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: In 2009, there were 119.45 male newborns for every 100 females, down from 120.56 in 2008 and the first decline in years, said Li Bin, head of the State Population and Family Planning Commission. The natural ratio should be about 105 males per 100 females at birth, but the gap has widened in China since it introduced a one-child policy three decades ago to curb population growth — a restriction that bolstered a traditional preference for boys. Wider use of ultrasound and abortions has caused the imbalance to increase significantly in recent years, shocking ordinary Chinese and alarming leaders who worry violence and instability could plague a society full of unmarried young men. “Looked at from a comprehensive perspective, the lopsided sex ratio at birth has started to be contained,” Li said in comments reported on the government’s main website (www.gov.cn). She said it would take many more years to consolidate the trend, calling for more vigilance in rooting out pre-birth gender scans and abortions that do not serve a medical purpose. More than 24 million Chinese men of marrying age could find themselves without spouses in 2020, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences said last year. The government research institution named the imbalance as the most serious demographic problem faced by the country’s 1.3 billion population. Claim: China takes baby steps in narrowing gender imbalance.
[A]: China has taken its first baby steps in narrowing a gender chasm that has left the country with tens of millions more boys than girls, an official said on Thursday.


[Q]: Paragraph: Made by Bayer AG and Onyx Pharmaceuticals Inc, Nexavar is  approved in the United States for kidney and liver cancer. Eight out of the first nine patients who took the drug saw  improvements in their ability to exercise, and six out of nine  had significant improvement in their right ventricular ejection  fraction, which measures the heart’s ability to pump blood to  the lungs. Four patients had decreased pressure in their pulmonary  artery, which supplies blood to the lungs. “What patients are telling us is they are able to do more  in their daily lives,” said Dr. Mardi Gomberg-Maitland of the  University of Chicago, who presented her findings at a meeting  of the American Thoracic Society in Toronto. The original  research on the drug was done at the University. She said the surprising thing is that the drug worked so  quickly. Patients saw benefits in only four months. The study is the first human trial to examine the  sorafenib, or Nexavar, in pulmonary hypertension, a disease in  which blood vessels feeding the lungs narrow, forcing the heart  to work harder. Like cancer, pulmonary hypertension is a disease marked by  abnormal cell growth, which narrows the arteries feeding the  lungs, reducing blood flow and taxing the heart. Sorafenib  appears to interfere with this process. The trial enrolled patients with stable disease who  continued to take their primary medications, which included a  continuous infusion of a drug called prostacyclin and Pfizer  Inc’s Viagra or sildenafil. Both relax blood vessels that feed  the lungs. Gomberg-Maitland said this therapy typically slows  progression of the disease, but does not reverse it. They added sorafenib for 16 weeks, but at a lower dose than  cancer patients use. Most patients in the trial increased their exercise  capacity, as measured by time on a treadmill or a six-minute  walk test. They saw an average 8 percent improvement in their  right ventricular ejection fraction, a measure of the heart’s  pumping power. Side effects included mild hair loss and skin reactions. The study was designed to last only 16 weeks, but all of  the patients continue to take the drug, some now for more than  a year. “What is exciting about this is all of the patients feel  better and nobody wants to come off the medication,”  Gomberg-Maitland said in a telephone interview. The study was intended to test the safety and dosing of the  drug. It was funded by The Doris Duke Foundation and the  University of Chicago. The researchers now plan to study the drug in 40 to 60  patients at different research centers. Claim: Nexavar helped in pulmonary hypertension study.
[A]: The cancer drug Nexavar is showed  promise in a small study of people with pulmonary hypertension,  a debilitating condition marked by high blood pressure in the  arteries that supply the lungs, U.S. researchers said on  Monday.


[Q]: Paragraph: As with the HealthDay story we reviewed, there was no discussion of costs of the banding procedure nor for regular office visits for band adjustment. Although these costs were not detailed in the study reported on, this information is readily available. We think that this is unfortunate given the magnitude of the cost of the procedure. We also would have liked to have seen a comment or two about insurance coverage The only benefit reported on in this story was the average loss of excess weight experienced by those who had had the procedure and in those who still had their Lap-Bands at the end of the study period. The story did a good job providing information about the common harms, along with the percentage of individuals affected. The story did not engage in overt disease-mongering. The story included interview comments from a company spokesperson and one of the authors of the study, both of whom were clearly identified. The story also included this important detail about the quoted author, which was missed by the HealthDay story we reviewed. “Himpens reports consultant work for Ethicon Endosurgery, which makes another gastric band, Realize, and for Covidien, a health care products company.” In addition, the story had comments from two surgeons who do not appear to have direct ties with either the manufacturer of the product or the study reported on. We were a little concerned about some of the phrasing in the story. It says, “But some, including the manufacturer of the Lap-Band — used in a technique called laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding — take exception to the study, criticizing the small sample size and the number of patients lost to follow-up.The critics also point out that both the device itself and the expertise of surgeons placing it have improved greatly since the patients in the study had their bands placed, in the years 1994 through 1997.” This leads readers to believe that there are mulitple critics out there pointing out flaws in the study. The story itself, though, only quotes one actual critic: the company spokewoman. The criticisms may be valid, but readers deserved a strong independent analysis of the study’s limitations. While the story did mention at the very end how the pace of weight loss with the product reported on compared with weight loss following gastric bypass surgery, the story ought to have provided better insight about the long-term outcomes in those who have gastric bypass and those who chose not to have surgery to help manage their excess weight. That way, readers could compare the two commonly utilized surgical options and understand the differences between them. The story hints at this by paraphrasing a study author saying that Lap-Band patients, “may have less weight loss and more complications than those who choose other weight loss surgeries.” But it never provides any evidence to back that claim. We also would have liked to have seen some comment about diet and exercise. The story makes it clear that the gastric banding procedure is available and provides a link to information from the National Institutes of Health. The story was clear that it was not reporting on a new or novel treatment but rather was reporting on the long-term outcomes presented in a recent research paper. This story does not appear to be based exclusively on a news release. Claim: Study: Poor Results From Lap-Band Surgery
[A]:
This story detailed the long-term outcomes at one institution for obese individuals who had gastric banding surgery. The story was clear about the drawbacks inherent in the study. For example, that the data were obtained from a relatively small number of patients, and these patients, by virtue of the time at which they had the surgery performed, may differ somewhat from the results in current patients. The story also presented information  useful for setting up realistic expectations about the long-term benefits and potential harms of gastric banding. As more people consider the available options for assisting in obesity management, the information about the amount of weight lost and the lackluster impact on weight-related health conditions, such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and sleep apnea, this story serves as an important counterbalance to the direct-to-consumer advertising on the procedure. Obesity is a significant public health issue and impacts up to one third of American adults. Diet and exercise are still the preferred approach. Drug therapy for obesity remains elusive as evidenced by the recent refusal of the FDA to approve Qnexa. Increasingly, people with morbid obesity are turning to surgical treatments. Patients have two choices in this regard. The standard gastric bypass or placement of an adjustable band around the stomach opening. Both approaches are deemed safe. While the banding approach is simpler and carries fewer immediate risks, the weight loss is not as great as with the bypass procedure. This new study adds to our understanding of the longstanding outcomes of a group of patients who received an earlier generation banding device.