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.

Example Input: Paragraph: The study tracked about 20,000 severely obese patients with Type 2 diabetes. Those who had weight loss surgery had a 40 percent lower chance of developing a heart attack or stroke in the five years following surgery compared to those who got usual care with diabetes medicines or insulin. For every 1,000 patients in the study who had surgery there were roughly 20 heart attacks or strokes compared to 40 such events per 1,000 who got regular care. More than 30 million Americans have diabetes, mostly Type 2 where the body loses the ability to produce or use insulin to turn food into energy. Other research has shown obesity surgery can reverse and even prevent diabetes. Taken together, it means doctors should discuss weight loss surgery more often, said study co-author Dr. David Arterburn of Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute in Seattle. Doctors usually mention insulin and pills, “but it’s not always brought up that weight loss surgery is another available treatment option,” Arterburn said. Researchers analyzed records from four U.S. health care systems: HealthPartners in Minnesota and Kaiser Permanente in Washington state, Northern California and Southern California. Results were published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The study can’t prove cause and effect because patients weren’t randomly assigned to get surgery. The researchers tried to match patients for gender, age, blood sugar levels and other factors. But other things they didn’t account for could have contributed to the surgery patients’ better results. Everyone in the study had a BMI, or body mass index, of at least 35. For instance, someone who is 5-foot-8-inches and weighs 230 pounds has a BMI of 35. Of the more than 5,300 who had surgery, most had gastric bypass, the most common type of stomach-shrinking operation. Some had gastric sleeve or gastric band procedures. The rest, nearly 15,000 people, had usual care. Obesity surgery can cost $20,000 to $25,000. Insurers are increasingly covering it, but some impose strict limits. The new findings suggest insurance coverage should be expanded for the right patients, Dr. Sayeed Ikramuddin of the University of Minnesota wrote in an accompanying editorial. Surgery is thought to help by affecting hormones, gut bacteria and other substances that affect how the body handles insulin and blood sugar. Weight loss without surgery also helps, but is difficult for many people to achieve. Most weight loss surgery today is done through small incisions. The dangers are similar to other surgeries, including a small chance of life-threatening complications, and some people need to have their surgeries repeated. ___ Follow AP Medical Writer Carla K. Johnson on Twitter: @CarlaKJohnson ___ The Associated Press Health &amp; Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Claim: Obesity surgery may lower heart attack danger in diabetics.
Example Output: Obesity surgery may dramatically lower the danger of heart attacks and strokes in patients with diabetes, new research suggests, reinforcing evidence that benefits extend beyond weight loss.

Example Input: Paragraph: "Campaigning for president in the liberal oasis of Madison, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont rose to the defense of marijuana. Critical of the nation’s war on drugs, Sanders said the lives of millions of Americans have been ""ruined"" because they got a police record for possessing marijuana. ""Today, under the federal Controlled Substance Act, marijuana is listed in the same Schedule I as heroin. That is nuts,"" Sanders declared March 26, 2016, 10 days before he defeated Hillary Clinton in Wisconsin’s Democratic primary. ""Now people can argue -- although I suspect in this audience there may not be much of an argument -- about the pluses and minuses of marijuana,"" he said, drawing cheers from some of the thousands in attendance at the Alliant Energy Center. ""But everybody knows marijuana is not a killer drug like heroin."" Sanders then noted he had introduced legislation to remove marijuana from the Controlled Substance Act because possession of it ""should not be a federal crime."" We found that Sanders wasn’t smoking anything funny in claiming that both marijuana and heroin are Schedule I drugs, which he has continued to say while campaigning in New York and Pennsylvania. But his claim is somewhat misleading: That classification is based on a drug’s acceptable medical use and the drug’s abuse or dependency potential, not on criminal statutes. The law The Controlled Substance Act, adopted in 1970, uses five schedules to classify drugs and narcotics by medical use and potential to incite substance abuse. On the low end is Schedule V, which includes substances such as cough medicines with small amounts of the narcotic codeine. At the high end is Schedule I, which lists the ""most dangerous"" drugs -- those that have ""no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse."" Marijuana is stronger than when the Controlled Substance Act was adopted (as ex-GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina correctly stated). Nevertheless Schedule II includes some drugs often considered more dangerous than marijuana. Here’s a look at some of the drugs in the two schedules: Schedule I Schedule II Marijuana Cocaine Heroin Methamphetamine LSD Methadone Ecstasy OxyContin Peyote Fentanyl The Huffington Post in April 2016, citing figures from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said the nation recorded no marijuana overdose deaths in 2015. Likewise, there were zero in 2014. It’s possible marijuana might soon be moved off of Schedule I. A week after Sanders’ speech, the Washington Post reported that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration said it hopes to decide by July 2016 whether to change the federal status of marijuana. Now let’s get to Sanders’ implication that the schedule relates to criminal law enforcement. Marijuana treated differently Distribution, manufacturing or possession of a Schedule I substance is indeed a federal offense. Additionally, marijuana being on Schedule I, drug policy experts told us, makes it more difficult for licensed dealers in states that have legalized marijuana or medical marijuana to get bank accounts and to deduct business expenses on their taxes. And the classification makes it more difficult for researchers to study marijuana in clinical trials. But judges come down harder on heroin possession than marijuana possession. And when it comes to enforcement of criminal statutes, the federal government to some extent has looked the other way when it comes to marijuana. As PolitiFact National stated in a related fact check: Schedule I substances cannot legally be used for medical purposes, however, 20 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws legalizing medical marijuana. In 2009, the administration of President Barack Obama, a Democrat, told federal law enforcement agencies to stop targeting medical marijuana dispensaries, signaling a change from the approach of Obama’s predecessor, Republican President George W. Bush. Similarly, in 2013, the Department of Justice said it would not target new laws in Colorado and Washington legalizing recreational marijuana. While Sanders equates the handling or marijuana and heroin, it’s difficult to imagine the federal government not enforcing the law if states started legalizing heroin. Our rating Criticizing the nation’s war on drugs, Sanders says that under the federal Controlled Substance Act, ""marijuana is listed in the same Schedule I as heroin,"" even though ""marijuana is not a killer drug like heroin."" Like heroin, marijuana is indeed listed as a Schedule I drug, the federal designation given to drugs considered the most dangerous. But at least under the Obama administration, the federal government doesn’t treat it as one under the law. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification, our rating is . Claim: "Under the federal Controlled Substance Act, marijuana is listed in the same Schedule I as heroin,"" even though ""marijuana is not a killer drug like heroin."
Example Output: "Criticizing the nation’s war on drugs, Sanders says that under the federal Controlled Substance Act, ""marijuana is listed in the same Schedule I as heroin,"" even though ""marijuana is not a killer drug like heroin."" Like heroin, marijuana is indeed listed as a Schedule I drug, the federal designation given to drugs considered the most dangerous. But at least under the Obama administration, the federal government doesn’t treat it as one under the law. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification. 

Example Input: Paragraph: While the story included a calculation that suggested that the intervention was as cost effective as strategies screening for elevated LDL, the story failed to indicate the actual cost to the consumer. Although the story mentioned the number of people in the two study groups who had heart-related death, heart attacks and other serious cardiac problems during the course of the study, it could have a done a better job at clarifying that this represented a small percentage of affected individuals. A more direct statement an juxtaposition of absolute versus relative risk reduction would have been helpful. The story indicated that there was an increased number of people taking Crestor who developed diabetes during the study. The story mentioned that the results of the study were presented at a recent meeting and that the results of the study had been published. It described that the study population was a group of 17,802 individuals, all of whom had elevated levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and that it was a randomized study of individuals given 20 mg of rosuvastin (Crestor) compared with a placebo group. The story did temper the enthusiasm for more testing and more treatment by including skeptical comments from editorial writer Hlatky. The story included comments from several individuals who were not involved in the study and provided some cautionary perspective about the implications of the study. And while this piece relied heavily on comments from Dr. Ridker, the story did mention that he was an inventor of the test for CRP was also the recipient of funding from the manufacturer of the study drug. The two main issues in the study reported on was the use of CRP to identify candidates who could benefit from lipid lowering  and then the use of Crestor to lower lipids in these individuals to lower cardiovascular disease risk. In terms of treatment options,the story indicated the uncertainty about whether the outcomes observed were the result of the specific drug study or could be obtained with the use of any in the statin class of drugs. It also mentioned that the reduction in CRP was not associated with the decrease in LDL levels seen in the study participants. There was no discussion, however, about what, if any, other means for lowering CRP were available. The story did mention that there was little known about what the long term impact of maintaining very low levels of LDL cholesterol. From the story, it was clear that Crestor, the medication reported on, was currently available. In addition, the story indicated that it did not have FDA approval for use in the way it was employed in the study. The story reported that the study indicated a new target population for a medication that was currently approved for use. However, the story failed to note that other studies (e.g. AFCAPS) have found benefit from lipid lowering in patients with no history of heart disease and non-elevated LDL levels, using the statin lovastatin, a drug with is now available as generic. The reductions reported were somewhat smaller, but not radically different. Does not rely exclusively on a press release. Claim: Cholesterol Drug Cuts Heart Risk in Healthy Patients
Example Output:
This story described the results of the JUPITER study which found that use of the statin medication Crestor reduced the risk of heart-related death, heart attacks and other serious cardiac problems in people who would be calculated to be at low risk of these but who had elevated levels of C-reactive protein. The story met most of our criteria, but could have emphasized that the findings are those of a single study and that results need to be replicated before they can be assumed to have widespread application. It also could have mentioned that there have been other studies with less expensive drugs with similar results. It is good that the story included skeptical comments from editorial writer Hlatky, something that a surprising number of stories ignored or failed to include. We are troubled by the high placement of the impressive-sounding 44% relative risk reduction figure, with the absolute risk reduction given later in the piece, but not juxtaposed to the more impressive-sounding statistic. We think readers need more clear help processing such stats. There was also only a brief mention of the troubling diabetes rate in the Crestor group.