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.
One example: Paragraph: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release.". Claim: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Solution is here: We really don't understand why only a handful of mainstream news organizations reported this story. (At least in what we found.) The most common emergency surgery in the world. Rushing to emergency surgery may not carry any benefit. Waiting a few hours may be safer and less expensive. Why is that not a story? We applaud USA Today for finding time and space and clearly it didn't need to free up much space to do a good job telling the story. The story explains that as many as 300,0 appendectomies are done each year in the US. That figure alone explains why this is an important study to report.
Explanation: The output is an analysis of the claim while considering the paragraph as a reference. The output highlights the key features presented in the paragraph and explains the claim accordingly.

Now, solve this: Paragraph: The French drugmaker, whose pipeline has disappointed investors in recent years, poached new chief executive Paul Hudson from Swiss pharma group Novartis in September to revitalize the company. Its move to ditch diabetes research - announced alongside cost savings targets - marks a major turning point for a firm whose products dominated the insulin market for nearly two decades, before it was hit by patent losses and a drop in sales. "We recognize it is getting more difficult to get breakthrough innovation and that we have to be efficient and move our resources to areas of opportunity, as tough a choice as that is," Hudson told reporters. The firm is bulking up elsewhere, as in the lucrative field of cancer drugs. It announced a deal to buy U.S. biotechnology firm Synthorx for about $2.5 billion earlier on Monday. Sanofi, which is due to further detail strategic plans to investors on Tuesday in Cambridge, Massachusetts, said it was targeting new cost savings of 2 billion euros ($2.20 billion) by 2022, by tightening spending and shaking up its supply chain. It also aims for a core operating margin of 30% by then, up from 25.8% last year. The group emphasized the potential for its eczema treatment Dupixent, recently approved in other therapeutic areas such as asthma, with an aim to expand sales to more than 10 billion euros. Revenue for the drug, developed with U.S. partner Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, was up 268% in 2018, reaching 788 million euros. Sanofi, currently organized around five global business units, said it would rejig these around three pillars: specialty care, which includes oncology and rare diseases, as well as vaccines and general medicines. Its consumer healthcare unit - known for over-the-counter products such as paracetamol Doliprane, erectile dysfunction drug Cialis and influenza treatment Tamiflu - will be considered as a standalone business, Sanofi said. It would have its own operational dynamic, the firm added, though it did not clarify what this meant in the longer term. Sources told Reuters last month that Sanofi was considering a joint venture or an outright sale among options for the division. "Our objective for the consumer healthcare business is to unlock value and entrepreneurial energy by growing faster than the market over mid-term," Hudson said. Claim: Accutane Linked Heart, Liver Woes
Solution:
Sanofi SA said on Monday it would end its research efforts in diabetes and cardiovascular diseases as part of a revamp that will narrow the number of its business units in the hope of bolstering growth and profit.