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: We’ll give the story a “N/A” in this category since it makes clear early on that this research is in the earliest of stages, done in an animal model, and says clearly that clinical trials are a future hope. This is way too early to consider costs which, we assume, would be substantial. The story says the stem cell intervention extended the rodents’ lives “by 10-15% compared to untreated animals.”  At another point, it said, “the mice lived longer than controls, typically several months more, an increase of about 15%.” The story makes no mention of the potential harms that might arise from this approach. Since this has never been tested in humans, we have no idea what they risks are. The story needed to point this out. Theoretically, the stem cells would have to be delivered into human brains via injections, which would make the intervention incredibly risky and possibly a non-starter. In the original paper, the stem cells were injected into the hypothalamus of the mice using viruses as “vectors.” The researchers used lentiviruses, which are used often as vectors for research, but can be deadly in humans. Some discussion of this hurdle also was warranted. The story does a good job at explaining various aspects of the research and depicting the stages through which the research team drew its conclusions. It also is up front about this being animal research, so far untried in humans at even the earliest stages of clinical trials. Of note, the original paper mentions that this study was conducted in very few mice (total of about 20) and only in male mice. That detail would have been useful to include. One thing we wanted to point out that was problematic: The story said “if a similar extension was achieved in humans, a person with a life expectancy of 80 years could live to 92.” We have no idea how this may impact humans; the evidence doesn’t support that kind of speculation. The story doesn’t appear to commit disease mongering, though it could have pointed out that aging in and of itself is not a disease. The story does quote one source unaffiliated with the research and we didn’t detect any conflicts of interest. (The paper itself notes that the authors of the study have no conflicts of interests.) The story is all about basic research that suggests an approach that one day might slow, or possibly reverse, the aging process. There are no real alternatives available now to affect the aging process beyond lifestyle choices that might be healthier and appropriate treatments for illnesses that might otherwise shorten lifespans. It’s clear from the story that this research is preliminary. The story clearly says, “The next step is to create human neural stem cells in the lab for testing.”  It also states that, “Researchers at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York hope to launch clinical trials of the procedure soon, but must first produce supplies of human neural stem cells in the lab which can be implanted into volunteers.” The story heralds this research as a “tour de force” and a “breakthrough.” Yet is it accurate in a news story to call anything done in animals a “breakthrough?” That word implies relevance to humans, and this is far from established in a mouse study. Studies in mice are essential but many of them fail to show similar evidence in humans. Likewise, stem cell research is often seen as a magic bullet for some conditions but there have been few cases where the preliminary hope/hype has born out. The story does not appear to rely on a news release. Claim: Stem cell brain implants could 'slow ageing and extend life', study shows
[A]: This story describes some interesting but very early research into the mechanisms of aging and how they might be altered. The story made it clear that this was mouse-level research and has several hurdles to go before it’s ever tested in people. One weak point for the story was how the story assumed there might be benefits in people yet overlooked the potential risks. Considering this intervention involves inserting stem cells into the brain via the assistance of a viral strain known to be harmful to humans, it’s logical to assume there could be some safety concerns. It also overplayed the novelty here by quoting an expert who called it a “tour de force” and a “breakthrough.”  The desire to somehow combat aging seems inherent in humans. If there is a fairly straightforward “switch” that can control the aging process — and this story suggests so — then this would be a major advance. Yet we are looking at decades before this becomes a rigorous Phase III human trial, let alone a potential intervention in humans. The bottom line is: We are talking about approximately 20 male mice.


[Q]: Paragraph: News outlets report the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says it was notified on Oct. 1 that a flight attendant had a confirmed case. The Mecklenburg County Health Department says it contacted 18 Charlotte-area passengers who were on the American Airlines flight Sept. 21 from San Francisco to Charlotte. Spokeswoman Rebecca Carter says those passengers have since been vaccinated. American Airlines released a statement saying it’s in close contact with the CDC and public health officials and will coordinate with them on any required health and safety related measures. Hepatitis A is a liver disease caused by contaminated food or water. Claim: Flight attendant may have exposed passengers to Hepatitis A.
[A]: Health officials in North Carolina say more than a dozen people may have been exposed to hepatitis A on a recent flight.


[Q]: Paragraph: We were happy to see some attention to the potential cost of the stent and in comparison to the existing drug eluting stents. In addition, the story provided information on the market size at the present time. The story really does not provide a crisp rationale for a bioabsorbable stent. An important limitation of existing stents is that they are associated with increased risk of clots. The absorbable stents are designed to help with this problem, but the story doesn’t communicate this. It only refers to the possibility that the new stents may also cause clots in some people. The comments of the Abbott spokesperson aside, the reader is not provided with any idea of how often the existing stents create difficulties and why the Abbott stent will alleviate the problem. We liked the fact that the potential downsides of the bioabsorbable stent were included in the story. The story notes that the bioabsorbable stent is thicker and may require patients to be on potent anti-clotting drugs, thus exposing the patient to a risk of bleeding. The story also notes that previous studies have shown a low rate of complications. We would have liked to have seen some information about the complications seen. The results of the latest study examining the bioabsorbable stent haven’t yet been released, and the story does not delve into optimistic speculation about what the study may show. We liked the way in which the theoretical advantages are stated and that the many unknowns and questions that remain are included. The story could have provided a bit more information on the previous studies of bioabsorble stents that are alluded to in the story, especially since there are no new data to discuss. There was no disease-mongering in the story. The statements made by a company representative are counterbalanced by comments from Dr. Virmani, an independent expert in coronary artery disease and a very outspoken individual. We would have liked to have a comment or two on the parallel developments ongoing in this field. Coronary artery disease is more than a singe blockage. It is a systemic disease that is progressive unless systemic interventions are employed. Aggressive medical therapy is now viewed as an essential element to ongoing care and should have been included for completeness The story makes it clear that while the absorbable stent is available in Europe, Abbot will not be seeking approval for marketing in the United States until 2015. The idea of a bioabsorbable stent is not new or unique to Abbott. The concept was proposed in the early 1990’s and the other players are also working on their own version. Although the story alludes to the fact that competitors might seek to follow Abbott’s lead, it doesn’t convey that other companies are already quite far along in their research. Since the story quotes an unaffiliated expert in the field of cardiac pathophysiology, it is clear that it did not rely solely on a press release. We do wonder, however, why the story ran prior to the issuance of the preliminary results on the new study. Claim: Patients May Benefit From New Heart Device
[A]:
This is a reasonably well written story about the impending release of data on a new medical device. The news of the soon-to-be released study might have specific interest for investors in Abbott or those in the medical device industry. For the rest of us, however, little of value could actually be discerned from the story other than that Abbott is about to present data. The pace of innovation in the interventional management of coronary artery disease has been impressive. First generation interventions included balloon angioplasty, quickly followed by angioplasty and placement of a stent to hold the vessel open. The third generation was heralded with the introduction of drug eluting stents. In each case, new technology was developed in response to what was perceived to be the failings of the existing approach. So, it is not surprising that a bioabsorbable stent would represent the fourth generation intervention. While the forthcoming case series mentioned in this story will add to previous data suggesting benefits from this new approach, only a randomized trial comparing a bioabsorbable and non-bioabsorbable stents will provide convincing evidence of its value.