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: "SInce the test drug is in the very early stages of development, this criterion is technically not applicable. However, the present treatment regimen of an interferon and ribavirin costs thousands of dollars monthly for 6-12 months and it is likely that any newer antivirals will be additive and not replacements. A comment on the potential for significant additional costs would have been desirable. The story got a little carried away here. It said participants treated with the experimental drug had a ""dramatic"" reduction in viral load. While this may be true, it would have been helpful to point out, as the HealthDay story did, that the study lasted only a few days. We don't know whether this benefit can be maintainedover a longer period of time, especially considering that thehepatitis C virus has proven to be quite capable of developing resistance to antivirals over time. The story says study participants who took the drug exhibited ""few side effects."" But what were those side effects and how serious were they? The story doesn't say. While the implication here is that the drug seems to be safe a conclusion that we can't really draw based on a small, early phase test the story does include acautionary quote from an expert about the need for additional testing to demonstrate safety. It also noted that patients taking this drug might still need to be treated with interferon, which many individuals can't tolerate because of side effects. A close one, but we'll call it satisfactory. This story includes appropriate caveats about the early nature of this research and includes a restraining quote from an expert who warns that the drug might not make it out of phase II tests. Unlike the competing HealthDay piece, this story resisted getting too worked up about the other experimental drugs for hepatitis-C that are closer to potential FDA approval. This story does not exaggerate the prevalence or severity of hepatitis C. According to disclosure statements from a 2008 CME program,Dr. Bruce Bacon, an expert source for this story, received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, which is developing the experimental drug being discussed. He also is a consultant to drug companies developing competing drugs for hepatitis C.To avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest it is desirable to identifyrelationships such as these clearly. This story fails to do so. The story compares the new drug with intravenously administered peg-interferon and ribavirin the currentstandard of carefor hepatitis C. The story called the research on BMS-790052 ""preliminary"" and made it clear thatthe drugwas not close to approval. It also was more cautious than the competing HealthDay piece in its description of two other antiviral drugs that are nearing FDA approval. The story notes that there are many other drugs being developed to treat hepatitis C. It explained that a potentially novel advantage of the new compound is that it seems to be effective against all genotypes. We can't be sure whether this story relied on a news release." Claim: Experimental Drug May Treat Hepatitis C
A:
While still needing some improvement, this WebMD story does a better job than a competing HealthDay piece of coveringanexperimental new treatment for hepatitis-C. The major difference is that this storystayed focused on the study at hand, while theHealthDay piecegotsidetracked into making unsupported claims about other experimental drugs mentioned by an expert source. Considering how few experimental drugs make it all the way from phase I testing to FDA approval, it's debatable whether it is even appropriate to cover a new drug in this early stage of testing in a consumer publication. If you're going to cover stories like this, it is important to maintain a consistently cautious tone throughout, which this story mostly manages to do. The competing piece from HealthDay alternated between skepticism and cheerleading.