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.

Q: Paragraph: Greece's Prime Minister George Papandreou (C) arrives at a news conference at the end of a euro zone summit in Brussels, October 27, 2011. REUTERS/Yves Herman “Some were under such pressure that they needed medical attention. I see George Zanias, thankfully with us. But George Glynos was unable to join us after suffering a heart attack,” Papandreou told a news conference in Brussels after an 11-hour EU summit. Like many of their EU counterparts, Greek officials have worked punishing hours under enormous stress for months. The debt crisis has taken its toll not only on their country and the euro, but on their health. Government officials said Greece’s chief economic adviser, Zanias, developed very high blood pressure during Sunday’s summit and was ordered to stay in his room all day Monday. Papandreou’s aide Glynos suffered a heart attack in Athens after Sunday’s summit and missed Wednesday’s meeting. “Your body revolts. You go from a plane to meeting after meeting with little sleep, you drink too much coffee and you are forced to eat bad food. It’s an unnatural life and there comes a point when we’ll all pay for it,” said a Greek Finance Ministry official who did not want to be named. While leaders dined on giant shrimp with aubergines followed by roast turbot and a trio of sorbets, for the delegations, usually waiting anxiously to be briefed on a different floor, the dining is not as exciting. “The food is terrible. You eat sandwiches and junk food all day. I got really sick from it Sunday,” said one Greek delegate who declined to be named. But even after a meal of roast turbot, the tension is just as high for the leaders meeting in a vast, windowless conference room in the upper reaches of the European Council’s headquarters in Brussels. They entered the building at around 5 p.m. Wednesday, and were still bargaining over a deal to rescue the euro zone from its debt crisis almost 11 hours later. At around 2 a.m., when negotiations were at their peak, a team of around 15 medics gathered in the lobby of the brown marble-fronted Justus Lipsius building, although the reason was not immediately clear. EU officials said the talks were extremely intense, with hard-nosed negotiation over very specific numbers before leaders would agree on the outline of a plan to reduce Greek debt and convince banks to take losses. They knew their decisions had to reassure edgy financial markets, but could also cause big losses for financial institutions and perhaps lead to the nationalization of Greek banks. One senior EU official said the talks progressed extremely slowly. In the early hours of Thursday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the IMF’s Christine Lagarde entered into direct negotiations with representatives of private sector banks and insurers to persuade them voluntarily to accept heavy losses on Greek debt. At one point, euro zone negotiators said it might be necessary to force the banks and insurers to take losses if they didn’t accept at least a 50 percent loss on their investments — a move that would constitute an immediate default on Greek debt, with unpredictable fallout for Greece and the European economy. Such a threat is likely to have caused enormous stress to the Greek team, which repeatedly said ahead of the summit that it wanted to do everything to avoid defaulting on its 210 billion euros of private sector debt. “It is hugely tiring. You have to stay mentally focused, and it helps to be physically fit. You go to bed at maybe two in the morning and are up early. There’s a huge amount of information you have to be able to process,” said Michael Denison, special adviser to David Miliband when he was Britain’s foreign secretary, and now research director for the London-based consultancy Control Risks. EU summits are frequently high-pressure events. The leaders gather on the restricted upper floors of the building and barely move from the negotiating room until agreements are reached. “It’s a very unhealthy room, with no fresh air, and you don’t know if it’s day or night outside,” the Greek delegate said. “During 11 hours of talks, the leaders took two half-hour breaks — and that was not to rest, but to brief delegations.”   The leaders usually sit around a vast oval table in the low-ceilinged wood-paneled room. Behind them is a separate table for aides and advisers, and on one side of the room a wall of glass booths contains the interpreters. Summits are frequently heated and exhausting, with diplomats telling of heads of state who lose their temper or even fall asleep at critical moments. Not infrequently, they may go to change a shirt or freshen up when the strain begins to show. One official half-jokingly said that supplies of fresh bottles of water to the meeting room are sometimes halted in order to add extra pressure on the negotiators to wrap it up. “Part of the trick is to be able to move on from a topic immediately once a decision has been made,” Denison said. “But, however you do it, you need ministers who can keep the pace at these kind of meetings.” Claim: Do EU summits need a health warning?.

A: In the small hours of Thursday, George Papandreou thanked his aides for helping clinch a second bailout deal for debt-ridden Greece, and admitted the strain had almost killed one of them.
****
Q: Paragraph: Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and Surgeon General Jerome Adams made the announcement, with Azar calling marijuana “a dangerous drug.” Officials said President Donald Trump has donated $100,000 — one-quarter of his annual government salary — toward a digital campaign to raise awareness of the risks. Trump has forgone his official salary since taking office. The warning comes as legal marijuana has grown into a $10-billion industry in the U.S. with nearly two-thirds of states legalizing it, mainly for medical uses. Possessing small amounts of marijuana for adult recreational use is legal in 11 states and the District of Columbia, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The list includes California, Colorado, Michigan and Maine. Federal law still treats it as a controlled substance akin to opioids. Adams said science shows that marijuana is harmful to the developing brains of teenagers and to the human fetus. The drug has also gotten stronger, with a three-fold increase in the concentration of the active ingredient THC in cultivated plants over the last 20 years. “This ain’t your mother’s marijuana,” Adams said. The American Medical Association said it strongly supports the government’s effort, adding that it for some time it has been recommending against marijuana use by teens, pregnant women and women who are breastfeeding. The surgeon general said his advisory is a direct result of scientific research that runs counter to changing social mores. “Marijuana use is a risk to the developing brain,” Adams said. “Over time there has been a change in attitudes about marijuana creating a false sense of security.” While the White House has made the opioid epidemic a top policy and political priority, marijuana previously had not gotten such high-level attention. Federal officials say they fear the trend toward legalization may make it more enticing for teenagers to try marijuana. It’s a commonly used drug among youths, they said, along with alcohol and e-cigarettes. No states allow recreational marijuana use by teens. States with medical marijuana programs, Illinois among them, generally allow use by minors with consent from a legal guardian and certification from a doctor. Adams said that for teens it carries a risk of affecting brain development, which continues in the 20s. Frequent marijuana use by teenagers is associated with changes in parts of the brain that are involved with attention, memory, decision-making and motivation. Among pregnant women, marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug, with about 7% reporting they had used it within the past month in a 2017 study. Some women use it to help with morning sickness. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics advise women not to use marijuana during pregnancy, and to discontinue the drug if they find out they are pregnant. HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Brett Giroir said pregnant women taking marijuana to relieve morning sickness should stop. “If you have morning sickness, talk to your physician,” said Giroir. “There are FDA-approved drugs to help with morning sickness. Taking marijuana for morning sickness has never been shown to be safe and effective.” The government’s National Institute on Drug Abuse is paying for several studies on marijuana use in pregnancy, including one involving women who have chosen to continue using the drug to treat morning sickness despite warnings. While some studies have suggested that marijuana may be harmful to the developing brain, the evidence isn’t conclusive, explained NIDA Director Nora Volkow, who said she strongly supports the surgeon general’s warning. “We cannot close our eyes and say this is not happening. It’s happening,” said Volkow. It would be a missed opportunity not to continue the research to find conclusive evidence on how the drug affects the fetus, she said. “My view is that the way that you change things is by providing evidence,” she added. ___ Associated Press Medical Writer Lindsey Tanner in Chicago contributed to this article. Claim: ‘This ain’t your mother’s marijuana,’ surgeon general says.

A: Federal health officials issued a national warning Thursday against marijuana use by adolescents and pregnant women, as more states legalize the increasingly potent drug for medicinal and recreational use.
****
Q: Paragraph: The story doesn’t mention costs. However, the piece is clear that this is early-stage research that might not pan out, so we think it’s acceptable that there’s no cost discussion. The story suggests that treatment with aducanumab results in “striking,” “dramatic” and “remarkable” reductions in amyloid plaques in the brain. But it doesn’t quantify what that means. How many patients saw their plaque levels go down? By how much? Is the reduction bigger than what has been seen with other experimental Alzheimer’s drugs? These details would’ve been helpful. The story is clear that the drug’s effects on amyloid plaque are accompanied by potential harms: But there’s a downside. The process of removing plaque sometimes causes fluid to build up in the brain. In rare cases, it can also cause bleeding. These side effects are known as amyloid-related imaging abnormalities, or ARIA. We’re also told that about 20 participants dropped out of because of adverse effects. The story cautions that these results are from small, early studies and that plaque reduction is a proxy for outcomes that really matter to patients. But it will take much larger studies to show for sure whether aducanumab really does slow down Alzheimer’s disease, Reiman says. And unlike many stories we’ve seen that discuss therapies to reduce amyloid, this piece acknowledges that we don’t whether amyloid is actually a cause of Alzheimer’s symptoms or perhaps an effect of the disease. If aducanumab works in larger studies, it could help settle a long-running debate about whether amyloid is really the root cause of Alzheimer’s. This idea is known as the amyloid hypothesis. And large studies showing that removing amyloid can preserve memory and thinking “would go a long way toward validating the amyloid hypothesis,” Sandrock says. We do wish the story had noted that about one third of patients in all groups dropped out before completion of the study, which could impact the quality of the overall findings. The story doesn’t disease monger, but it also doesn’t explain what Alzheimer’s is or give any sense as to the impact of the disease. We’ll rate this Not Applicable. The story quotes an official from Biogen (which makes the experimental drug) and the author of an accompanying editorial. But we don’t hear from any truly independent sources in the story. The editorialist, Dr. Eric Reiman, is said to be the executive director of the Banner Alzheimer’s Institute in Phoenix. It doesn’t explain that the Banner Institute is leading Alzheimer’s Prevention Initiative, an effort to postpone and prevent the disease before it starts. The initiative partners with a number of drug companies, including Roche, Amgen, Genentech, Novartis, on its studies. These relationships merited a mention in the story. The story is clear that there are no drugs that treat the underlying cause of Alzheimer’s. It links to a story about a competing amyloid-reducing drug that failed to produce any benefit in a large clinical trial. We did want to know: Are there any older drugs that have been tried for this? Were they equally optimistic when they were first introduced? Putting them into perspective would help as it seems there were prior drugs that were hyped to prevent or slow the progression of AD–but subsequently didn’t pan out. The story calls the drug experimental and says that it will take several years for larger studies to report results. It’s apparent that the drug won’t be available outside of a research study any time soon. The story establishes what appears to be novel about this drug compared with others that reduce amyloid plaques. One is that the drug appears to ignore benign forms of amyloid protein while attacking the toxic forms thought to damage brain cells. Another is that aducanumab seems to enhance the ability of existing immune cells in the brain to devour toxins, including amyloid. But while the story is clear that the new paper is presenting details of research first reported last year, it doesn’t explain why the results are now “remarkable” whereas last year they were considered “disappointing,” “mixed” and a “setback.” We’ll rate this a borderline Satisfactory. The story includes original reporting and clearly goes beyond any news release. Claim: Test Of Experimental Alzheimer's Drug Finds Progress Against Brain Plaques

A:
This NPR story discusses early studies on an experimental amyloid-reducing drug that researchers hope may prevent Alzheimer’s disease. It does a good job of balancing the promise of the drug with realistic assessments about the early stage of the research and the fact that there are potential downsides to this treatment. Importantly, and in contrast to many stories we’ve seen that report on experimental Alzheimer’s drugs, the story doesn’t equate amyloid reduction with reduced risk of disease. It acknowledges that we don’t know whether amyloid is actually the cause of the Alzheimer’s or a by-product of some process that begins elsewhere. That’s important context. Still, the story would’ve been better with a more precise description of the benefits seen in early studies and with perspective from a truly independent source. It also should have explained why some of these same results, reported last year, were generally greeted with disappointment. That being said, we were glad to see that this story avoided the hype that so many other outlets chose to stoke with headlines like these:   Many stories suggest that reducing amyloid deposits in the brain is the same thing as reducing Alzheimer’s risk. But that’s never been proven, and some studies suggest that reducing amyloid may not have any effect on the disease symptoms that people care about. It’s important to explain this uncertainty to readers. Journalists shouldn’t suggest that a drug is a home run when it’s still standing on second base. This story took a measured approach that we wish we saw more often.
****