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.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: “It’s time to go back on offense,” Lechleiter said in a recent interview. New treatments for diabetes and cancer now awaiting approval and increased sales of animal-health products and drugs in China and Japan are some of the aggressive moves he has in mind. He is also counting on a robust success rate among three dozen other experimental drugs now in mid- and late-stage trials, including a cancer drug called ramucirumab. “We’re on the cusp of launching products in cancer and diabetes, two therapeutic areas where we’re well established and where we have built out the infrastructure we need,” Lechleiter said. “And we believe that’s going to be the beginning of our return to growth.”  Skeptical investors only now appear to be catching on to Lilly’s potential upside. After rising only 3 percent in 2013, badly underperforming a 27 percent average advance for other large drugmakers, the stock is up 6 percent this month. “Instead of having to play defense and manage through this difficult patent cliff, the company will be able to use additional cash flow to invest in its pipeline, to partner with others or make bolt-on acquisitions,” said Atlantic Equities analyst Richard Purkiss. “The outlook is much brighter, and they’ll try to get that message across in coming months.”  Lilly, which reports quarterly and 2013 results on Thursday, has forecast earnings of $2.77 to $2.85 per share this year, the final and worst year of its patent cliff. That’s 41 percent less than 2010. Lilly last year sought U.S. approvals for four drugs, three of which Lechleiter said could be approved in 2014: ramucirumab for stomach cancer, and dulaglutide and empagliflozin for type 2 diabetes - the most common form of diabetes, which is closely linked to obesity. Analysts have forecast annual sales of more than $650 million for ramucirumab, saying sales could be far higher if the drug also wins approval for cancers of the colon, lung or liver. But they caution that the diabetes drugs may have a hard time competing against existing options. Lechleiter said Lilly plans to seek approval of necitumumab for squamous-cell lung cancer this year. The medicine, like ramucirumab, was acquired by Lilly through its $6.5 billion purchase of ImClone Systems in 2008. If approved, necitumumab could capture eventual annual sales of more than $1 billion, analysts say. Such sales could make a big difference for Lilly, whose annual revenue of $20 billion is far lower than Big Pharma rivals like Pfizer Inc and Merck & Co. In the meantime, Lilly is testing nearly 40 medicines in mid- and late stage studies, compared with only 7 in those stages of development a decade ago. They include new treatments for cholesterol, psoriasis, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis and Alzheimer’s disease. Animal health unit Elanco, with annual sales of about $2 billion, is thriving as Lilly introduces new products and has expanded the business in China and other fast-growing markets. Many analysts are wary, however, of the company’s ability to win approvals of prescription drugs because it has not launched any major products in recent years and has suffered setbacks in clinical trials, including ramucirumab’s failure to delay progression of breast cancer. Of 20 analysts tracked by Thomson Reuters, 12 have hold or sell ratings on Lilly, versus 8 with buy ratings. Lilly shares trade at 19 times expected 2014 per-share earnings, compared to a price-to-earnings ratio of 14.6 for other large drugmakers. That could be more a reflection of the company’s poor earnings this year than excitement about the stock. “We believe that overall the pipeline will disappoint investors,” said Alex Arfaei of BMO Capital Markets in a research note, citing low sales expectations for ramucirumab and the new diabetes drugs. When Lilly’s Zyprexa was confronted with cheaper generic treatments for schizophrenia in October 2011, it faced one of the industry’s steepest patent cliffs ever, quickly losing 80 percent of its onetime $5 billion in annual sales. Similarly precipitous declines are expected for Cymbalta, Lilly’s $5 billion-a-year antidepressant, which lost U.S. patent protection last month, and for blockbuster osteoporosis treatment Evista, which goes generic in March. Many other large drugmakers, when faced with patent expirations and earnings declines of lesser scope, have resorted to megamergers to cushion the blow from generics and prop up earnings with cost savings. Huge layoffs, sapped morale and poor track records in introducing new drugs are more common results. Pfizer Inc stands out, having snapped up U.S. rivals Warner-Lambert, Pharmacia and Wyeth since 2000. Lechleiter, who began his career at Lilly in 1979 as a senior organic chemist, has steadfastly spurned any suggestion of a big merger: “It’s never entered our minds, and we remain adamantly opposed.”  John Boris, an analyst for Suntrust Robinson Humphrey, said he expects Lilly earnings to grow an average of 10 percent a year between 2015 and 2020, which would make it second to Bristol-Myers Squibb Co in profit growth over that period. Atlantic Equities’ Purkiss said he anticipates Lilly will deliver industry-topping earnings growth in the “mid-teens” percentage range in 2015, 2016 and 2017. “The sentiment has been very negative on Lilly, but it looks like it will go from one of the most growth-starved to the fastest growing of the major U.S. drugmakers and the European players,” Purkiss said. By avoiding a disruptive megamerger, Lilly has allowed itself to press ahead with ambitious research, said Barclays analyst Tony Butler. He said to date the company has met long-term sales and earnings forecasts it provided in 2009 - before patents went over the cliff - while maintaining its generous dividend, with a current yield of 3.6 percent. “At the time, the market was incredibly skeptical about Lilly’s ability to fund its dividend and to have enough remaining cash flow to fund its business,” said Butler. “Lilly proved everybody wrong.”  (This story has been refiled to change second subhead) Claim: Lilly CEO: 'It's time to go back on offense'.
[EX A]: After three years of seeing major drugs like Zyprexa for schizophrenia lose patent protection and wipe away billions of dollars in revenue, Eli Lilly and Co Chief Executive Officer John Lechleiter wants to change the game plan.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Moncef Slaoui, a former GlaxoSmithKline executive, will lead “Operation Warp Speed,” Trump’s push to accelerate the vaccine development process for COVID-19, according to an administration official. Slaoui is to serve in a volunteer capacity, and will be assisted by Army Gen. Gustave Perna, the commander of United States Army Materiel Command. The move comes as the president and White House aides hope to produce vaccines for the coronavirus faster than what many scientists believe is realistic. The administration is aiming to have 300 million doses to distribute to Americans by the end of the year, believing a reliable vaccine is the only way to promote an economic rebound. “Operation Warp Speed” is operating largely independently of the existing White House coronavirus task force, which is also shifting its focus toward vaccine development. The initiative is being promoted by White House senior adviser Jared Kushner, and involves officials from the Defense Department and the Department of Health and Human Services. On Tuesday, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the government’s top infectious disease expert, said a vaccine would not be available by the beginning of the next academic year. “The idea of having treatments available or a vaccine to facilitate re-entry of students into the fall term would be something that would be a bit of a bridge too far,” he said, “even at the top speed we’re going.” Claim: Trump to name former pharma exec as vaccine czar.
[EX A]: President Donald Trump is set to name a former pharmaceutical executive to lead his administration’s all-out effort to produce and distribute a coronavirus vaccine by the end of the year.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "EDITOR'S NOTE: An analysis of this comment by President Barack Obama was published on April 1, 2010. After it appeared, the Heritage Foundation's communications office contacted us to argue that our rating of  was too generous to the president. We did some additional reporting to review our ruling. Our second round of reporting -- primarily talking to conservative policy experts outside of Heritage -- solidified our initial conclusions. Below is the updated version of our story, which retains the rating of , published April 26, 2010.Democrats like to parry Republican criticism of the recently passed health care law by talking about how it includes ideas that originated with conservatives. During an interview on NBC's Today show on March 30, 2010, President Barack Obama offered a specific example.Obama told host Matt Lauer that ""when you actually look at the bill itself, it incorporates all sorts of Republican ideas. I mean a lot of commentators have said this is sort of similar to the bill that Mitt Romney, the Republican governor and now presidential candidate, passed in Massachusetts. A lot of the ideas in terms of the exchange, just being able to pool and improve the purchasing power of individuals in the insurance market, that originated from the Heritage Foundation. ...""We zeroed in on the notion that the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that is no fan of Obama's health care law as a whole, might have ""originated"" the idea of the health insurance exchange -- a virtual marketplace where individuals can purchase health insurance. Our interest only grew after we received an e-mail from Heritage president Ed Feulner that blasted Obama's claim. ""President Obama this morning cited the Heritage Foundation's research in an attempt to sell his health care package as a 'middle-of-the-road, centrist approach,'"" Feulner wrote. ""We take great exception to this misuse of our work and abuse of our name. This is but the latest act in a campaign to sell this big-government program as a moderate law that incorporates conservative ideas. Americans should not be fooled. ""Feulner went on to argue that ""the president knows full well — or he ought to learn before he speaks — that the exchanges we and most others support are very different from those in his package. True exchanges are simply a market mechanism to enable families to choose their health insurance. President Obama’s exchanges, by contrast, are a vehicle to introduce sweeping regulation and federal standardization on health insurance. ""Heritage continued its campaign against Obama's claim in an April 19, 2010, op-ed column in the Washington Post. The director of Heritage's Center for Health Policy Studies, Robert Moffit, wrote that ""the version of the exchange we did develop couldn't be more different than that embodied in this law."" He charged that ""the Obama health-care law 'builds' on the Heritage health reform model only in the sense that, say, a double-quarter-pounder with cheese 'builds' on the idea of a garden salad. Both have lettuce and tomato and may be called food, but the similarities end there. ""We see two related, but distinct, questions here. The first is whether Heritage did in fact ""originate"" the idea of health insurance exchanges. The second is whether the exchange prescribed by the new law mirrors the one that Heritage has supported.• Did Heritage originate the idea? Our research suggests that while Heritage has advocated for health insurance exchanges for many years, others did, too. Scholars credit Alain C. Enthoven -- an emeritus professor at the Stanford University Graduate School of Business who worked in the Defense Department during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations -- with popularizing the idea for an exchange as many as three decades ago.Still, there's little doubt that Heritage has been a consistent and eager promoter of the exchange idea, especially during the effort to design a new health care system for Massachusetts. That effort concluded with the Democratic legislature joining with the Republican governor, Romney, to implement a system that includes a health insurance exchange.On numerous occasions, Heritage scholars wrote approvingly of the exchange system in Massachusetts, known as the Connector. In a paper about the Massachusetts plan published on April 11, 2006, Edmund Haislmaier, a Heritage fellow in health care policy, wrote of the ""truly significant and transformative health system changes that the legislation would set in motion. ""Specifically, Haislmaier wrote that ""this concept of organizing a state's insurance markets around a central clearinghouse represents a dramatic departure from recent state health insurance reform proposals. States have spent the past 15 years trying to expand health care coverage to small-business employees, with virtually no positive results. The Massachusetts legislation represents a bipartisan commitment to move away from the policies that have largely failed to make progress in covering the uninsured for the past 15 years. ""In another paper, titled, ""The Rationale for a Statewide Health Insurance Exchange,"" and published on Oct. 5, 2006, Heritage scholar Robert Moffit wrote that ""the best option is a health insurance market exchange."" Comparing it to a farmers' market or the used-car dealer CarMax, Moffit said the exchange ""would expand coverage and choice"" and would represent ""a revolutionary change in the health insurance market. ""Journalists seemed to give Heritage credit, as well. During 2006, columns and articles citing Heritage's role in promoting the health exchange idea ran in such publications as the Washington Post, the Dallas Morning News, the New Orleans Times-Picayune and the National Review.We feel the president is largely right on this point. The idea for exchanges may have ""originated"" outside Heritage, but in well over a decade leading up to the introduction of the president's health care plan, Heritage clearly took a high-profile role in touting it, culminating in the proposal enacted in Massachusetts. And given that, they can hardly be shocked that the president is noting the think tank's role in developing the overall concept (even if he did so in a self-serving way).• Is it the same idea? After Obama made his comment, we spoke to both Haislmaier and to Stuart Butler, Heritage's vice president for domestic policy. Both argued that the plan now enacted into law is fundamentally different in structure than the one Heritage advocated. ""What Obama and Capitol Hill did was to take a mainstream idea and push it toward a much more interventionist, regulatory model, as opposed to the original idea, which was more market-based,"" Butler said in an interview.To prevent Heritage scholars from moving the goalposts after the fact, we decided to analyze how similar the proposals are only by referring to policy stances that can be documented in briefing papers published prior to Obama's election. We found at least four papers that spoke directly to the health insurance exchange idea, and in these papers, we noticed several passages that advocated elements of an exchange that differ from how the bill was ultimately written.Here are some of those differences:-- Who can use the exchange? In a 2006 paper, Moffit wrote, ""Ideally, an exchange should be open to all state residents and all interested employers, regardless of the size of the firm, who want to arrange health insurance through the exchange. ""That's not the case with the exchanges in the new law -- at least not any time soon. When the exchanges go live in 2014, they will only be open to people already buying insurance on the individual market (that is, those buying insurance independent of their employer) and to employees of small businesses with up to 100 employees. A provision does allow employees of businesses with more than 100 employees to purchase coverage from the exchange, but not until 2017, and only if their state decides to allow it. (The exception is that employees who are paying too large a percentage of their income on their employer-based health insurance will be eligible in 2014.) -- How much federal regulation will there be? Heritage scholars have regularly argued that the key regulatory role for the exchanges should be handled by the states, rather than the federal government.In a 2007 paper, Butler wrote that ""each state would determine on its own such features as the infrastructure for handling premiums, as well as the regulations and requirements for accepting insurance plans into the exchange. The state also would be responsible for determining pooling, reinsurance, and risk adjustment arrangements and the degree to which firms would, if at all, be required to offer plans available through the exchange to their employees. ""It's true that the new health care law will create state-based exchanges. However, they will have to adhere to many federal requirements.For instance, the federal law requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to define an ""essential health benefits package"" (and update its details every year). This will become the minimum package offered on the exchanges. The law also limits plans sold on the exchange to charging differential premiums only based on age (in a 3-to-1 ratio), geography, family composition and tobacco use (on a 1.5-to-1 ratio). And health plans on the exchange will have to abide by an assortment of other rules governing marketing requirements, provider networks and standards for presenting information to consumers.-- How portable will insurance be? In a 2007 paper published by Heritage, researcher Connie Marshner argued that health insurance exchanges would promote portability of health insurance. ""When individuals are able to purchase health insurance for themselves in an (exchange) marketplace, the insurance belongs to them,"" Marshner wrote. ""Even if they change jobs, move, or quit working and retire, they own the policy and can keep the same health insurance if they so choose. ""That should be the case for many people on the health care law's exchange, especially those who bought their insurance individually, as long as states don't erect high barriers that bar people from moving from one state's exchange to another. But full portability will be unlikely for those who purchased insurance on the exchange with the help of their employer. While the exchange should make it easier for those switching jobs to find new insurance, there will most likely be a disruption when that employee switches companies -- and whenever there's a disruption in coverage, there's a likelihood that their plan will have to change to one degree or another.So where does this leave us?Edwin Park, a senior fellow with the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, sees significant similarities in approach despite the differences outlined above. Park said the differences involved ""rules of the road within the exchange, rather than fundamental differences in the underlying concept or structure. ""Henry Aaron, a fellow with the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution, called the new health care law ""a close relative"" of Heritage's plan -- ""not identical to be sure, but a sibling or at least a first cousin. The essence is that you have a government or nonprofit entity that regulates the sale of insurance to individuals or businesses in order to standardize offerings and to control selling methods in order to produce real, head-to-head competition and to provide customers information in forms they can readily understand. ... Yes, they are all different; but they are all of the same family. ""We also solicited the views of conservative policy experts beyond Heritage.One -- Tevi Troy, a visiting senior fellow at the Hudson Institute -- thought Heritage had a legitimate gripe. ""In the policy world, there is often a vast gulf between theoretical ideas and policies as implemented, and this case is no exception,"" Troy said. ""While Heritage had been a leading advocate for health insurance exchanges, the law as written creates something so different from what Heritage sought that I understand why they want to remove their name from the list of proponents. ""However, we heard from nine people affiliated with conservative policy organizations other than Heritage who thought that the president's statement was reasonably accurate.Seven of them declined to publicly express their differences with Heritage for fear of making waves within the tight-knit conservative policy world. But two did allow their names to be used. One was Dan Miller, executive vice president of the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, who acknowledged that Obama's statement was so carefully worded that the president ""was able to exploit"" the issue ""for his own ends. ""The other was Daniel McCarthy, senior editor of the American Conservative magazine who has written recently about the conservative origins of the president's health care plan. ""Every think tank on the left and right knows that its recommendations will undergo some deformation before they make their way into law, if they ever do,"" McCarthy told PolitiFact. ""Heritage might prefer state insurance exchanges with greater individual choice, including for workers already covered by their employers. But I don't imagine Ed Feulner would be complaining at all if a Republican president or a Republican Congress had passed a plan that deviated from the Heritage blueprint to the same degree that Obama's bill has. While it's not true that 'lots of' the specifics in the Obama plan were dreamed up by Heritage, the overall approach is similar to policies Heritage has long championed, including the individual mandate as well as the insurance exchanges. This is only controversial because the wrong party happened to pass the law, and it's poison for any conservative to be identified with it. ""We agree with Heritage that the differences between its original vision and the version enacted into law are not trivial, and are enough to undercut the president's effort to secure a Heritage Foundation seal of approval for his bill. But the president helped his case by wording his statement with extreme care. Intentionally or not, he gave himself subtle linguistic running room by saying that ""a lot of the ideas"" for the exchange came from Heritage, including the concept of ""just being able to pool and improve the purchasing power of individuals in the insurance market."" Even if not all of the ideas in the two plans are identical, we feel that it was fair of him to say that ""a lot of the ideas"" are in common, including the notion of pooling. So we conclude that the president's statement qualifies as ." Claim: A lot of the ideas in terms of the (health insurance) exchange, just being able to pool and improve the purchasing power of individuals in the insurance market, that originated from the Heritage Foundation.
[EX A]:
Obama says Heritage Foundation is source of health exchange idea