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: "It is less surprising that neither story discussed costs, given that so few stories do. But sample costs could have been obtained by calling any of the numerous medical marijuana outlets in states where it is legal. Both stories did a decent job of quantifying the benefits.This story provided more details, though, including the differences in patient experiences between the three different concentrations of marijuana. It also repeated this important bit of information: ""There was also no difference in the quality of life or mood scores that participants reported when they were on any of the four treatments."" The story also does a great job of pointing out that the treatment duration of five days in each dosage phase is too short to judge utility for chronic pain, which is a long-term affliction. Neither story actually quantified the harms, but they both noted there were side effects. This story did a better job, though, by noting that the only dose that seemed to work also seemed to produce the most side effects and by raising the issue of long-term safety concerns. It also was the only story to answer the question that readers surely would have when reading about an illegal narcotic being used as medicine. Did these patients feel high as a result? This story says that most did not. Because of the additional information and context, the rating here is satisfactory. This story, unlike the competing WebMD piece, establishes in the first sentence — even in the first three words — that this was ""a small study."" It then discusses the limitations of the study at several points. The second sentence says, ""The pain reduction was ""modest"" – less than 1 point on an 11-point scale for the strongest marijuana – and patients reported no overall difference in their quality of life based on what they smoked."" The writer elegantly and succinctly described the study design — a complex randomized cross-over trial with double blinding and delved into an important feature of the study, that the subjects in retrospect may have been able to detect during which phase of their experience they inhaled placebo versus the most potent drug. This story avoids disease mongering, and, in fact, goes beyond that to note how few people actually suffer from the type of chronic pain that was the subject of the study: ""About 1 to 2 percent of adults in the U.S."" The story quotes two outside experts, one of whom is completely independent from the study and the journal, Dr Andrea Hohmann. Beyond that, we would bet that the reporter spent more time interviewing Dr. Mark Ware, the lead researcher, or at least asked tougher questions. Because Ware is more measured in this story than in the WebMD story. He even goes so far as to say, ""What about long-term safety issues?"" he asked. ""These need to be considered before the drug becomes prescribable."" As with the WebMD story, it would have been nice to see who funded the research. Unlike the WebMD story, this one did not point out the conflicts of interest of Dr. Henry McQuay. This story talks about a range of treatment options and even has the study’s lead author suggesting, that ""these patients should also be getting behavioral and physical therapy."" Strangely, neither story we reviewed pointed out that marijuana is illegal in most states and in Canada, where the study took place. The story could have, at a minimum, mentioned which states have medical marijuana laws or talked about whether any other countries currently allow cannabis to be sold in pill form the way it was used in this study. The story alludes to the fact that this study ""supports a limited number of trials that have suggested marijuana may be helpful for people suffering from chronic pain,"" indicating that the treatment is not very novel at all. It would have been nice to see more context around that. The WebMD story provides a little more information in this regard. If the news release is to be believed, ""This is the first trial to be conducted where patients have been allowed to smoke cannabis at home and to monitor their responses, daily"". That could have been made clear. The story goes well beyond the release. Here’s the release." Claim: Pot may provide some chronic pain relief: study
[A]: The story did a great job evaluating the evidence, providing outside voices, discussing alternatives to marijuana smoking, and presenting both the benefits and the potential harms. It could have done a better job discussing possible costs, availability and conflicts of interest. From the headline to the last sentence, this report avoided overstatement of the applicability of the potential benefit and used clear incisive language that left the reader with a good understanding of the study and its implications. This topic lends itself to jokey, pun-filled writing, but this story played it straight. Chronic pain can ruin lives, and a breakthrough with an alternative approach would be important news. As this story makes clear, until some larger studies with fewer limitations are undertaken, we are far from the point where marijuana can be considered a safe and effective treatment for chronic pain.


[Q]: Paragraph: The state Supreme Judicial Court said in an order released Friday that Monday’s planned court hearing in an appeal brought by the Vapor Technology Association will be postponed until further notice. The court is awaiting the results of new vaping regulations the state plans to issue next week before making a decision on the case. Republican Gov. Charlie Baker last week signed into law new restrictions on flavored tobacco and vaping products and promised to rescind the state’s emergency ban of the sale of all vaping products. Baker said the state’s Public Health Council will meet Wednesday to adopt new regulations as part of the new state law, at which point he’ll lift the emergency ban. The ban was imposed in September and set to last until the end of December. Neighboring Rhode Island also has a temporary ban on the sale of flavored vaping products. Democratic Gov. Gina Raimondo signed an executive order in September and the health department issued emergency regulations Oct. 4 to implement a four-month ban, with an optional two-month extension. Rhode Island lawmakers have said they’ll address vaping in the next legislative session, which begins in January. Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont of Connecticut is trying to figure out how to regulate vaping, after expressing an interest in banning flavored vaping products. A new law recently took effect in Connecticut that increased the age to 21 for someone to purchase vaping products. Claim: Massachusetts high court delays hearing on vaping ban suit.
[A]: Massachusetts’ highest court is holding off hearing arguments in the vaping industry’s challenge of the state’s temporary ban on vapor products.


[Q]: Paragraph: The cost of the drug is not particularly relevant in this case. This story points out the potential benefits of Dimebon based upon preliminary research, but didn’t quantify those benefits. These include improved cognition, memory and ability to perform activities of daily living. These potential benefits should have been placed in the context of existing medications which have shown a very modest effect in these outcomes, in only one-third of people, and for a short-period of time. Little is know about the long-term use of these medications. The story references general concerns of experimental drugs which do not have proven effectiveness or safety. Potential harms of Dimebon were not mentioned. However, the research study about the Dimebon published in The Lancet reported that dry mouth was the most common side effect. For reference, there can be gastrointestinal side effects from currently approved medications. These are usually dose related and can be minimised by taking the medications with food and gradually increasing the dose overtime. This story takes a point-by-point approach to evaluate the medical issues related to Alzheimer’s disease raised in the TV episode. The Premise section provides a good, basic description of PET scan brain imaging and symptoms of mild to moderate memory loss. The story should have clearly noted that PET scans do not provide a definitive diagnosis and that tests to evaluate memory such as questionnaires and neurological examinations, are routinely performed as the first line of evaluation. The piece does provide an appropriate level of depth in its discussion of the experimental nature of Dimebon, results of research conducted in Russia, and the stages of the FDA approval process. Basics facts about the prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease were not provided, but would have helped readers to understand how many people are affected (about 15% over 70 years old). Given that, Alzheimer’s disease was accurately characterized in the story. The story includes interviews from an independent medical expert and the chief medical officer for the Alzheimer’s Association (www.alz.org). This story could have been enhanced by adding that there are currently no cures for Alzheimer’s disease. It should have noted that available medications can help a small number of people but only for a limited amount of time. This story clearly indicates that the experimental drug Dimebon is not available in the U.S. It also notes that the drug won’t be available for at least three years, pending FDA approval. The story indicates that Dimebon is a new and experimental drug to treat Alzheimer’s disease. This story does not rely on a press release. Claim: ‘Boston Legal’ lawyer makes his case for Alzheimer’s drug
[A]:
"This story is an interesting twist to the usual health news article reviewed on this site. It comes from a regular column, ""The Unreal World,"" in the LA Times that reviews health issues in prime time TV shows. The story provides an overview of a recent episode of a popular TV show – Boston Legal (ABC, Dec 1) and then addresses the clinical content of the show in a point-by-point manner. The episode continues a story line about a lead character Denny Crane, played by William Shatner, who has been diagnosed with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease. Crane/Shatner’s memory loss is progressing so he takes legal action (all the way to the supreme court) to gain access to an experimental drug which has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The aspects of this dramatization related to Alzheimer’s disease symptoms and stages, PET scans of the brain, the experimental drug Dimebon, and the FDA approval drug approval process are accurate. The article is well organized, raising and summarizing the relevant clinical issues, addressing the medical questions in depth and evaluating their portrayal in the TV show. The column omits some basic information we wish it had included such as quantifying the benefits seen with Dimebon, something on the harms seen with it, and a reminder that available medications for Alzheimer’s can help a small number of people but only for a limited amount of time."