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.

Q: Paragraph: Not applicable. The cost of olive oil is not in question. The story only cited a 41% lower risk of stroke but didn’t give the actual numbers of how many versus how many in the different groups. That may give an inflated sense of benefit or risk reduction. Not applicable. Unlike the LA Times piece, WebMD rurns to an editorial writer and two other independent experts to evaluate the evidence. It mentioned that this was an observational study but didn’t explicitly define that or why that’s a potential limitation. No disease-mongering of stroke in the story. Great sourcing – with 3 independent voices besides the study authors. The story ends, appropriately, with this: “Keeping blood pressure controlled, not smoking, exercising regularly, and eating a healthy diet that is low in salt and rich in fruits and vegetables can also help reduce stroke risk.” Not applicable. The availability of olive oil is not in question. The relative novelty of the study’s focus was clear in the story. It’s clear that the story did not rely on a news release. Claim: Olive Oil Linked to Reduced Stroke Risk

A: An added nice touch was the discussion of the possible etiology of the olive oil effect (e.g., inflammation). Overall, a solid summary. When an observational study points to a statistical association between one factor and one outcome, it is important to explain why that doesn’t necessarily mean that one factor caused that one outcome. This story did a better job of that than its LA Times competition.
****
Q: Paragraph: Once an illness is added to the list of approved conditions, the board cannot remove it because state law does not give the board authority to do so, according to board spokeswoman Tessie Pollock. Petitions will be reviewed early next year. AIDS, Alzheimer’s disease, and Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS, are among the 21 current approved illnesses, along with cancer, epilepsy, glaucoma and Parkinson’s disease. Earlier this year the board rejected petitions seeking to add anxiety and autism spectrum disorders as qualifying conditions. The board will for the first time open up a public comment period, beginning after its Jan. 8 meeting, said executive director Stephanie Louka. Final decisions on new accepting conditions would come after several months. ___ This story was first published on Dec. 25, 2019. It was updated on Dec. 27, 2019, to correct the name of the State Medical Board of Ohio spokeswoman. She is Tessie Pollock, not Tessa Pollock. It was also updated to clarify that the board says state law does not give it the authority to remove conditions from the list of approved conditions for which doctors can recommend medical marijuana to patients. Claim: Board to consider new conditions for medical marijuana use.

A: The state Medical Board is accepting new petitions through the end of the year from those seeking to add illnesses as qualifying conditions for physicians to recommend medical marijuana to Ohio patients, cleveland.com reported.
****
Q: Paragraph: No mention of the cost of treatment for women outside clinical trials. Some quantitative benefit mentioned of taking hormone therapy for chemoprevention. Incomplete discussion of reduced rate of side effects in raloxifene group. Mentions harms of hormone therapy, such as an increased risk of blood clots and uterine cancers. Does not mention that raloxifene, like tamoxifen, has bothersome side effects such as hot flashes and vaginal discharge, which are reported as comparable and mild to moderate in the NCI press release of the initial results of this trial. Mentions that the STAR trial was a 5-year trial, but not that is was unblinded early (around year 4) due to positive side effect profile of raloxifene. Mentions that 19,747 women were randomized to either raloxifene or tamoxifen and provides quantitative evidence of improved risk of blood clots or uterine cancers, however, both of those results were just shy of statistical significance, which is not mentioned in the article or in NCI press materials. (Source ACS: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Raloxifene_as_Good_as_Tamoxifen_to_Prevent_Breast_Cancer.asp) In addition, raloxifene did not appear to raise the risk of cataracts, which tamoxifen does appear to do. That difference was statistically significant. The story mentions equivalent comparison with tamoxifen in preventing invasive breast cancer, however, tamoxifen protected women better from non-invasive breast cancer such as DCIS (ductal carcinoma in situ) and LCIS (lobular carcinoma in situ). ” No evidence of disease mongering. Mentions that this drug is for post-menopausal women at higher than average lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. This study was partially funded by Eli Lilly. There is a a lot of Eli Lilly promotional information in this story. Of course, Indianapolis is the home of Eli Lilly. No attempt and independent corroboration with other breast cancer researchers. There was not much effort to get opinions on the study from outside sources. A lead investigator of the Eli Lilly-funded study and the president of science and technology at Eli Lilly are not unbiased sources. The story discusses the STAR trial, which compared current hormone treatment, tamoxifen, with raloxifene. It should be noted that the results here are initial findings after 4 years of raloxifene. The story could have done a better job in explaining that tamoxifen is usually taken for 5 years and there is much more long-term clinical data on safety and efficacy for this drug. It’s clear form the story that raloxifene is currently available for use in post-menopausal women to prevent osteoporosis. What isn’t clear is that use in chemoprevention would be an off-label use. This type of hormone therapy should be used in estrogen-receptor positive, post-menopausal women. Notes that use of Raloxifene (Evista) as chemoprevention is still in the clinical trial phase and that there are plans to file for FDA approval for use in preventing and treating breast cancer. Evista is already approved to prevent osteoporosis. We can’t judge if the story relied solely or largely on a news release. However, there is certainly a lot of Eli Lilly promotional information in this story. And Indianapolis is the home of Eli Lilly. Claim: Lilly buoyed by findings on Evista

A:
This story reports the initial results of the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene Trial (STAR) for estrogen-receptor positive women at high risk of developing breast cancer. This study was partially funded by Eli Lilly, though this is not mentioned, and the results here are presented as a financial boon for the company. There is less emphasis on the accuracy and interpretation of the trial from a women’s health perspective. There is also no attempt at corroboration with breast cancer researchers not affiliated with the trial: A lead investigator of the study (partially supported by Eli Lilly) and the president of science and technology at Eli Lilly are not unbiased sources. Costs were not mentioned. The story mentioned that 19,747 women were randomized to either raloxifene or tamoxifen and provides quantitative evidence of improved risk of blood clots or uterine cancers, however, both of those results were just shy of statistical significance, which is not mentioned in the article or in NCI press materials. (Source ACS: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Raloxifene_as_Good_as_Tamoxifen_to_Prevent_Breast_Cancer.asp) In addition, raloxifene did not appear to raise the risk of cataracts, which tamoxifen does appear to do. That difference was statistically significant. The story didn’t mention this. The story mentions equivalent comparison with tamoxifen in preventing invasive breast cancer, however, tamoxifen protected women better from non-invasive breast cancer such as DCIS (ductal carcinoma in situ) and LCIS (lobular carcinoma in situ). And these conditions are being diagnosed much more frequently these days.
****