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.

Paragraph: "The story states that US sales for the product hit $99 million in 2008. But it never explained the cost to the individual. The study ""found no effect,"" the story states succinctly. The story said the researchers found the product to be safe. But it could have mentioned that the National Center for Complementary & Alternative Medicine states ""Side effects of ginkgo may include headache, nausea, gastrointestinal upset, diarrhea, dizziness, or allergic skin reactions. More severe allergic reactions have occasionally been reported."" Although the discussion was brief, it did refer to the study as ""properly designed"" and ""placebo controlled."" There was no disease-mongering of dementia or cognitive decline. 3 short quotes with different perspectives, presented in balance. In a story based on a study that pokes holes in some peoples' beliefs about a product to prevent cognitive decline, there could have been at least one line about other research into cognitive decline. The widespread use of the product is clear in the story. The story states that the product has been in use for more than 500 years. We can't be sure of the extent to which the story was influenced by a news release. it apparently did lift one quote from a news release/statement." Claim: Study: Ginkgo biloba has no effect on Alzheimer's, dementia
In fewer words than its HealthDay competitor (404 words vs. 740), this story did a slightly better job on providing context and balance. Americans spend about $100 million a year on this stuff.

Paragraph: Trinity Lewis had asked Judge Sandee Bryan Marion to issue an injunction in Tarrant County district court to ensure that Cook Children's Medical Center doesn't end her daughter Tinslee Lewis' life-sustaining treatment. Texas Right to Life, an anti-abortion group that is advocating for Tinslee, said the girl's mother will appeal the judge's decision. Doctors at the Fort Worth hospital had planned to remove Tinslee from life support Nov. 10 after invoking Texas' "10-day rule," which can be employed when a family disagrees with doctors who say life-sustaining treatment should be stopped. The law stipulates that if the hospital's ethics committee agrees with doctors, treatment can be withdrawn after 10 days if a new provider can't be found to take the patient. In a statement issued by Texas Right to Life, which opposes the "10-day rule," Lewis said she was "heartbroken" over the judge's decision. "I feel frustrated because anyone in that courtroom would want more time just like I do if Tinslee were their baby," she said. The hospital said in a statement Thursday that in order to keep Tinslee alive, she's on a constant stream of painkillers, sedatives and paralytics. She currently has severe sepsis, which isn't uncommon when patients require deep sedation and chemical paralysis, it said. "Even with the most extraordinary measures the medical team is taking, Tinslee continues to suffer," the hospital said. Efforts to find another facility to take her have been unsuccessful. The hospital said it has reached out to more than 20 facilities. Texas Right to Life and Protect TX Fragile Kids have also been trying to find a facility to take her. Prior to Thursday's ruling, both sides agreed that if Marion denied the injunction request, the hospital would wait at least seven days before taking Tinslee off life-support. In her decision, Marion said the seven-day period would give the girl's mother time to file a notice of appeal and a motion for emergency relief with a state court of appeals. Tinslee has been at Cook Children's since her premature birth. The hospital said she has a rare heart defect and suffers from chronic lung disease and severe chronic high blood pressure. She hasn't come off a ventilator since going into respiratory arrest in early July and requires full respiratory and cardiac support. Lewis testified at a hearing last month that despite her daughter's sedation, she has a sense of the girl's likes and dislikes, describing her as "sassy." She said Tinslee likes getting her nails done but doesn't like having her hair brushed. "I want to be the one to make the decision for her," Lewis said about removing her daughter from life support. At the hearing last month, Dr. Jay Duncan, one of Tinslee's physicians, described the girl's complex conditions and Cook Children's efforts to treat her, which have included about seven surgeries. The cardiac intensive care doctor said that for the first five months of Tinslee's life doctors had hope she might one day at least be able to go home. But Duncan said there came a point when doctors determined they had run out of surgical and clinical options, and that treatment was no longer benefiting Tinslee. Duncan said last month that the girl would likely die within half a year, and noted the hospital has made "extraordinary" efforts to find another facility for her. "She is in pain. Changing a diaper causes pain. Suctioning her breathing tube causes pain. Being on the ventilator causes pain," he said. Duncan said there had been "many, many" conversations with Tinslee's family about her dire condition. Tarrant County Juvenile Court Judge Alex Kim issued a temporary restraining order to stop the removal of life support on Nov. 10. But Kim was removed from the case after the hospital filed a motion questioning his impartiality and saying he had bypassed case-assignment rules to designate himself as the presiding judge. After his removal, Judge Marion, who is chief justice of Texas' Fourth Court of Appeals, was assigned to hear the request for an injunction in Tarrant County district court. The case has become a rallying point for Republicans in Texas, with the attorney general stating his opposition to the "10-day rule" and GOP state Rep. Tan Parker saying it "doesn't fit with Texas values." The 1999 law that shields from lawsuits doctors who follow the process of going through an ethics committee was crafted by a task force that included lawmakers, attorneys, doctors and anti-abortion groups. Supporters of the law passed when George W. Bush, a Republican, was governor include the Texas Alliance for Life, the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops and the Texas Medical Association. Supporters say the law provides a framework for doctors and hospitals to resolve differences and ensures that doctors can't be forced to perform medical interventions that cause harm or suffering. Claim: Texas judge: Hospital can remove baby from life support.
A Texas judge on Thursday sided with a hospital that plans to remove an 11-month-old girl from life support after her mother disagreed with the decision by doctors who say the infant is in pain and that her condition will never improve.

Paragraph: This was a strong point for the story, which did provide some information on cost. "The study did not address whether screening is cost-effective. In the U.S., cholesterol tests cost around $80 and usually are covered by health insurance, though much lower prices often are negotiated. The study authors in England estimated that if cholesterol testing costs $7 and gene testing costs $300, it would cost $2,900 for every person identified as having the disorder." We wish the story would have noted the cost of gene testing in the U.S. but otherwise found this satisfactory. The story also could have noted that although statin drugs are generic and relatively inexpensive, the long-term costs of treatment from childhood onward are likely to be significant. The story quantified the findings this way: "For every 1,000 people screened in the study, four children and four parents were identified as being at risk for early heart disease. That's nearly twice as many as most studies in the past have suggested." That lets us know how many more people might get identified if screening was widened, but readers should also be informed that it isn't clear if this ultimately reduces cardiac deaths. The harms of screening including false positives and negatives, overdiagnosis, overtreatment, inappropriate disease labelling and so on are not mentioned. The story explains how many babies were tested and how they were tested. But, we didn't get a sense of how reliable these testing methods are, nor what the study's limitations were. Instead,the story implied that the study showed that screening kids will lower their risk, with statements like this: "What if a blood test could reveal that your child is at high risk for early heart disease years in the future, giving you a chance to prevent it now?" The story included numbers on how prevalent this condition is, and the increased risk of heart disease that it carries, though it would have been stronger if it had given specifics on what the baseline risk is versus the 10-fold increase. The story included independent sources. Also, the story discloses this: "The study was led by Dr. David Wald at Queen Mary University of London. He and another author founded a company that makes a combination pill to prevent heart disease. The work was funded by the Medical Research Council, the British government's health research agency." The alternative here is no screening in early childhood. Are these sorts of genetic tests available for parents to buy off the shelf, or ask for a referral from a doctor to get? The story doesn't clarify. The story establishes the novelty of the study by explaining that it found that this genetic condition is more common than originally thought. There are two sources who do not appear to be associated with the study. Claim: Testing cholesterol in toddlers, even younger? Study says it could help
This is a story looking at a study that foundfamilial hypercholesterolemia was more common than previously thought. This condition is associated with an increased risk of heart disease and heart attacks in adults under 40. As a result, researchers are proposing that more kids get screened, and possibly start treatment earlier, to reduce this risk. One commentator noted: "We really need to pay attention to this" and "It'sreasonable to screen for something that's common, dangerous and has a treatment that's effective and safe." The corollary to this statement is that there is little direct evidence that treating children with medication to lower cholesterol reduces cardiac deaths, andthere are plenty of unknowns, such as the costs of screening and labeling very young kids with a disease that may not cause any problems for a long time. The story should have done more to explore both sides of this issue. Parents want to do everything they can to make sure their children have a long and healthy life, and so a story about a genetic condition being more common than previously thought is likely to be read widely. Unfortunately, the story's framing takes the stance that finding the risk factors for this disease very early on in life leads to an overall benefit. But the study provides no evidence of that, and parents need to know this.