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 Input:
Paragraph: Hampden County Sheriff Nick Cocchi has designated a wing of his jail for the treatment of men civilly committed for substance abuse reasons. It’s the only facility in western Massachusetts housing the men, and just one of three in the entire state for men. While some are trying to end the practice, Cocchi and his supporters — including local mayors and lawmakers — say the jail’s year-old Stonybrook Stabilization and Treatment Centers is key to curbing the opioid problem in the county, which includes the former manufacturing cities of Springfield and Holyoke. Fatal overdoses surged more than 80% in Hampden County from 2017 to 2018 even as they declined statewide for the second straight year in 2018, according to state data. “People coming into our program are angry, violent and sick,” Cocchi said as he and other officials celebrated the program’s anniversary earlier this week. “They are at the end of the road, and their families have recognized that if they don’t intervene, they might not survive.” But the civil rights group Prisoners’ Legal Services of Massachusetts has sued the state in an effort to end the use of jails and prisons for forcibly treating men with addiction. The class action lawsuit was filed in March on behalf of 10 men who complained of poor conditions and mistreatment at another civil commitment program run out of a state Department of Corrections prison. A state commission has also recently recommended ending the practice of sending civilly committed men to jails and prisons, as the state did for women three years ago, following a similar lawsuit. Women are now sent to substance abuse treatment facilities run or contracted by public health agencies, as most civilly committed persons are in other states. “This should not be a choice between prison or nothing,” said Bonnie Tenneriello, a staff attorney with Prisoners’ Legal Services. “Why are we giving money to a sheriff to run treatment programs rather than funding civilian treatment?” Under state law, family members can ask a judge to order their relatives into treatment if they’re unwilling to go voluntarily and are deemed a danger to themselves or others. At least 35 states have such civil commitment laws, but Massachusetts is just one of a handful where it’s widely used, The Associated Press found last year. About 9,950 civil commitments requests were filed in state courts in the budget year that ended June 30. That’s down from more than 10,770 the prior year but up significantly from the 6,105 in fiscal year 2016 and the under 3,000 in fiscal year 2006, according to state data. Tenneriello and other opponents say forcing people into jails and prisons for treatment only reinforces the stigma around addiction. And studies, including the state’s own research , also suggest forced treatment largely doesn’t work and could raise the danger of overdose for those who relapse after treatment. Like the state corrections-run civil commitment facility, Hampden County’s program takes place, at least initially, behind the razor wire of its secure jail campus. Civilly committed men are also similarly segregated from the regular inmate population but required to wear corrections-issued uniforms and follow certain corrections protocols. But, in an effort to make the program feel less institutional, cell doors remain largely unlocked and program participants aren’t handcuffed, Cocchi and some recently released patients said. “Yes, it’s a jail setting. There are corrections officers walking around,” said Keith Molyneux, a 40-year-old recovering from heroin addiction who was among the first to complete the program last year. “But they’re more committed to helping you here than to actually being a correctional officer. You definitely feel like they’re there to help.” After a few weeks of detoxing at the jail, most are eventually transferred to a less secure facility located off-campus in a converted nursing home. There, the men can wear civilian clothes and are housed in rooms that are larger and more dorm-like. Early results of the approach — which also includes health care professionals administering addiction treatment medications and leading counselling sessions — are encouraging, Cocchi said. Since opening last May, more than 850 men have gone through the program, staying 47 days, on average — weeks longer than they do at the state’s other two facilities. The longer stays increase the odds that the men will stay sober, Cocchi said. So far, less than 5% have had to be recommitted, though two fatally overdosed after leaving the program. Lawmakers, meanwhile, have committed $1 million to the program in the current state budget, proving the effort has strong support, despite its detractors, he said. “Let us continue doing what we’re doing,” Cocchi said. “No one else is doing this work out here, but we’re doing it, and we’re doing it well. Why shouldn’t we be applauded and supported?” ___ Follow Philip Marcelo at twitter.com/philmarcelo. ___ This story has been corrected to identify the Hampden County sheriff as Nick Cocchi, not Thomas Cocchi. Claim: Region hit hard by opioids embraces jail-based treatment.

Ex Output:
As western Massachusetts struggles with a dramatic spike in fatal overdoses, officials are embracing a controversial solution: sending men who have not committed any crimes to jails and prisons for court-ordered addiction treatment.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: The Nobel Assembly, which awarded the prize of 8 million Swedish crowns ($1.1 million) at Sweden’s Karolinska Institute on Monday, said the discovery solved a problem that had occupied philosophers and scientists for centuries:  “How does the brain create a map of the space surrounding us and how can we navigate our way through a complex environment?”   Ole Kiehn, a Nobel committee member and professor in Karolinska’s neuroscience department, said the three scientists had found “an inner GPS that makes it possible to know where we are and find our way”. O’Keefe, now director at the center in neural circuits and behavior at University College London (UCL), discovered the first element of the positioning system in 1971 when he found that a type of nerve cell in a brain region called the hippocampus was always activated when a rat was in a certain place in a room. Seeing that other nerve cells were activated when the rat was in other positions, O´Keefe concluded that these “place cells” formed a map of the room. Uta Frith, a UCL professor of cognitive development said O’Keefe had shown “it is possible to literally map the mind”. “He has done much more than discovering neuronal mechanisms in the brain: he has discovered cognitive mechanisms that explain how human beings and other animals navigate,” she said. “This beautiful work is heralding a new age of exploration of brain and mind.”  In 1996, Edvard Moser and May-Britt Moser, who are married and now based in scientific institutes in the Norwegian town of Trondheim, worked with O’Keefe to learn how to record the activity of cells in the hippocampus. Nearly a decade later, the Moser team discovered cells, in the entorhinal cortex region in brains of rats, which function as a navigation system. These so-called “grid cells”, they discovered, are constantly working to create a map of the outside world and are responsible for animals’ knowing where they are, where they have been, and where they are going. Bill Harris, head of physiology, development and neuroscience at Britain’s University of Cambridge, said the scientists’ work “has not only revolutionized our understanding of this amazing puzzle (the brain), but has also opened the door into problems of place memory and how we learn and remember routes of navigation, and what sleep and dreams may be doing for memory and performance.”  While the findings help explain how the brain works, they have no immediate implications for new medicines or other therapies, since they do not set out a mechanism of action. But knowledge about the brain’s positioning system can also help understanding of what causes loss of spatial awareness in stroke patients or those with devastating brain diseases like dementia, of which Alzheimer’s is the most common form and which affects 44 million people worldwide. O’Keefe told reporters in London he was very surprised to get the Nobel Prize, particularly after what he described as a “checkered youth” jumping from studying classics at school, then aeronautics at college before getting into philosophy and psychology. “I’m still in a state of shock,” he said. May-Britt Moser danced and drank champagne with her colleagues in Trondheim after she was told of the award. “This is so great, this is crazy. I am just jumping, screaming,” Moser told Reuters. “I am so proud of all the support that we have had. People have believed in us, in what we have been doing and now this is the reward.”  Norwegian TV showed her co-workers singing “Happy Nobel to you” to the tune of “Happy Birthday”. Her husband did not immediately learn that he had won the Nobel Prize as he was on a plane bound to Munich. Someone was waiting for him at Munich airport with flowers and gave him the news, he told the Norwegian news agency NTB. The Mosers join a small club of married couples to win a Nobel Prize that includes Pierre Curie and Marie Curie. John Stein, an emeritus professor of physiology at Oxford said that, as with so many Nobel Prize winners, the scientists’ discovery was at first ridiculed and dismissed, only later to get the recognition it warrants  “This is great news and well deserved,” Stein said. “I remember how great was the scoffing in the early 1970s when John first described ‘place cells’. ‘Bound to be an artefact’ and ‘he clearly underestimates rats’ sense of smell’ were typical reactions. Now, like so many ideas that were at first highly controversial, people say: ‘Well that’s obvious’!”      Medicine is the first of the Nobel Prizes awarded each year. Prizes for achievements in science, literature and peace were  first awarded in 1901 in accordance with the will of dynamite  inventor and businessman Alfred Nobel. (1 US dollar = 7.2230 Swedish crown) Claim: Nobel Prize for medicine goes to discoverers of brain’s 'inner GPS'.

Ex Output:
British-American John O’Keefe and Norwegians May-Britt and Edvard Moser won the 2014 Nobel Prize for medicine for discovering the brain’s navigation system and giving clues as to how strokes and Alzheimer’s disrupt it.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: The story does not address how much fevipiprant might cost and how it might compete with currently available treatments. A 2013 story in the New York Times reported that asthma inhalers ranged from $50 per month for one of the oldest drugs to as much as $350, with prices being buoyed in recent years by patent extensions. The story reported that fevipiprant “reduced a biological marker of asthma nearly five-fold in the 12-week trial involving 61 patients.” It states: “The Novartis pill works in a very precise way to block the action of inflammatory cells called eosinophils.” The story mentions that that no serious adverse events were reported in the trial. It would have been useful to note that 12 weeks is too little time to determine how an asthma drug might affect patients over decades of use. The story acknowledges that this is was a “small” trial and that more research is needed, and it correctly states what was being studied: A biological marker of asthma (and not actual symptoms or respiratory function, which a Medical Daily story we also reviewed got wrong). The story does not engage in disease-mongering. The story doesn’t contain comments from outside experts who could put some perspective on the trial results and explain what this might mean for patients. The story could have let readers know that funding came from Novartis, as well as a European Union grant program, and the Leicester (U.K.) National Institute for Health Research Respiratory Biomedical Research unit. Several researchers involved in the trial reported receiving financial compensation from Novartis and other drug companies. The story does a great job here. It mentions that pills were standard treatment for asthma decades ago, but were replaced with inhalers that deliver drugs directly into the lungs. It also mentions that drugmakers recently launched injectable drugs for severe asthma that also target eosinophils and “are developing improved asthma inhalers, including ‘smart’ devices with sensors that monitor use.” The story could have elaborated on how inhalers might compare to pills in terms of safety and efficacy, and mentioned there are other new drugs (known as leukotrene receptor antagonists) that are also available as pills. We believe the story attempts to give a realistic take, stating more study is needed to show that the drug can reduce severe asthma attacks. It also states Novartis “believes the medicine could be filed for regulatory approval in around 2019.” While this may or may not be accurate, it does let readers know that availability isn’t around the corner. The story says it’s the first asthma pill in decades—-that’s not correct. In recent years, several new drugs known as leukotriene receptor antagonists have come on the market as tablets. (The statement about this being the first pill in decades appears to come from the news release, which we also reviewed.) The story does not appear to rely solely on the news release, which we also reviewed. Claim: Novartis asthma pill shows promise in small trial

Ex Output:

This brief story is one of two we’re reviewing this week about a clinical trial for fevipiprant, an asthma pill under development by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. The piece refrains from the puffery of a similar story in Medical Daily which we also reviewed. In particular, its headline keeps reader expectations in check by stating the pill shows promise in a “small trial.” The story itself does an admirable job of describing how this pill fits into a climate of innovation in asthma treatment. Still, it should have addressed the potential cost of this pill and garnered quotes from experts who are not involved in the study. The possibility of taking a pill instead of using an inhaler to control symptoms would surely be welcome news to millions of asthma patients. One in 12 Americans — 17.7 million adults and 6.3 million children — has asthma, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the incurable disease costs the U.S. about $56 billion in medical costs, lost school and work days, and early deaths in 2007. A story about a new, easier-to-take drug would be of interest to many people, which is why news reporting should go beyond regurgitation of the news release material. This story, while brief, did appear to do so.