instruction:
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: Mays, speaking to a TV critics’ meeting Friday, pointed to several bottles she had filled with her tap water and challenged the room to taste or even smell it. There were no immediate takers. The activist, who said the battle over water safety continues, is among the residents portrayed in Lifetime’s movie titled “Flint,” debuting Oct. 28. Mays is played by Marin Ireland, who co-stars with Betsy Brandt, Jill Scott and Queen Latifah. Executive producer Neil Meron said the film is intended to spotlight what happened in Flint, including how a united community and “the voice of the people” can force officials to act. Mays said there have been successes, including the outcome of a lawsuit to get half of the service lines replaced, although not the main lines or interior plumbing. “So one of the things we hope come out of this is to let people know it’s still not over. It’s not even close to over,” she said. The movie is intended to honor Flint victims by telling the story “that even in a poor, broken, poisoned town, we banded together, and we fought. We fought, and we win.” In 2014, a switch of Flint’s water source and failure to add corrosion-reducing phosphates allowed lead from old pipes to leach into the water. Elevated levels of lead, a neurotoxin, were detected in children, and 12 people died in a Legionnaires’ disease outbreak that experts suspect was linked to the improperly treated water. An ongoing investigation has led to charges against 13 current or former government officials, including two managers who Republican Gov. Rick Snyder appointed to run the city. Last January, state officials said Flint’s water system no longer has lead levels exceeding the federal limit. The announcement was promptly met by skepticism from some residents, Mays among them, maintaining the system still contains lead and continues to cause illness. Brandt, the former “Breaking Bad” star who’s a native of Bay City, Michigan, not far from Flint, said the person she portrays, LeeAnne Walters, was among those driven to act when authorities failed to heed complaints about their children becoming ill. “As a mom, it just shakes you, because there’s some things that we just should be able to count on,” Brandt said. Claim: Lifetime movie ‘Flint’ dramatizes city’s water crisis.
answer:
Melissa Mays, a resident of Flint, Michigan, came armed to discuss the city’s tainted water crisis and a new Lifetime TV movie dramatizing it.


question:
Paragraph: The story does not give any estimate of the cost of Doppler ultrasound examinations. The story clearly states the reduction in fetal death rates the review authors calculated by combining the results of the studies ithey looked at. It reports the absolute risk calculation of fetal or newborn deaths (1.7 percent among women who did not receive ultrasound monitoring vs. 1.2 percent among those who did). This reporting of absolute (as opposed to relative) risk reduction is a strong point of the story since it conveys to readers that while the intervention did improve outcomes, the underlying risk is small. We only wish, however, that the story had cited the Number Needed to Test that was included in the study – 203 would need to be tested in order to find one case of fetal distress that would otherwise not have been seen using other routine exams. The story notes that there has been concern that the use of Doppler ultrasound might increase unnecessary interventions, including cesarean section deliveries in cases where it is not actually needed. It says the studies indicated that Doppler ultrasound appeared to lead to better decisions about cesarean sections and inductions of labor. The story explains that this report is a review of other studies. It also points out some shortcomings in the underlying studies. The story also includes a comment from one of the study authors that since the technique is established in current practice it is unlikely that there will be future studies of the use of the technology in high-risk pregnancies. The story clearly states that the evidence on the use of Doppler ultrasound applies only to high-risk pregnancies and that there is no evidence the examinations should be done in low-risk pregnancies. There is no information in the story that appears to come from an independent source. Comments from experts in the field would have helped put the authors’ comments into perspective. The story says other types of testing, including electronic fetal-heart monitoring, may also be done during high-risk pregnancies. The story notes that Doppler is an established technique used to monitor high-risk pregnancies. The story notes that Doppler ultrasound is an established technology and that most of the studies reviewed were done in the 1990s. The story does not appear to rely solely on a news release. It says the lead researcher was interviewed. Claim: Ultrasound may cut deaths in high-risk pregnancies
answer:
This story clearly explains that a new review of the available evidence from published trials backs the use of Doppler ultrasound to monitor high-risk pregnancies. Notably, the story reports the absolute risk calculation of fetal or newborn deaths (1.7 percent among women who did not receive ultrasound monitoring vs. 1.2 percent among those who did), rather than trumpeting a large reduction in relative risk. By including the absolute risk numbers, the story helps readers understand both that the test appears to reduce the death rate and, importantly, that the overall risk of fetal or newborn death in developed nations is very small, thus putting the results in perspective. This story also pointed out that there is some uncertainty about the findings because of concerns about the quality of the underlying studies including in the review. What’s more, it highlights the point that the studies included only women who had high-risk pregnancies and that there is no evidence to suggest the use of Doppler ultrasound to monitor low-risk pregnancies. The story would have been ranked as satisfactory on all criteria if it had reported the typical cost of Doppler ultrasound monitoring and included an independent source in addition to the lead author of the review. When there is concern about potential problems with a pregnancy, Doppler ultrasound is a commonly recommended test used to help make decisions about cesarean section, induced labor or other interventions; thus misuse of the test could lead to inappropriate interventions.


question:
Paragraph: The article comments that Benlysta will be far more expensive than current treatments but doesn’t give an order of magnitude. Nonetheless, we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt. The story provided quantitative information about meaningful improvement of symptoms, comparing two doses of the drug with placebo. However – the story gave no insight about what symptoms it was measuring and whether the difference between the two doses significantly differed from one another. It should have provided more detail about the nature of the improvements observed. The story did not include any insight about potential harms or side effects that have been seen to date with the use of this drug. The story was clear that the information about this drug comes from a phase 3 clinical trial and that the results have not yet been published or examined by outside experts. It would have been better for readers if the story had included some insight about the type of symptoms that were monitored and measured as well as the particular subset of patients that were included in the study. No overt disease mongering. The story included quotes from a company spokesperson, a clinician who is a consultant for the company, and a clinician with expertise in lupus who does not appear to have overt ties with the company. The story would have been more informative to readers had several clinicians with expertise in treating people with lupus been interviewed as part of this story. The comments of those involved with drug development or promotion have limited credibility. The story discusses that the medication reported on is used in addition to the typical treatments used for treating lupus. It did not, however, provide any insight about which segment of the lupus patient population might benefit. As such, it did not provide readers with sufficient information about when additional treatment with Benlysta might be considered. The story was clear that the drug Benlysta is currently being studied in clinical trials and is not available for use. The pipeline for effective lupus drugs has indeed been dry for quite a while. The article indicates that this is a novel product of genomic technology. Does not appear to rely exclusively on a press release. Claim: Trial for New Lupus Treatment Is Called Promising
answer:

This story reported on Benlysta, a drug currently under investigation for the treatment of lupus. The piece was clear that Benlysta is in phase 3 testing and that application for its use to treat lupus has not yet been filed with the FDA. Benlysta is a medication that will, if approved, be used in addition to other lupus treatments. The story reported that the drug improved symptoms, but never explained which symptoms. It would have been helpful to include more about which lupus patients could be expected to benefit from this drug as well as the potential risks and side effects that may be incurred from its use. Comments from clinicians with relevant expertise but without commercial ties would greatly improved the credibility of this report and increased its value to readers.