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: Cuomo’s cautiously upbeat report at a daily briefing came as the daily death toll across the state, the epicenter of the pandemic in the United States, dropped to 540 on April 17, down from 630 a day earlier and the lowest in more than two weeks. The governor said total hospitalizations of patients being treated for COVID-19, the respiratory illness caused by the coronavirus, came to 16,967, a drop of more than 1,300 over the past three days. Intubations and admissions to intensive care units also continued on their downward trend. “If you look at the past three days, you could argue that we are past the plateau and we’re starting to descend which would be very good news,” Cuomo said. He said, however, that about 2,000 infected people were newly admitted to hospitals on Friday, which he characterized as “still an overwhelming number,” and reiterated that he would take a cautious approach to reopening businesses and schools. Cuomo repeated a call for the federal government to help coordinate and provide funding for the mass testing that he and other governors have said is needed to determine when it is safe for people to go back to work. Providing new details on the challenge, Cuomo said a survey of labs in his state revealed an inability to procure the chemical reagents needed to run the tests on machines supplied by private manufacturers like Roche Holding AG. “They bought the machine, they have the machine, they have the test, but they need the reagents to do a higher volume of tests,” Cuomo said, adding that makers like Roche are struggling to get the reagents from China. “That’s the logjam we are in.”  New York disclosed 7,090 new positive cases over the last 24 hours for a total of 236,732 cases, while deaths increased by 540 to 13,362, marking by far the largest number of fatalities of any state. Even with stabilizing numbers, Cuomo said the pandemic was taking a severe emotional and economic toll on people, and estimated the impact on society would prove to be the biggest challenge facing the country since World War Two. “On every level this is a terrible experience, Cuomo said. “It is as tumultuous a time as we have ever seen.” Claim: New York Governor sounds optimistic note as coronavirus numbers improve.

Answer: New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said on Saturday that a recent drop in hospitalizations and other improving metrics indicated the state may be past the peak of its coronavirus crisis and on a path toward stabilizing its battered healthcare system.


Question: Paragraph: Veggies given names like “zesty ginger-turmeric sweet potatoes” and “twisted citrus-glazed carrots” were more popular than those prepared exactly the same way but with plainer, more healthful-sounding labels. Diners more often said “no thanks” when the food had labels like “low-fat,” ″reduced-sodium” or “sugar-free.” More diners chose the fancy-named items, and selected larger portions of them too in the experiment last fall at a Stanford University cafeteria. “While it may seem like a good idea to emphasize the healthiness of vegetables, doing so may actually backfire,” said lead author Bradley Turnwald, a graduate student in psychology. Other research has shown that people tend to think of healthful sounding food as less tasty, so the aim was to make it sound as good as more indulgent, fattening fare. Researchers from Stanford’s psychology department tested the idea as a way to improve eating habits and make a dent in the growing obesity epidemic . “This novel, low-cost intervention could easily be implemented in cafeterias, restaurants, and consumer products to increase selection of healthier options,” they said. The results were published Monday JAMA Internal Medicine. The study was done over 46 days last fall. Lunchtime vegetable offerings were given different labels on different days. For example, on one day diners could choose “dynamite chili and tangy lime-seasoned beets.” On other days the same item was labeled “lighter-choice beets with no added sugar,” ″high antioxidant beets,” or simply “beets.” Almost one-third of the nearly 28,000 diners chose a vegetable offering during the study. The tasty-sounding offering was the most popular, selected by about 220 diners on average on days it was offered, compared with about 175 diners who chose the simple-label vegetable. The healthy-sounding labels were the least popular. Diners also served themselves bigger portions of the tasty-sounding vegetables than of the other choices. Turnwald emphasized that “there was no deception” —  all labels accurately described the vegetables, although diners weren’t told that the different-sounding choices were the exact same item. The results illustrate “the interesting advantage to indulgent labeling,” he said. Dr. Stephen Cook, a University of Rochester childhood obesity researcher, called the study encouraging and said some high school cafeterias have also tried different labels to influence healthy eating. “It shouldn’t be a surprise to us because marketing people have been doing this for years,” Cook said. ___ Follow AP Medical Writer Lindsey Tanner at http://www.twitter.com/LindseyTanner and her work can be found at http://tinyurl.com/kv4uhoh Claim: Sweet sizzlin’ beans! Fancy names may boost healthy  dining.

Answer: Researchers tried a big serving of food psychology and a dollop of trickery to get diners to eat their vegetables. And it worked.


Question: Paragraph: The story mentions that beta-blockers are available as generics but doesn’t specifically mention costs. As a class, beta blockers drugs are low cost ($10 to $200 a month according to some estimates). The article describes the median survival time afforded the women with ovarian cancer under different scenarios – with or without beta blockers in addition to their chemotherapy. For example, women who had been taking any beta blocker at the time of their chemotherapy had a median survival of 47.8 months while women who were not being treated with beta blockers while on chemo had median survival time of 42 months. The article notes that the quoted source and the study authors cautioned that beta blockers carry some side effects and additional research is needed to determine if the drugs’ benefits outweigh their risks for cancer patients. It specifically mentions risks for people with asthma. Other specific harms from beta-blockers for the general population include depression and diarrhea. Beta-blockers may also cause complications for people with diabetes. The article provides a good overall description of the size of the study and how patients were followed. It describes the median survival time afforded the 1,425 women with ovarian cancer under different scenarios – with or without beta blockers in addition to their chemotherapy. The use of language is appropriate in that it says these drugs were “linked to” and “associated with” benefits, but never claims that the drugs “prolonged survival” as stated in the MD Anderson news release. The story also briefly touched on the study limitations. Because the research was a retrospective look at 1,425 cases in a database of ovarian cancer cases, it wasn’t randomized. The article also notes that more research is needed to determine if the findings will translate into new treatments, and that “This is not something that people should rush out and start taking.” One area of concern is that the subheadline touts the dramatic benefits seen in a subgroup of patients taking nonselective beta-blockers — “A type of beta blocker is tied to more than four-year increase in survival for women with ovarian cancer, study finds” — but the story never specifically cautions readers about the small size of this group (only 75 people). Findings from such a small subgroup should be treated very carefully, and we’re not sure that they should have been highlighted for readers in the headline. We say this knowing full well that reporters often have no control over what gets put in the headline. We observed no evidence of fear-mongering language in the story. The story includes an independent source who wasn’t affiliated with the research. Christina Annunziata, a director with the Center for Cancer Research at the National Institutes of Health, said that while she found the study “interesting” and “thought-provoking,” she cautioned that “I don’t think it’s practice-changing quite yet.” Annunziata co-authored an editorial accompanying the report which were both published in the American Cancer Society’s Cancer journal. The story would have been even stronger had it outlined the funding sources for this study, which included government and foundation grants. However, since we didn’t find any significant conflicts in the list of funding sources, we didn’t think this omission unbalanced the coverage. The relevant research is based on evaluating the use of beta blockers in conjunction with conventional chemotherapy, not as an alternative to chemotherapy or other courses of treatment. As such, we’ll rate “Compare Alternatives” as Not Applicable. Beta blockers are called “common heart drugs” in the story and are thus generally understood to be widely available. Beta-blockers first came on the market more than 50 years ago and their use has become widespread as researchers found more applications for this class of drugs. Generic versions are available, making them some of the most affordable prescription drugs. A close call here. The story acknowledges previous research in this areas when it says, “Mouse and test-tube studies have shown that so-called nonselective beta blockers inhibit molecular pathways that promote tumor growth. Selective versions, designed to minimize side effects for heart patients, are less effective in hitting such targets. Dr. Sood and his colleagues wondered if the same effect would be found in people.” That’s good context, but the story could also have noted that a number of studies have indeed examined the impact of beta-blocker use on ovarian cancer patients, and did not find the same prolonged survival rates that are reported on in this story. The researchers think that’s because these earlier studies didn’t distinguish between the two types of beta-blockers. Because the article quotes an independent, unaffiliated cancer expert, we are confident the article doesn’t rely solely on a press release. Claim: Heart Drug Linked to Extra Years for Cancer Patients

Answer:
This Wall Street Journal article nicely summarizes the findings of a retrospective study of 1,400 cases of women with ovarian cancer; some of whom had been prescribed beta-blockers for high blood pressure and appeared to have better outcomes than those not taking beta-blockers. It hits on nearly all of our criteria, and was more thorough and balanced than an MD Anderson news release that initially announced the findings to the world. (More on that below.) A bit more detail on the cost of these drugs, and a bit more restraint in discussing the outcomes of a small group of women who were taking a particular class of beta-blocker and had much better survival statistics, would have rounded out this story. We often say that news releases can set the tone for subsequent media coverage of new research, and that a poor news release can lead to a great deal of misinformation reaching the public. We’ve compared this phenomenon to sheep following one another. However, it’s also true that good reporting can fill in the holes left by an incomplete news release and present a more balanced portrait of findings to readers. In this case, MD Anderson announced the results of this study with a news release that has been reviewed separately on HealthNewsReview.org and found wanting in several areas. Specifically, it used inappropriate language to describe the benefits and lacked a discussion of harms and limitations of the research. This story by and large addresses those issues and demonstrates how good health reporting can play an important and useful role in informing the public. There are plenty of reporters out there who can’t be led like sheep, and our project aims to shine a light on them and hopefully cultivate many more of them.