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: KOMO-TV reports the outbreak was investigated by Public Health Seattle-King County after at least 30 people reported becoming ill after consuming food and drinks at the tavern on November 23 and 24. During the investigation, inspectors identified at least 11 employees who experienced norovirus symptoms since Nov. 24. At least two of those employees had household members with symptoms dating back to Nov. 20, health officials said Wednesday. In response to those findings, Brave Horse Tavern closed down on Nov. 27 and carried out a thorough cleaning and disinfection. All ready-to-eat foods were discarded as well, and the restaurant reopened on Nov. 29. Claim: Dozens sickened by outbreak of norovirus-like illness.

Answer: Health officials say at least 43 people have been sickened by an outbreak of norovirus-like illness - including vomiting, diarrhea, body aches, chills, and fever - linked to Brave Horse Tavern in Seattle.


Question: Paragraph: The European Medicines Agency had already restricted the use of Protelos - also known as Osseor or strontium ranelate - last April but its pharmacovigilance committee said on Friday the drug should no longer be used to treat osteoporosis at all. The move follows an analysis which found that for every 1,000 patient-years there were four more cases of serious heart problems, including heart attacks, and four more cases of blood clots among patients taking the drug than those on placebo. The recommendation will now be sent to the agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, which is expected to issue a final opinion at its January 20-23 meeting. Claim: EU panel recommends suspension of risky bone disease drug.

Answer: European regulators have recommended suspending a popular bone-building drug made by unlisted French firm Servier because of the risk of serious heart problems and blood clots.


Question: Paragraph: The story mentions that Avastin is associated with serious side effects, such as high blood pressure and internal bleeding; however, it did not provide data on how many women in each treatment arm experienced these side effects. The story briefly mentioned the two trials, RIBBON-1 and AVADO, on which the FDA will base their decision whether to revoke approval of the Avastin. The story could have mentioned that both were double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials and enrolled women with HER-2 neu negative tumors. It also would have been helpful if the reader knew that the women in the trials received another chemotherapy agent in combination with Avastin or a placebo. But a bigger issue is Claim: Looming ruling on breast cancer drug splits patient advocates

Answer:
"In December, an FDA advisory panel will decide if it should revoke the approval of the drug Avastin for treating metastatic breast cancer based on the results of two major trials suggesting that the serious side effects outweigh the time that patients live without the disease getting worse. This story met many of our criteria, but failed to provide important details about the trials, including the patient population and how many women developed serious side effects in each treatment group. While the story included various viewpoints on whether this drug should continue to be used as a first-line therapy for metastatic breast cancer, it focused largely on the drug’s success in just one patient. This personal story is misleading to readers. Two major trials found that Avastin is not particularly effective for treating metastatic breast cancer and it causes serious side effects. The story missed this main issue by devoting an extraordinary amount of space to just one woman’s success story. Metastatic disease is very difficult and one treatment is not likely to work for everyone; however, it is not compelling to argue that the FDA should approve every drug because not all patients will respond to the same treatment regimen. It would have been more insightful if the story suggested that the median is not the message and that if this or other drugs work for a subset of women, then researchers should find markers to help predict which patients will benefit from which therapy. This is another example in which an honest application of our criteria may render a score out of whack with our general impression. We urge journalists and consumers not to fixate on ""the star score"" but to read our full reviews."