suicides, and a higher number of other mental health effects, have been reported to the FDA. It also specifies that 11,000 patients participated in the pre-approval clinical trials and with no reports of similar incidents. But it fails to make clear to viewers the important differences between data from clinical trials and from post-surveillance voluntary reports. The story didn’t quantify potential benefits. The story is fundamentally about alleged harmful side effects of the drug, so this criterion is clearly established. The segment is based on an FDA investigation and labeling changes that follow post-marketing reports of four suicides and mental disorders. This is adequate evidence on which to base this news report. By emphasizing one tragic story about a teenager who took the drug and committed suicide, the segment exaggerates the likelihood that the two are linked. The segment draws on data from pre-approval and post-marketing trials, an interview with the family of a teenager who committed suicide after taking Singulair, and an interview with a clinical specialist in asthma and allergies. It also reports its own observation that information about the side effects is buried on the drugmaker’s website. The perspective of the clinician who prescribes Singulair and other drugs for asthma and allergies provides an adequate, if brief, discussion of treatment options. The segment makes clear that Singulair is widely used. Singulair is widely used, so its novelty is not in question. The report was triggered by the FDA’s action, not a company press release. Claim: Questions about Singulair and suicide
[EX A]:
"This broadcast segment follows the FDA’s decision to investigate a possible link between the asthma/allergy drug Singulair and suicide. It demonstrates both virtues and vices of medical reporting. Among its virtues:  Interviewing a clinician who prescribes the drug, helping viewers understand what this news means to them or their loved ones. While too brief and unspecific, it’s useful context. Checking the drugmaker’s assertion that the side effect information was disclosed–and reporting it is difficult for a consumer to find. Among its vices:  Putting a single, tragic suicide at the center of the piece. This has the effect of exaggerating the certainty of the link between the drug and suicide–and generating more fear than is justified by the facts as they are now known. This segment illustrates how news organizations’ desire to find ""real people"" to add ""a human element"" to health stories often winds up creating a context that prevents people from understanding the facts and what they mean to them."