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: "The story covers cost in the very last two lines. Adequate quantification of benefits seen in the study. Story says ""few eye-related complications"" were reported in the Lucentis group, but didn’t say what few means or what they were. We don’t think that’s quite adequate. Adequate job explaining how the study was done and what it means. No disease mongering in the story. One quote from the head of the National Eye Institute. But he didn’t really evaluate evidence – only talked about hope. Meantime, no mention that Genentech funded  the trial (a strength of the NYT story was its discussion of the ""pay for play"" aspect of the research) – and no mention that Dr. Bressler disclosed financial ties to Genentech. From the Times: Some doctors criticized the organizers of the trial for testing Lucentis rather than another Genentech drug, Avastin, which works in the same way as Lucentis. Although it is a cancer drug, Avastin is often used off-label for eye diseases because it is far cheaper than Lucentis, costing only $20 to $100 a dose, compared with $2,000 for Lucentis. Avastin is undercutting sales of Lucentis, which totaled $1.1 billion in the United States last year. Organizers of the trial conceded that a major reason Lucentis was chosen was that Genentech, which is now owned by Roche, agreed to provide the drug free of charge and to contribute $9 million in additional financing — but only if Lucentis were used. “Obviously you can’t underplay $9 million,” said Dr. Ferris of the eye institute, which is part of the part of the National Institutes of Health. But he said there were other factors as well, like a belief that Lucentis might have been the better drug. Dr. Philip J. Rosenfeld, a professor of ophthalmology at the University of Miami, said the decision was “clearly a case of pay to play” since Genentech’s money dictated the choice of drugs. At least the story mentioned the uncertainty about whether Lucentis is any better  than the cheaper Avastin, and mentioned an upcoming trial comparing the two in age-related macular degeneration. The story explains that Lucentis was approved 4 years ago for another cause. Story explains the drug is already approved for another use, and it also – at the very end – mentions that an older and much cheaper drug is also effective. It’s clear the story did not rely on a news release." Claim: Drug Reverses Diabetes-Related Vision Loss

A: The key difference between this and the NYT story was that WebMD didn’t reflect on the question of why Genentech didn’t test its cheaper Avastin against the much more expensive Lucentis. The important issue of corporate sponsorship of a clinical trial was overlooked. You want to talk about comparative effectiveness research? This would have been a good place for it.
****
Q: Paragraph: "As gun policy takes a central role in New Hampshire’s U.S. Senate race, Democrat Maggie Hassan is warning that terrorists are trying to exploit federal laws to obtain firearms. Hassan brought up the point in the first televised debate against Republican incumbent Kelly Ayotte. ""With her solution, terrorists can still today — and by the way ISIS knows it, they have been advertising it — buy guns online and at gun shows in the United States of America,"" Hassan said on the debate stage at New England College. Is it really a point terrorists are spreading? Let’s look. PolitiFact has already looked into Hassan’s claim that Ayotte voted against a proposal to expand background checks and found it . Here we are going to look at what ISIS says about buying guns in America. Hassan’s camp pointed us to a series of news articles in which members of various terrorist groups talk about the ease of getting guns in the U.S. A former Islamic State recruit told the New York Times in August that the terrorist group tries to draw its recruits from within the U.S. because they can buy guns without a middleman. ""For America and Canada, it’s much easier for them to get them over the social network, because they say the Americans are dumb — they have open gun policies,"" Harry Sarfo told the Times from a German prison, when explaining attitudes within the terror group. ""They say we can radicalize them easily, and if they have no prior record, they can buy guns, so we don’t need to have a contact man who has to provide guns for them."" Hassan’s camp also directed us to a 2011 video featuring American-born al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn in which he talked about lax gun laws in the U.S. and urged followers to take advantage of them. ""America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms,"" Gadahn said, according to CNN. ""You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?"" Gadahn was with al-Qaeda, not ISIS. Still, he urged terrorists to buy guns in the United States and use them against Western governments. Those two examples are enough to show that terrorists have advertised the U.S. gun laws, and ""it is something they think about internally,"" said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a terrorism specialist at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Still, it’s difficult to determine if these are part of a widespread advertising campaign, or just isolated examples. A lof of ISIS communication is never circulated on the internet, Gartenstein-Ross cautioned. On other occasions, PolitiFact has examined whether people can buy guns without background checks. Currently federal law requires prospective gun buyers undergo background checks when they buy guns from federally licensed dealers -- but there are notable exceptions. Anyone who repeatedly buys and sells firearms ""with the principal motive of making a profit"" has to get a dealer’s license, whether they deal out of a brick-and-mortar store, at a flea market, or online, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Licensed firearm dealers must run background checks on non-licensed buyers before selling them a gun. But the law does not require a dealer’s license for private hobbyists and others who occasionally buy and sell guns for the purpose of enhancing or liquidating a collection. So if an individual buys a gun from a hobbyist over the Internet, or at a gun show, he or she would not be subject to a background check. It’s worth noting that private sales, online or otherwise, cannot take place across state lines, so the buyer and seller must be in the same state. And there are many restrictions on shipping guns, so the actual transfer of the gun is likely to take place in person. Second, it is illegal for private sellers to transfer a gun to someone they either know or reasonably believe is prohibited from owning a gun, for example, if the seller knows the buyer is a felon. But online sellers ""can give themselves plausible deniability by not asking the necessary questions,"" Garen Wintemute, a professor of emergency medicine at the University of California Davis, has previously told PolitiFact. Additionally, several states — California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington — and the District of Columbia require background checks for all private gun sales. There is a sizeable online market for private, background check-free gun sales, according to a 2013 study by Third Way, a center-left think tank. Focusing on the website Armslist.com, a sort of Craigslist for firearms and accessories, in 10 states, Third Way found 2,000 ads from individuals looking to purchase guns from private sellers specifically. Congressional efforts to expand background checks for purchases made at gun shows or online have failed. A recent review by the New York Times found the majority of guns used in 16 recent mass shootings were obtained legally, including the attack in Orlando that left nearly 50 people dead. The shooter in that incident, Omar Mateen, pledged allegiance to the Islamic State before he gunned down patrons at the Pulse nightclub. Our ruling Hassan said the Islamic State knows its followers can buy firearms ""online and at gun shows"" and is ""advertising it."" An interview in the New York Times with a former Islamic State recruit shows group members acknowledge American recruits can buy guns, so long as they don’t have a record. And a 2011 video from an al Qaeda spokesman urges terrorists to buy guns in the United States and use them against Western governments. There is little evidence to suggest a widespread advertising campaign, but it’s hard to tell, because not all ISIS communication is on the Internet, either." Claim: With her solution, terrorists can still today — and by the way ISIS knows it, they have been advertising it — buy guns online and at gun shows in the United States of America.

A: "Hassan said the Islamic State knows its followers can buy firearms ""online and at gun shows"" and is ""advertising it."" An interview in the New York Times with a former Islamic State recruit shows group members acknowledge American recruits can buy guns, so long as they don’t have a record. And a 2011 video from an al Qaeda spokesman urges terrorists to buy guns in the United States and use them against Western governments. There is little evidence to suggest a widespread advertising campaign, but it’s hard to tell, because not all ISIS communication is on the Internet, either."
****
Q: Paragraph: Kennedy, the 36-year-old grandson of the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and great-nephew of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy and President John F. Kennedy, has been a low-key presence in the House since he was first elected in his Boston-area district in 2012. But he emerged last week as a major Democratic voice against the Republican health care bill, delivering several speeches in a committee’s all-night session that have been viewed millions of times on the internet. While the technology may be new, his support for the Obama-era health care law and more services for the poor are familiar Kennedy territory. Sen. Ted Kennedy spent decades pushing for comprehensive health care before his death from brain cancer in August 2009. Now his great-nephew is fighting Republicans who are trying to unravel the 2010 law. They say the system is failing as premiums have risen and insurers have pulled out. Kennedy challenged House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who had called the GOP replacement bill an “act of mercy.” “With all due respect to our speaker, he and I must have read different scripture,” Kennedy said during the debate. “The one that I read calls on us to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to shelter the homeless, and to comfort the sick. It reminds us that we are judged not by how we treat the powerful, but how we care for the least among us.” He added: “This is not an act of mercy. It’s an act of malice.” His office posted the video on Facebook, and as of Monday, it had almost 10 million views and more than 225,000 shares. Kennedy acknowledged his family legacy but stressed that he can’t allow it to overwhelm his actions. “I obviously am very proud of what my family has accomplished and what they have done,” he said in an interview, but “if you try to do this job and carry that weight around, you’re never going to be able to do anything.” When talking about his grandfather’s speeches, he is emotional, putting his hand on his heart. “God, have you read some of his speeches?” he asks, and notes that a one-minute viral clip is an easier task. It’s clear that he’d rather be talking about the details of his opposition to the health bill. During the committee debate, he criticized the bill for its one-year freeze in Planned Parenthood funding, and the resulting decrease in health services for women, and the repeal of a requirement that state Medicaid plans must provide “essential health benefits,” including mental health care. A separate Facebook video of him talking about mental health care has more than 4 million views. That issue is important in his family — mainly to his cousin, former Rep. Patrick Kennedy, who left Congress in 2011 and has since been open about his own battles with substance abuse and mental health. Now an advocate for increased mental health services, Patrick Kennedy says his cousin “managed to capture a moment when all eyes were on health care, and focus it with laser precision.” He says Joe is the right person to carry on the family legacy. “Most members have to be around for a long time and pay their dues before they garner the kind of credibility he’ll have,” Patrick said of Joe. “The fact is, is he going to use that to good purpose? As he demonstrated this week, he is not only prepared but is using to good purpose that incredible family legacy he was given by birth.” One of Kennedy’s good friends in Congress is Rep. Markwayne Mullin, a 39-year-old Oklahoma Republican who entered Congress with Kennedy four years ago and says he disagrees with the Massachusetts Democrat on almost everything. Mullin says they joke a lot, but they rarely joke about health care. They both sit on the Energy and Commerce Committee, where they took opposite sides on the bill last week. “He doesn’t speak out very often. He’s not someone that is front and center,” Mullin said. “But health care is something that is very important to him.” The internet took notice, with retweets and Twitter shout-outs from Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, former first daughter Chelsea Clinton and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who tweeted: “Wow. This is a Kennedy who could be President. A must watch.” House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi cited his “passion and his leadership.” New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone, the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee and a lawmaker who worked with both Ted Kennedy and Patrick Kennedy before Joe came to Congress, says his party needs more young people talking about the benefits of the health care law, since many don’t think it helps them. Joe Kennedy says millennials are engaged, apolitical, want the system to work and want solutions. “Trying to get to some of the solutions here is difficult,” Kennedy said. “But we need to find a way to get there.” Claim: A familiar name: Democrat Kennedy fights GOP on health care.

A:
A familiar name from Massachusetts, Rep. Joe Kennedy III, is carrying his family legacy into a new era, battling Republicans who want to undo Barack Obama’s health care law.
****