TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Paragraph: Strong point. The story said, “There’s one other thing, the CDC says. Make sure patients understand that warding off HIV isn’t cheap. Each pill currently costs around $36, which adds up to more than $13,000 a year. Some insurers might pay, but some might balk” The story stated the benefits clearly – albeit only in relative risk reduction terms. We would have preferred absolute numbers. But it did such a good job in telling the updated story about proper use of the drug in question that we give it a satisfactory score. Several clear points were made about harms: The story did a great job of communicating the read-between-the-lines reality of the evidence for the use of this drug. NO disease-mongering here. The story is based on the CDC’s evaluation and warnings about proper use of the drug. We would have liked to have seen a clinician-researcher’s perspective – someone not affiliated with the CDC analysis. Not applicable. Because of the nature of this drug, no comparison is really necessary. As the story stated, “It’s the first time anybody’s shown that taking a pill can prevent HIV – and it was the first new weapon against HIV unveiled in many years.” The story is clear that Truvada is already on the market. The story stated, “It’s the first time anybody’s shown that taking a pill can prevent HIV – and it was the first new weapon against HIV unveiled in many years.” We  have no evidence that the story relied on a news release. Claim: CDC To Doctors: Anti-HIV Pill No Magic Bullet Against Virus

SOLUTION: Clear, succinct, and important reporting that tones down some of the celebratory tone that greeted a drug’s “landmark study” from a few months ago. The story notes that there was a lot of celebrating when news came out in November that taking a pill can reduce the risk of getting HIV. But the story delivered a clear dose of evidence and caution – important journalism.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: Given that the premise of the story is explaining there is no benefit to taking these supplements, we’ll rate this N/A. That said, it would have been interesting to explore the cost-savings for people if they decide to stop buying calcium and vitamin D. The story does a good job of letting readers know that there was no statistically significant benefit to taking calcium and vitamin D, based on the researchers’ systematic review of the evidence. The story cited one instance of harms, saying: “… for people who started out with at least 20 nanograms of vitamin D per milliliter of blood, adding more vitamin D through supplements was associated with a greater risk of hip fractures.” We also wanted to see a mention of potential harms of calcium, such as kidney stones. Another common side effect is excess gas and one potential harm of high doses is cardiovascular complications such as heart attack. The story hits some key points including the number of studies reviewed, potential confounding factors accounted for, and details about selection criteria. For instance, women on hormone replacement therapy, for whom there’s evidence for the benefits of supplementation were excluded from the current analysis. That’s a key point for postmenopausal women reading the story. Also the story makes clear that this study examined older adults who live in their own homes and therefore does not apply to older adults who live in nursing homes or similar institutions. Well done. The story does not engage in disease-mongering. It correctly states the risk of broken bones in people over age 50 and the risk of death in older people who break a hip. This story will also help reduce over-treatment and over-medicating of older adults, which is common. The only source quoted for the article is the study itself. There are no quotes from independent expert sources. The story references getting calcium from one’s diet and getting vitamin D from sun exposure. We think it’s safe to presume that readers know that vitamin and mineral supplements are widely available. The story does a good job of making clear previous claims of benefit from calcium and vitamin D supplementation. This large meta-analysis will provide some clarity of the questions surrounding using these supplements for bone health. The story does not appear to rely on a news release. Claim: Do you take calcium and vitamin D to protect your bones? A new study says it doesn't help

SOLUTION: Getty Images Reporting on a large review study, this Los Angeles Times article walks readers through the conflicting advice and evidence about calcium and vitamin D supplements. Both compounds play roles in bone health and the routinely accepted claim is that supplementation can help prevent bone breaks in older people. This new meta-analysis shows that claim is not supported by evidence: not for calcium pills, vitamin D pills, or the two in combination. The story is well-done on several points, particularly on explaining how this study worked and what it found. The story would have been stronger if it had included some commentary from experts in the field who were not associated with the study to help put this recent, apparently strong finding, into context for readers. More than two million so-called fragility fractures — breaks that wouldn’t happen in a younger person, often related to the bone loss of osteoporosis–occur every year in the US. Preventing fragility means attending to bone health, which currently centers around exercise and getting enough calcium and vitamin D. Supplementation is an easy way to make sure a person takes in enough of the mineral and the vitamin, and yet, it’s important to understand whether routine supplementation actually prevents bone breaks.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: No one was killed in the incident in Mato Grosso state, ANM said in a statement. The dam is registered under the name of an individual wildcat miner rather than in the name of a mining company. Inspections of the dam had not turned up any problems, and it had been declared as stable on Sept. 25, the agency said. Brazil remains on high alert for dam ruptures after a tailings dam at a Vale SA iron ore mine burst in January, killing at least 250 people in the second major disaster of its kind in four years. Claim: Health tourism costs nearly £300 million on some estimates.

SOLUTION:
A dam at a gold mine in western Brazil burst on Tuesday, leaving a 2-km (1.2-mile) trail of mining waste and injuring two people, according to the country’s National Mining Agency (ANM).