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.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: A panel of Food and Drug Administration advisers voted unanimously in favor of Amgen’s version of AbbVie’s Humira, a biotech drug that raked in nearly $15 billion last year, according to IMS Health. While not binding, the recommendation likely paves the way for FDA approval of the knockoff drug. For years, biotech drugs faced no competition because there was no regulatory way to approve copycat versions, even after patents had expired. If approved, Amgen’s drug would join a new wave of so-called biosimilars, which have the potential to generate billions in savings for U.S. insurers, doctors and patients. But it could take years for those savings to arrive. Evercore ISI analyst Mark Schoenebaum says the earliest Amgen could launch its product would be March 2017, though that would risk infringing patents which Abbvie says protect its drug until at least 2022. Wall Street analysts expect the patent issue to be fought in court, and then for Amgen’s drug to launch sometime between 2018 and 2022. First approved in 2002, Humira has long been among the most profitable drugs in the world. It accounted for 60 percent of Abbvie’s total revenue last year. The injectable drug, which blocks chemicals linked to inflammation, is approved for multiple uses, including rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease and psoriasis. Thousand Oaks, Calif-based Amgen is seeking FDA approval to market its version, known only as ABP 501, for seven diseases. Amgen is itself a biotech powerhouse, and it too has medications facing competition from cheaper versions. The company is working to hedge those loses by developing lower-cost versions of competitors’ drugs. Biotech drugs are powerful, injected medicines produced in living cells that are typically much more expensive than traditional, chemical-based drugs. In 2015, six of the 10 top-selling medicines globally were biotech drugs, with more than $56 billion in combined sales. The FDA only approved the first lower-cost biotech drug last March, a Novartis version of the Amgen drug Neupogen. Pfizer won approval to market a second biosimilar in April, a version of Johnson & Johnson’s Remicade, but it is not yet for sale. Questions remain about just how much savings U.S. biosimilars will deliver. Novartis’ Zarxio sells for 15 percent less than the original Neupogen. Experts predict biosimilar discounts of 15 percent to 30 percent in the U.S. In Europe, where governments regulate prices, discounts are higher. Development of lower-cost anti-inflammatory drugs like Humira is considered pivotal in reducing U.S. spending on specialty drugs, which has doubled to $150 billion since 2010, according to IMS Health. On Wednesday, the same panel of FDA advisers will review a Novartis version of Enbrel, which is marketed by Amgen. Claim: Lower-cost biotech drug gets thumbs up from FDA panel.

Ex Output:
The second-biggest selling drug in the world could get some cheaper competition in the U.S., after a federal panel endorsed an alternative version of the pricey medication used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory diseases.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: "Accusations about the responsible party behind the United States’ struggle to accelerate coronavirus testing have come from every which way and the blame has fallen, often inaccurately, on the shoulders of different public officials. In a March 13 tweet, President Donald Trump said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied its testing system for decades but wasn’t prepared for a large scale pandemic, an issue that was complicated by policy changes made by former President Barack Obama. U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., retweeted Trump’s remark and added his own comment: ""Trump is once again trying to blame the previous administration for the number of tests available. This is his #DailyLie."" U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Houston, retweeted Schumer’s remark and said: ""It’s not Obama’s fault and it’s not Trump’s fault. We have stringent FDA regulations, long in place, that created barriers to the private industry creating a test quickly."" PolitiFact looked at a different Trump claim blaming Obama for a lack of testing. We also looked at a claim from Democrat Joe Biden about the Trump administration rejecting tests from the World Health Organization (they were never offered). Trump also inaccurately stated that any individual who wants to be tested for the coronavirus can get a test. We wanted to dig deeper into Crenshaw’s claim, which attributes the delays in the availability of widespread testing to Food and Drug Administration regulations. Justin Discigil, spokesman for Crenshaw, pointed to articles from ProPublica, the New Yorker, The Atlantic and the Washington Post, all of which highlighted the role FDA regulations played here. He added: ""Just to be clear – nowhere did we say that these regulations were the sole/only reason for the testing issue, we said that they created barriers."" A timeline of events The first confirmed case of COVID-19 in the United States came at the end of January, when a man in Washington state developed symptoms after returning from a trip to Wuhan. One month later, federal health officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it was inevitable that the U.S. would experience a spread of the virus and urged people to take precautions. In these early days of the virus, tests were not widely distributed to local and state laboratories. Instead, testing for the new coronavirus was conducted almost entirely by the CDC — samples collected at the local level were sent to the agency. Initial test kits developed by the CDC for use in local and state labs were flawed and produced inaccurate results in some labs, meaning they couldn’t be distributed. As the agency worked to correct the tests, health officials turned to the FDA. The U.S. Association of Public Health Laboratories submitted a letter asking the agency to use ""enforcement discretion"" and authorize local and state labs to develop and use their own tests. During a public health emergency, labs and drug manufacturers must seek an Emergency Use Authorization from the FDA to use diagnostic tests and medical treatments that have not gone through the typical clearance process — to share them faster in the emergency. (These authorizations were begun in 2004 under President George W. Bush.) For laboratory-developed tests, like the ones in question, FDA policy has stated that they cannot be used in clinical diagnoses without the FDA’s approval during an emergency. Although the goal of these regulations is to ensure only accurate lab tests are conducted, health officials have said they prevented them from quickly responding to the virus. One doctor in a Seattle lab described the process for getting an Emergency Use Authorization from the FDA and said the agency asked for a level of testing that didn’t make sense in the context of an emergency, according to a GQ profile. A doctor in North Carolina told NBC News that she had developed a test using the World Health Organization’s protocol but had yet to receive the use authorization from the FDA, putting the state ""way behind"" in its ability to test patients. On Feb. 29, the FDA announced a change in the process: Labs would still need to seek the agency’s approval for their tests, but the labs could begin testing while waiting for the official green light. On March 16, (three days after Crenshaw made his claim) the FDA announced another change to its policies and put state officials in charge of coronavirus tests developed by laboratories in their states, meaning labs would engage with state officials and not the FDA. It also removes the requirement for these labs to apply for an Emergency Use Authorization for their tests. The changes also expand which labs and manufacturers are included in FDA guidelines and which kinds of tests can be developed. ""We believe the unprecedented policy set forth in today’s updated guidance, which addresses laboratories and commercial manufacturers, will help address these urgent public health concerns by helping to expand the number and variety of diagnostic tests, as well as available testing capabilities in health care settings, and reference and commercial laboratories,"" reads a release from the agency. After the changes After the FDA announced changes to its policies, Labcorps and Quest Diagnostics both announced plans to start testing for the new coronavirus, crediting changes in federal policy with their ability to do so. ""We applaud the FDA for providing the flexibility for innovative, quality lab developed tests to be brought to patients and providers quickly to advance effective response to the coronavirus outbreak,"" said Steve Rusckowski, chairman and chief executive officer of Quest Diagnostics, in a statement. But even as state and local authorities move to ramp up testing, the number of available tests is still lacking. In Austin, for example, there is still a gap between available test kids and demand for testing, as officials prioritize testing for health care workers, people living in nursing homes and people at high risk for complications from the virus. Our Ruling Crenshaw said in a tweet that longstanding FDA regulations ""created barriers to the private industry creating a test quickly"" for the coronavirus. Crenshaw’s statement is accurate. FDA procedures adopted in 2004 meant laboratories had to seek the agency’s approval before developing and using tests in communities, a policy many health care officials have said prevented the country from taking early action in response to the novel coronavirus. It is important to keep in mind that other factors have contributed to the low levels of testing for the virus, beyond the FDA regulations. But Crenshaw’s statement is accurate." Claim: Dan Crenshaw Says longstanding Food and Drug Administration regulations “created barriers to the private industry creating a test quickly” for the coronavirus.

Ex Output:
Food and Drug Administration regulations in place since 2004 require labaratories to get an Emergency Use Authorization from the agency to use diagnostic tests and medical treatments that haven't gone through the typical clearance process. The policy was intended to speed up the process, but researchers reported significant delays between seeking an application and getting approval and these regulations played a role in that. The FDA has since changed the regulations to allow labs to start utilizing tests before receiving clearance.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: On December 18, 2018, a spate of posts and articles about fast food chain Popeye’s new “emotional support chicken” appeared on social media:The move appeared to be a stunt that was either tasty or tasteless, depending on your perspective. Although several general news outlets posted about the Popeye’s product, readers and social media users remained on high alert for leg pulls and marketing stunts based on the topics of the day — in this case, the ongoing controversy around emotional support animal companions and air travel:Delta says it saw an 84 percent increase in reported incidents involving service and support animals in 2016 and 2017. According to the trade group Airlines for America, airlines in the US saw a 74 percent increase overall in emotional support animals from 2016 to 2017. This increase has caused other major airlines including American and United to tighten their policies.Even if you haven’t encountered a nonhuman passenger on your own flight, you’ve probably heard one of the viral stories about one, which seem to surface every few weeks. In January [2018], a woman was barred from bringing her emotional support peacock on a United flight, even when she offered to buy the bird its own seat.Likely owing in part to the evergreen popularity of the debate, Popeye’s advertisement of a new purported product relating to emotional support animals proved popular on social media:Sorry, Fido. Popeyes #EmotionalSupportChicken doesn’t bark on the plane. (Available in the Philadelphia airport on 12/18.) pic.twitter.com/vWyBWq4PTe— Popeyes Chicken (@PopeyesChicken) December 18, 2018Popeye’s issued a press release on December 18, 2018 about its purported new product:There is no doubt the holiday season is one of the busiest and most stressful travel times of the year. The airports are crowded, the delays are frustrating, and travelers are stressed about getting from point A to point B with gifts in hand. This year, POPEYES® is launching “Emotional Support Chicken” to provide a good-hearted laugh most need to get through stressful holiday air travel. Starting Tuesday, December 18 [2018], travelers passing through Philadelphia International Airport can purchase their fried chicken meal with an “Emotional Support Chicken” carrier at the Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen in Terminal C to bring with them on their flight.Emotional support animals provide comfort and companionship, especially during a highly stressful time like air travel. However, according to recent headlines, some travelers are pushing the envelope with the types of animals they try to bring on flights and classify as “emotional support animals,” including the likes of peacocks, squirrels and tarantulas. Knowing this, Popeyes decided to launch its new “Emotional Support Chicken” to bring holiday travelers some humor to what is one of the most stressful places to be during the holidays – the airport.As is often the case with headline-grabbing fast food news, Popeye’s “Emotional Support Chicken” promotion was a bit overhyped for its real-world impact. The product was only available at one location (Philadelphia International Airport), and only while supplies lasted. Overall, the announcement largely served to get Popeye’s a bunch of news mentions, with little substance behind the novelty item. Claim: "Popeye's Louisiana Kitchen is selling ""emotional support chicken"" for weary flight passengers."

Ex Output:

Is Popeye’s Offering ‘Emotional Support Chicken’ to Harried Travelers?