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: "The story covers cost in the very last two lines. Adequate quantification of benefits seen in the study. Story says ""few eye-related complications"" were reported in the Lucentis group, but didn’t say what few means or what they were. We don’t think that’s quite adequate. Adequate job explaining how the study was done and what it means. No disease mongering in the story. One quote from the head of the National Eye Institute. But he didn’t really evaluate evidence – only talked about hope. Meantime, no mention that Genentech funded  the trial (a strength of the NYT story was its discussion of the ""pay for play"" aspect of the research) – and no mention that Dr. Bressler disclosed financial ties to Genentech. From the Times: Some doctors criticized the organizers of the trial for testing Lucentis rather than another Genentech drug, Avastin, which works in the same way as Lucentis. Although it is a cancer drug, Avastin is often used off-label for eye diseases because it is far cheaper than Lucentis, costing only $20 to $100 a dose, compared with $2,000 for Lucentis. Avastin is undercutting sales of Lucentis, which totaled $1.1 billion in the United States last year. Organizers of the trial conceded that a major reason Lucentis was chosen was that Genentech, which is now owned by Roche, agreed to provide the drug free of charge and to contribute $9 million in additional financing — but only if Lucentis were used. “Obviously you can’t underplay $9 million,” said Dr. Ferris of the eye institute, which is part of the part of the National Institutes of Health. But he said there were other factors as well, like a belief that Lucentis might have been the better drug. Dr. Philip J. Rosenfeld, a professor of ophthalmology at the University of Miami, said the decision was “clearly a case of pay to play” since Genentech’s money dictated the choice of drugs. At least the story mentioned the uncertainty about whether Lucentis is any better  than the cheaper Avastin, and mentioned an upcoming trial comparing the two in age-related macular degeneration. The story explains that Lucentis was approved 4 years ago for another cause. Story explains the drug is already approved for another use, and it also – at the very end – mentions that an older and much cheaper drug is also effective. It’s clear the story did not rely on a news release." Claim: Drug Reverses Diabetes-Related Vision Loss
[A]: The key difference between this and the NYT story was that WebMD didn’t reflect on the question of why Genentech didn’t test its cheaper Avastin against the much more expensive Lucentis. The important issue of corporate sponsorship of a clinical trial was overlooked. You want to talk about comparative effectiveness research? This would have been a good place for it.


[Q]: Paragraph: Phusion Projects LLC, which is based in Chicago, agreed not to sell caffeinated alcoholic drinks, agreed not to promote binge drinking or other misuses of alcohol, and accepted marketing limits designed to keep people under 21 from buying alcoholic products. Among these limits are a ban on promoting flavored malt beverages on school or college property except at licensed retailers, and not using models or actors under age 25 or who appear to be under age 21 in its advertising. Phusion also agreed to pay $400,000 to the regulators as part of the settlement. The danger of mixing caffeine and alcohol was spotlighted in 2010 when some college students were hospitalized for alcohol poisoning after drinking alcoholic energy drinks. Phusion that year removed the caffeine and other stimulants from beverages, including Four Loko, after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned the company and rivals that “blackout in a can” drinks combining alcohol and caffeine were unsafe. “Alcoholic energy drinks are dangerous - especially for the teenagers and young adults they target,” New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said in a statement. “Today’s agreement ensures that one company will no longer market a dangerous product to youth.”  In the settlement, Phusion denied the regulators’ allegations and that it violated any laws, including state laws governing consumer protection and trade practices. “We consider this agreement a practical way to move forward and an opportunity to highlight our continued commitment to ensuring that our products are consumed safely and responsibly only by adults 21 and over,” President Jim Sloan said in a statement. “Phusion continues to believe, however, as do many people throughout the world, that the combination of alcohol and caffeine can be consumed safely and responsibly.” Claim: Maker of Four Loko flavored malt liquor accepts marketing limits.
[A]: The maker of Four Loko has agreed with 20 U.S. state attorneys general and the city of San Francisco to a series of reforms to resolve allegations that it improperly marketed flavored malt beverages to young people and encouraged alcohol abuse.


[Q]: Paragraph: The black rhinos died of salt poisoning following the decision by the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) to ignore water test results in Tsavo East National Park, the committee’s report said. The deaths of the endangered animals, being moved to a more secure home in the face of the threat from poachers, were a major embarrassment to Kenya, which sells itself as destination for wildlife tourism. The inquiry said WWF, which donated $1 million for the relocation in June 2018, applied pressure on KWS to speed up the process in a bid to generate positive publicity and secure funding for itself from Germany. WWF denied the allegations in the inquiry report, which was made public last week, saying KWS had carried out hydrological surveys and given assurances the park was safe and suitable. “At no point either before or during the translocations were any issues raised about the quality of the water on the site,”  WWF said by email. “We would never push for a translocation to go ahead against the recommendations of the relevant experts. This was a tragedy we hope will never be repeated.”  The parliamentary committee’s inquiry said the relocation took place during a period in 2018 when the term of one KWS board had ended and before a new one had begun, creating a lack of oversight. The report said KWS’s former board of trustees had rejected the relocation three times in part because of the high salinity levels of the drinking water in the park. The report said Najib Balala, the minister of tourism and wildlife, should take overall responsibility for the rhinos’ deaths because he delayed the appointment of the new KWS board. The minister’s spokesman declined to comment. The KWS could not be immediately reached to comment. However, Richard Leakey, former chairperson of KWS, told the inquiry: “WWF-Kenya, as the funding entity, was alleged to have had a major interference on the board resolution against the translocation, and consequently pushed for the exercise after the exit of the board.”  WWF said it was saddened by the loss of the rhinos and it fully recognized the “serious failings of this operation”. “In response, we have strengthened existing practices and implemented brand new organizational guidelines to mitigate future risk as far as possible.”  Kenya had a rhino population of 1,258 in 2017 of which 745 were black rhinos, 510 were southern white rhinos and three were northern white rhinos, having grown from less than 400 rhinos in the 1980s. Poaching has risen in recent years across sub-Saharan Africa where well-armed criminal gangs have killed elephants for tusks and rhinos for horns. Often the animal parts are shipped to Asia for use in ornaments and medicines. Claim: WWF says it did not push for rhino relocation process where 11 died.
[A]:
The World Wildlife Fund has rejected the findings of a Kenyan parliamentary inquiry that said the conservation group pushed Kenyan authorities to speed up a botched relocation of 14 rhinos last year that led to the deaths of 11 animals.