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.

Paragraph: "Residents of some Baltimore neighborhoods are no better off than people living in impoverished North Korea and the violent West Bank, Bernie Sanders said during a campaign rally in Maryland ahead of that state’s primary. ""Poverty in Baltimore, and around this country — poverty is a death sentence,"" Sanders said April 24. He then laid out some rather unflattering and harsh comparisons: ""Fifteen neighborhoods in Baltimore have lower life expectancies than North Korea. Two of them have a higher infant mortality rate than the West Bank in Palestine. Baltimore teenagers between the ages of 15 and 19 face poorer health conditions and a worse economic outlook than those in distressed cities in Nigeria, India, China and South Africa. We are talking about the United States of America in the year 2016 — a country in which the top 1/10th of 1 percent now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent."" While it would be wrong to take Sanders’ claim to mean that conditions overall are worse than Baltimore, we found that his specific comparisons are largely accurate. ""The comparisons fairly make the point that there are some parts of this rich country where conditions resemble those in much poorer countries,"" said Alan Berube, an expert on urban poverty at the Brookings Institution. ""This isn't isolated to Baltimore; there are neighborhoods in nearly every big U.S. city and metropolitan area, and many rural communities, that perform just as poorly on these outcomes."" Let’s take Sanders’ claims one by one. Life expectancy in North Korea The Sanders campaign referred us to a Washington Post article noting that 14 Baltimore neighborhoods had shorter life expectancies than North Korea in 2013. (The article originally said 15 but was corrected.) His number is slightly outdated. In 2014, the latest year where there’s data on both places, the average life expectancy in North Korea was 69.81 years, according to the CIA World Factbook. That placed the impoverished dictatorship at No. 155 in longest lifespans out of 224 countries. The United States overall ranked at No. 42 with 79.56 years. Residents in 12 of Baltimore's 56 neighborhoods lived shorter lives, according to data from the Baltimore City Health Department provided to the Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators Alliance. That’s not 15, but it’s close. (For context, just five Baltimore neighborhoods have life expectancies higher than the U.S. national average, and four of them are relatively affluent and white.) Here’s a map from the University of Maryland’s Capital News Service that compares the life expectancies of Baltimore neighborhoods in 2013 to other places in the world:  An important caveat: The city of Baltimore has a total population around 600,000 people while North Korea has a population 40 times that. That means fewer events in Baltimore neighborhood could swing the overall life expectancy of a neighborhood up or down. Infant mortality in the West Bank For this claim, the Sanders campaign referred us to a Vox article that said two neighborhoods in Baltimore — Little Italy and Greenmount East — had a higher rate of infant mortality than the West Bank, Honduras and Venezuela in 2013. But in his speech, Sanders only mentioned the West Bank. In 2014, 13.49 out of 1,000 babies died before their first birthday in the notorious conflict zone, according to the CIA’s World Factbook. The West Bank places in the middle of the pack in infant mortality at No. 117 out of 224 countries. The United States, meanwhile, ranked at No. 169 with a rate of 6.17 deaths per 1,000. In 2014, 11 Baltimore neighborhoods had a higher rate than the West Bank. In Hilltop and Little Italy, at least 20 out of 1,000 infants died before their first birthday. That’s not only higher than the West Bank, Honduras and Venezuela but also war-torn Syria and oppressive Uzbekistan. Teen health in distressed cities in developing countries Sanders claimed that ""Baltimore teenagers between the ages of 15 and 19 face poorer health conditions and a worse economic outlook than those in distressed cities in Nigeria, India, China and South Africa."" The Sanders campaign cited a Washington Post article by Johns Hopkins University researchers. ""Teenagers in Baltimore face poorer health and more negative outlooks than those in urban centers of Nigeria, India and China,"" they write. Contrary to what Sanders said, the work by the Johns Hopkins researchers don’t consider economic outlooks nor do they show Baltimore conditions being worse than South Africa’s. Nonetheless, his broader point is accurate. The researchers published a comprehensive set of studies published in the Journal of Adolescent Health in 2014 that compared the well-being of teens in impoverished areas in Baltimore; Ibadan, Nigeria; Johannesburg, South Africa; New Delhi, India; and Shanghai, China. Baltimore teens reported the highest rates pregnancy and, after Johannesburg, the second highest rates of substance use, sexual and physical violence, and feeling unsafe in their community:  Our ruling Sanders presented a series of comparisons showing that conditions in some parts of Baltimore rivaled that of ""the West Bank in Palestine,"" ""North Korea,"" and ""distressed cities in Nigeria, India, China and South Africa. Some of Sanders’ figures need to be updated, but the gist of his specific comparisons are accurate: 12 Baltimore neighborhoods have a lower life expectancy than North Korea; 11 have a higher infant mortality rate than the West Bank; and research shows health conditions are worse for poor teens than in Baltimore than in Ibadan, New Delhi and Shanghai." Claim: "Bernie Sanders Says an array of statistics show that conditions in some parts of Baltimore rival that of ""the West Bank in Palestine,"" ""North Korea,"" and ""distressed cities in Nigeria, India, China and South Africa."
"Sanders presented a series of comparisons showing that conditions in some parts of Baltimore rivaled that of ""the West Bank in Palestine,"" ""North Korea,"" and ""distressed cities in Nigeria, India, China and South Africa. Some of Sanders’ figures need to be updated, but the gist of his specific comparisons are accurate: 12 Baltimore neighborhoods have a lower life expectancy than North Korea; 11 have a higher infant mortality rate than the West Bank; and research shows health conditions are worse for poor teens than in Baltimore than in Ibadan, New Delhi and Shanghai."

Paragraph: "As a matter of course, stories about the increased use of drugs should report the drugs’ prices. A change in guidelines based on the study would increase the number of patients eligible for treatment by several hundred thousand in the US. The annualized cost of drug treatment is $12,000-$24,000 depending on the regimen, leading to potential new expenditures of $24 to $48 billion. While there are significant offsets, the potential for this level of additional costs should have been included in the story The story states that delaying treatment ""nearly doubles the risk of dying over the next several years"" and yields a ""70 percent improvement in survival."" This reporting is vague. The story should have compared absolute risks, not relative risks. See our primer on this issue. The story should have included the time span studied. These numbers should have stated the two death rates directly so readers can understand the magnitude of the benefit–whether the risk of death went from [say] 2 percent to 1 percent or from 30 percent to 15 percent. The story places the recommended treatment of earlier drug intervention in the context of the treatments’ known side effects, which can be very serious. The story should have described the severity of those side effects. We give this a satisfactory score, but barely. The report is based on a study presented at a major medical meeting. The story should have mentioned the fact that it has not been published or peer-reviewed. It should also have pointed out that it was a retrospective cohort study, which is considered to be less conclusive than prospective, double-blind studies. It should also have pointed out, as the NIH press release does, that a clinical trial is needed to validate the results in a way that would call for changing the current guidelines. These failures to provide caveats and context earn the story an ""unsatisfactory"" rating under this criterion. The story does not exaggerate the gravity or prevalance of AIDS. The story quotes Anthony Fauci, one of the best-known and -respected experts in the field of HIV/AIDS. The story also quotes the study’s lead investigator, and the author of AIDS treatment guidelines. That source’s link to companies that make AIDS drugs is properly noted. The story also quotes an independent clinician familiar with the guidelines and the current research. The story plainly compares the current guidelines with the regimen tested. The story explains that the drug combinations used by AIDS patients have been widely used since the mid-1990s. No claims are made for the novelty of the drug treatment. The recommendation to treat earlier is presented not as novel, but as a plan under consideration and study for quite some time. The story does not draw excessively on the NIH press release." Claim: AIDS treatment should be started sooner, study says
"This is a Columbus Dispatch version of a story reported by the Associated Press. Since the Columbus paper changed the original article substantially, we send our comments to the Columbus paper. Taking the big view, this story about the benefits of starting the standard multi-drug AIDS treatment sooner than current guidelines suggest accomplishes its mission. It fairly describes important new research that verifies earlier work suggesting the same thing. It says, correctly, that the continuing research could drive changes in treatment. The story is well-sourced and provides a lucid description of the disease process and detailed definition of ""early"" treatment. Having said that, the report falls short of two key best practices:  It fails to quantify the benefits of early treatment in a meaningful way. It uses ""relative risk"" [a percent reduction in mortality] instead of ""absolute risk"" [which would allow readers to understand the gravity of the risk and the size of the benefit. It fails to describe the limitations of the study with caveats and context. If the story had mentioned those limitations, its predictions of imminent clinical use and eventual changes to the guidelines would have been properly tempered. As presented, the story fails to check the sources’ consistent enthusiasm with journalistic disinterest. Given the credibility of the study, the opinions of multiple high-quality sources and the previous research record, the predictions seem justifiable. But the history of AIDS science, treatment and politics recommends a bit more reporting distance and care."

Paragraph: The WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) said cancer was growing “at an alarming pace” worldwide and new strategies were needed to curb the sometimes fatal and often costly disease. “It’s untenable to think we can treat our way out of the cancer problem. That alone will not be a sufficient response,” Christopher Wild, IARC’s director and co-editor of its World Cancer Report 2014, told reporters at a London briefing. “More commitment to prevention and early detection is desperately needed... to complement improved treatments and address the alarming rise in the cancer burden globally.”  The World Cancer Report, which is only produced roughly once every five years, involved a collaboration of around 250 scientists from more than 40 countries. It said access to effective and relatively inexpensive cancer drugs would significantly cut death rates, even in places where health-care services are less well developed. The spiraling costs of cancer are hurting the economies of even the richest countries and are often way beyond the reach of poorer nations. In 2010, the total annual economic cost of cancer was estimated at around $1.16 trillion. Yet around half of all cancers could be avoided if current knowledge about cancer prevention was properly implemented, Wild told reporters. The report said that in 2012 - the latest year for which data are available - new cancer cases rose to an estimated 14 million a year, a figure expected to grow to 22 million within the next two decades. Over the same period, cancer deaths are predicted to rise from an estimated 8.2 million a year to 13 million per year. The data mean that at current rates, one in five men and one in six women worldwide will develop cancer before they reach 75 years old, while one in eight men and one in 12 women will die from the disease. In 2012, the most common cancers diagnosed were lung, breast and colon or bowel cancers, while the most common causes of cancer death were lung, liver and stomach cancers. As populations across the world are both growing and ageing, IARC said developing countries were disproportionately affected by the increasing numbers of cancers. “Behind each one of these numbers, there’s an individual and a family faced with a tragic situation,” Wild said. More than 60 percent of the world’s total cases occur in Africa, Asia, and Central and South America, and these regions account for about 70 percent of the world’s cancer deaths, it said. The situation is made worse in poorer countries by the lack of early detection and access to treatment. “Governments must show political commitment to progressively step up the implementation of high-quality screening and early detection programs, which are an investment rather than a cost,” said Bernard Stewart, another co-editor of the report. The experts highlighted efforts to curb rates of smoking, the use of vaccines to prevent infections that cause cervical and liver cancers and policies aimed at bringing down rates of obesity as key areas in which more should be done. “Adequate legislation can encourage healthier behavior,” said Stewart. Claim: We can't beat cancer with drugs alone; prevention crucial: WHO.

Governments must make better use of vaccines and preventative public health policies in the fight against cancer as treatment alone cannot stem the disease, a World Health Organization (WHO) agency said on Monday.