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.
--------
Question: Paragraph: Dock Phillip Ellis, best remembered as the winningest pitcher on the champion 1971 Pittsburgh Pirates baseball club, was also one of his sport’s more colorful personalities, although his exploits were generally overshadowed by those of players (Curt Flood, Richie Allen, Reggie Jackson) more talented and more controversial. Ellis’ intolerance for slights which he perceived to be related to the color of his skin was well-established long before he reached the major leagues (he declined to play on his high school’s baseball team because it was coached by a “racist,” and while in the minor leagues he once took a bat into the stands in pursuit of a racially-motivated heckler), and he was the subject of several headline-grabbing altercations during his prime years in the big leagues:    “I know the orders came from [baseball commissioner] Bowie Kuhn, and I don’t like it. Look around, there are fellows who wear white shoes in practice. Some wear jackets. Others don’t wear hats. I wasn’t going to say anything, but since they seem to be aiming in my direction, I’m going to say things. They didn’t put out any orders about Joe Pepitone when he wore a hairpiece down to his shoulders.”    But, oddly enough, the most notorious aspect of Dock Ellis’ playing days wasn’t disclosed until several years after he had retired, and it involved an accomplishment that is usually the highlight of any pitcher’s career. On 12 June 1970, Ellis hurled the first no-hitter of the 1970 season as he blanked the Padres 2-0 in the opening game of a double-header in San Diego. Ellis’ feat was a bit unusual in that he seemed particularly wild that day, walking eight batters and hitting one, but many pitchers have achieved stellar results despite laboring with obvious control problems. (Yankee hurler Bill Bevens came within one out of throwing a no-hitter against Brooklyn in the fourth game of the 1947 World Series despite issuing the Dodgers an astounding ten bases on balls.) In post-game interviews Ellis said he had been thinking about a no-hitter from the fourth inning onward and attributed his wildness to his efforts to keep the ball away from hitters: “I know guys who don’t want to talk about it, but if you’re going to throw [a no-hitter], you’re going to throw it. The ball I was throwing was moving. I was keeping the ball away from the hitters. That’s why I walked so many.” Fourteen years later, however, Dock Ellis revealed an alternative explanation for his lack of control that day: he was under the influence of LSD at the time. According to accounts he gave the press in April 1984, Ellis had spent the morning of 12 June 1970 relaxing in his home town of Los Angeles, under the mistaken belief that the Pirates had the day off. Ellis said he ingested LSD around noon, but at about 1:00 PM his girlfriend picked up a newspaper and discovered that not only were the Pirates scheduled to play a double-header in San Diego that evening, but Ellis was slated to start the first game for Pittsburgh. Ellis’ companion hustled him off to the airport by 3:30 PM and got him on a flight to San Diego, where arrived at 4:30 PM, in time for the double-header’s 6:05 PM start. Ellis told reporters he remembered little of what took place during the game itself:  “I can only remember bits and pieces of the game. I was psyched. I had a feeling of euphoria. I was zeroed in on the [catcher’s] glove, but I didn’t hit the glove too much. I remember hitting a couple of batters and the bases were loaded two or three times. The ball was small sometimes, the ball was large sometimes, sometimes I saw the catcher, sometimes I didn’t. Sometimes I tried to stare the hitter down and throw while I was looking at him. I chewed my gum until it turned to powder. They say I had about three to four fielding chances. I remember diving out of the way of a ball I thought was a line drive. I jumped, but the ball wasn’t hit hard and never reached me.”  Any assignment of a “True” status to this story must be a guarded one: only Dock Ellis knows whether or not he actually took LSD the day he pitched his no-hitter, and even if he did ingest LSD that day, judging the extent to which the drug (which can affect different people in different ways) was affecting him by the time he took part in that evening’s game is problematic. Baseball is a difficult game to play at the major league level, even for skilled professionals free from the effects of mind-altering substances, yet Ellis managed to pitch a complete game that evening, apparently did not act so unusually that his teammates or manager took notice, and was quite lucid while conducting post-game interviews with the press. (Of course, since it’s a long-standing baseball superstition that players should avoid speaking to a teammate who is in the midst of pitching a no-hitter, the other Pirates likely had little or no interaction with Ellis in the dugout during the latter half of the game.) Although Ellis might correctly be described as having been “under the influence of LSD” during his no-hitter, quite possibly the drug’s primary effects had peaked and were wearing off by game time. Dock Ellis’ recollections are also somewhat questionable. Donald Hall’s 1976 biography, Dock Ellis in the Country of Baseball, initially stated that Ellis had been drinking (vodka) before his no-hitter. Ellis maintained that he never pitched again while under the influence of LSD after his 1970 no-hitter, but he later said he had also taken the drug before the 1974 Cincinnati game in which he intentionally threw at the first several batters. And that admission came after he had previously stated that he took “pep pills,” not LSD, before that 1974 game. Then he said in 1985 that he “never pitched a game in the major leagues I wasn’t high.” Claim: Pittsburgh Pirates pitcher Dock Ellis hurled a no-hitter while under the influence of LSD.

Answer: An unfortunate aspect of Dock Ellis’ admission is that he is now remembered by many people (especially those too young to have seen him play during his heyday with the Pirates) as “the guy who pitched a no-hitter on drugs,” a characterization which not only slights a baseball career that included some very fine moments, but also obscures the many acts of charity and conscience in which Ellis engaged both during and after his playing days: he worked with the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections to rehabilitate black prisoners, helped start the Black Athletes Foundation for Sickle Cell Research, and served as the coordinator of an anti-drug program in Los Angeles before passing away from liver disease in 2008.


Question: Paragraph: "The story had a sidebar explaining the cost of Bod Pod testing in Puget Sound locations ranges from $25 – 50. The story indicated one might benefit from the information generated by BOD POD measurement by helping set realistic weight loss goals. It did not actually provide the reader with any information about whether evidence exists demonstrating that it is of benefit for weight loss or improvement in adiposity-related risks. The story indicated that obtaining body composition information could be anxiety or guilt provoking. Although the story stated that ‘Data suggest the BOD POD is accurate’, it didn’t actually indicate what sort of evidence exists documenting this. While there may be evidence that the BOD POD is ""accurate"" the story did not state whether the evidence is solid or controversial. Most importantly, the story did not address the question as to whether there is any quality evidence that knowing your body fat percentage is truly helpful in improving your health. There also wasn’t any evidence presented about how effective it is to measure body fat percentage prior to engaging in a weight loss program in terms of whether it helps people lose weight. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. In fact, it concluded that having the test is ""not a good idea if the number will be just one more thing to obsess over or feel guilty about."" Both professionals interviewed were from the private commercial sector – one from a center that uses the Bod Pod (hardly an independent voice on the topic) and one who is a book author. The story would have been enhanced with the inclusion of insight from a clear expert in the field of body composition assessment. The story did a very nice job of running through the various techniques for measuring body composition and even included a link to an online calculator of body mass index (BMI). The story explained that body composition measurement with the BOD POD is hard to find because there are few locations with the apparatus. The story accurately portrayed the BOD POD as a piece of equipment that had been around for a while. We can’t be sure if the story relied largely or solely on a news release." Claim: What are you made of? The BOD POD knows all

Answer: This story did a fine job of explaining the various ways body composition can be measured and what the measurement means and how it might be used. But a major shortcoming of the story was that it did not do a good job of providing a critical appraisal of the evidence behind the BOD POD device. Do we really know that it is worthwhile to measure our body fat percentage? At what cost? If it is so beneficial, why doesn’t my health care provider have a BOD POD in the office? What do clinical experts in body composition measurement say about the evidence that the BOD POD is a more useful tool than the body mass index? All unanswered, but important, questions for this story to address. This may be a case where our star ratings are deceptively high.


Question: Paragraph: Using the lead researcher as a source, the article states that most insurers cover oxybutynin; that a month’s supply can range from $21 to $42; and that the cost could be less, depending on the type of insurance a patient has. Kudos to HealthDay for explicitly addressing cost. The article reports that the study found the women on oxybutynin had an average of five fewer hot flashes per week, while those on the placebo had three fewer. It’s not clear if the benefit was the same for both doses. The story explains that this was from a group 150 women who experienced at least 28 hot flashes a week. This is enough information to glean the magnitude of benefit. But, the story could have used more context: The drug resulted in five fewer hot flashes a week. That’s not even one less hot flash per day. And those on the placebo, which costs nothing and has no side effects, has three fewer hot flashes a week. That’s a difference of two hot flashes a week–which seems like a really low bar. The article says that side effects included constipation, mild diarrhea, dry mouth, dry eyes, episodes of confusion and difficulty urinating. It’s not noted if these side effects were seen in both the low-dose and high-dose groups. There is also no indication of which side effects were most common or how many women experienced them. Importantly, though, the article does note that the long-term effects of the drug aren’t known and that oxybutynin is in a class of drugs that “have been linked with mental decline” and that previous studies have found “the drugs may raise the risk for problems with short-term memory, reasoning and confusion, and may also hike the risk for dementia among older patients.” Information on ClincalTrials.gov about the trial suggests this study evaluated two doses in an effort to find an effective dose with fewer side effects. The concluding paragraph of the article states that the study was scheduled to be presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium and that “studies presented at meetings are usually considered preliminary until peer-reviewed for publication in a medical journal.” It’s important to note this. But the wording also indicates that the article was written before the presentation was even given and the the reporter never saw the researcher’s data or slides or heard any questions the audience may have asked regarding the findings. It’s indisputable that many women going through menopause experience hot flashes and that side effects of many breast cancer treatments include hot flashes, in some cases because the treatment puts a woman into immediate menopause. They result from fluctuations in women’s hormones. The article quotes Dr. Alice Police, regional director of breast surgery at the Northwell Health Cancer Institute in Sleepy Hollow, NY, who was not affiliated with the study. We did not detect any conflicts of interest that should have been disclosed. The article makes it sound like the only option for treating hot flashes is menopausal hormone therapy. But, in fact, there are other ways to treat hot flashes that are currently recommended. These include drugs used for other purposes as well as non-drug options like mind-body approaches. The article states that the drug, which is approved to treat incontinence, is readily available. This is the first time that a drug is this class has been shown to have an effect on hot flashes, and so is newsworthy for this reason. That could have been more explicit in the story, though. The article included original comments not found in the news release. Claim: Incontinence Drug May Cut Hot Flashes in Breast Cancer Survivors

Answer:
The San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium typically generates extensive media coverage of new research studies. However, not all of the studies presented are of the same caliber and some will never undergo the peer review that will lead them to be published in a medical journal. This means reporters needs to be at the top of their game when evaluating the news releases they receive about studies that will be presented at the meeting. This story from HealthDay does many things right — it covers costs, side effects, study limitations, and more. This earned it five stars from us. However, we do think the story would have been even stronger if it had better emphasized a key fact: The overall reduction in hot flashes was roughly 28 to 23 in the drug group and 28 to 25 in the placebo group. That’s not much, and raises eyebrows in light of a physician in the story calling it “game-changing.”   Many breast cancer treatments are known to cause hot flashes. Some premenopausal women have treatments that put them into immediate menopause; others enter menopause naturally while they are being treated for breast cancer; and still others are postmenopausal and find the drugs used to treat their breast cancer cause their hot flashes to return or become more frequent. Hot flashes and night sweats can affect quality of life, and it would be great if there was an easy way to control them without using menopausal hormone therapy which has never been recommended for women with breast cancer as it is known to increase breast cancer risk. However, as multiple studies have shown, many drugs over the years rarely perform much better than a placebo–as was the case in this study of oxybutynin. Yet, this study got widespread play as game-changing.