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: Interior minister Sajid Javid used an exceptional power on Saturday to release medicinal cannabis oil that had been taken from Billy Caldwell, 12, by customs officials at London’s Heathrow Airport. Billy’s mother, Charlotte Caldwell, had been pleading for the medication to be given back because without it her son suffered from life-threatening seizures. “This case .. has shone a light on the use of cannabis medicine in this country and highlighted the need for the government to explore the issue further, and our handling of these issues further,” said Nick Hurd, a junior minister in charge of policing. “As a first step, I can announce today that the government is establishing an expert panel of clinicians to advise ministers on any individual applications to prescribe cannabis-based medicines,” he told parliament. Under British law, cannabis is listed as a schedule 1 drug, meaning that it is not recognized as having a therapeutic value. Schedule 1 drugs can be used for research purposes and clinical trials but only under a Home Office license. “I recognize the need to ensure that the approach to licensing works more effectively,” Hurd said. Billy Caldwell had been receiving medicinal cannabis oil on prescription by his family doctor for more than a year, but supplies ran out after the interior ministry ordered the doctor to stop prescribing it. Charlotte Caldwell and her son, who normally live in Northern Ireland, made a round trip to Canada to buy more supplies, but the oil was confiscated by customs when they re-entered Britain. Billy was hospitalized days later, suffering from seizures. His condition improved after the medicinal cannabis oil was handed back and on Monday he was discharged from hospital. Several members of parliament from different parties voiced support for the Caldwell family and to the idea of loosening the rules on therapeutic uses of cannabis in responses to Hurd’s statement on Monday. Claim: UK signals changes on medicinal cannabis use after epileptic boy's case.
[EX A]: The British government will look into possible changes to rules on the use of cannabis-based medicines, a minister said on Monday, after an epileptic boy whose medication was confiscated was hospitalized.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The story says the procedure to insert stents costs from $11,000 to $41,000 in the U.S. The story makes clear there was no significant difference between a sham procedure or stent insertion, but it only describes the benefit as “less pain.” We would like to see how the pain was measured, some numbers on how much pain was reduced, and how many patients benefitted in each group. The story briefly mentions there are potential harms, including death. The story describes the study’s methods in some detail — the sham surgery of the control group, for instance — and mentions the size of the study and the characteristics of the subjects. It adds heft to the sense that this was a very good study with multiple reactions from expert sources — “humbling,” “unbelievable,” “impressive” and “very well conducted.” Importantly, it quotes one source describing a few desired measures that the study didn’t address, such as whether stents would be more effective in patients with more severe disease or who were studied for a longer period of time. The story could have done a better job of explicitly calling attention to the relatively small number of participants and the need for confirmatory follow-up studies. Heart disease is very common in our society and opening up blocked arteries is a common almost routine procedure. No disease mongering occurred in the article. We were pleased to see discussion from many experts, however, the story left out two important potential conflicts of interest. The story states that: Dr. William E. Boden, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Boston University School of Medicine, called the results “unbelievable.” Readers should have been informed that Boden has received fees from Abbott, a major stent device maker. Also, the story states that: Dr. David Maron, a cardiologist at Stanford University, praised the new study as “very well conducted” but said that it left some questions unanswered. The participants had a profound blockage but only in one artery, he noted, and they were assessed after just six weeks. The story didn’t disclose that Dr. Maron is an “employee of and stockholder in Cardiovascular Services of America, which provides outpatient cardiac catheterization and computed tomography angiography services,” which was disclosed here. The story (and the study) suggest that medication can manage pain from blocked arteries. Stenting procedures are clearly widely available in the U.S. and across the world. What’s less clear, the story says, is whether guidelines or practice for stenting will change in the U.S.: “The idea that stenting relieves chest pain is so ingrained that some experts said they expect most doctors will continue with stenting, reasoning that the new research is just one study.” We thought this was an interesting point and are glad it was included. The many expressions of surprise by practicing cardiologists makes clear that the study offers a novel finding. The story did not rely on the news release. Claim: ‘Unbelievable’: Heart Stents Fail to Ease Chest Pain
[EX A]: This New York Times story describes startling news that a very common procedure–inserting a stent to open a blocked blood vessel–does not add benefit over medication in patients with angina. Angina is chest pain due to blocked heart arteries, and is common among people with heart disease. Sourcing is a strong point for this story: It features perspective from many American cardiologists who were shocked to learn of the negative results from this study. However, two important potential conflicts of interest among the sources were not disclosed. In addition, the story contains lots of helpful detail on the limitations of the study, the possibility that placebo effects are at play, and how medical practice may or may not change as a result. It also discussed the costs and potential harms of stenting procedures. That said, the story could have provided more information on what the study itself measured–and what, precisely, the results were. The Wall Street Journal story, which we also reviewed, was stronger on this point. Heart disease is still the leading killer of Americans so any news about treating aspects of heart disease, such as blocked arteries, is newsworthy. In addition, this story suggests that stenting — common, but expensive — is a prime example of over-treatment. Also the procedure carries some risk and may be causing complications if overused.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The man who died was in his late 20s, said Kentucky Public Health Commissioner Angela Dearinger. The Centers for Disease Control website said as of Tuesday, 57 vaping-related deaths had been confirmed in 27 states and the District of Columbia. Kentucky has had 48 reports of possible vaping-related illness, including 13 probable cases, seven confirmed and 15 pending, the state said. Eleven were determined to be not related to vaping, and two were residents of other states treated in Kentucky. “We are saddened to announce the death associated with this outbreak,” Eric Friedlander, acting secretary of the state Cabinet for Health and Family Services, said in a news release. “To protect public health, we urge Kentuckians – especially young people -- to stop using all vaping products.” The state Department for Public Health has been investigating reports of vaping-related illness since September, the release said. A probable case means the person has a lung injury believed to be caused by vaping but may have other health issues, such as flu or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, the department said. In a confirmed case, there is no other possible cause than vaping for the lung disease. The agency offers assistance to people who want to quit using tobacco products, including cigarettes and e-cigarettes. Claim: Kentucky officials report probable vaping-related death.
[EX A]:
Kentucky health officials on Friday announced the state’s first probable vaping-related death.