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.
--------
Question: Paragraph: "The story mentions that 30 capsules ofOSR#1 cost $60. It would have been nice had the story also includedinformation about the amount of active ingredient per capsuleand the manufacturer's recommendeddosage. This wouldhave allowed readers to make a better calculation as to the financial impact oftreatment. This is critical information consideringthese costs will be borne out of pocket by anyone usingOSR #1. The storyjuxtaposes a light-hearted""success story""with information about the industrial uses of OSR #1 for removing toxic heavy metals from contaminated soil. This is a clever way ofway of emphasizingthat the use of this product is based entirely on anecdote. The storyclearly states that there is no credible evidence supporting the efficacy of the product. The harms of this product are impossible to quantify, given that it doesn't seem to have been studied in humans or in animals. The story notes that otherchelating drugs carry ""significant risks""and ""can strip the body of metals necessary for health."" It would have been nice to see more specifics about what chelators can do, but the story satisfies the critierion. The story states that medical searches turned up no papers about OSR#1, and that the companywhich makesthe productprovided nopublished studies about its use. The story rightly suggests that this total lack of evidenceshould be deeply troubling. The story doesn't exaggerate the prevalence or severity of autism, or of the potentially toxic compounds sometimes used to treat it. The story quotes multiple experts on pharmacology and an FDA spokesperson. It also quotes from an interview with Boyd Haley, president of the company which makes OSR#1. It attempted to get a reaction from Kim Stagliano, an OSR #1 proponent, but this effort was not successful. While the story mentions that there other are chelation drugs out there, it could have mentioned that there areeducational strategies which can be helpful for children with autism and which have betterevidence to support their use. The story states that OSR#1 is, according to the manufacturer'swebsite, available onlythrough dentists' or doctors' offices. Itnotes, however,that theTribune was able to buy 30 capsules of the productdirectly from a compounding pharmacy listed on the site. We areimpressed that the Tribune went to these lengths toestablish the product's availability. The story provides a fairly detailedpedigree for OSR #1and discusses itssimilarity to other chelation therapiesused in the treatment of autism. It also gives credit to blogger Kathleen Seidel for being the first to raiseconcerns aboutOSR #1 in her blog, Neurodiversity.com The story is well sourced and is not based on a press release." Claim: Industrial chemical OSR#1 used as autism treatment

Answer: "The product known as OSR #1 contains a chemical originally intended for clean-up of toxic waste at industrial sites. This story by the Chicago Tribune (which was republished by the Los Angeles Times) examineshow,despite a total lack of any researchon the product in humans,OSR#1 ended up being marketedas a ""dietary supplement"" for childrenwith autism. The story does an especially good job of pointing out the regulatory gaps whichcan allowrisky, poorly researchedproductsto be sold as ""cures"" to desperate parents and caregivers. It's an example of health journalism doing what it'ssupposed to do, and doing it well. Autism is a serious disorder which affects a growing number of children and their families and for which there are few goodtreatment options. Thisis asituation ripe for abuse by overzealous advocates andunscrupulous marketersof uNPRoven therapies. AsBoyd Haley, president of the company thatmake thethe OSR#1 supplement, puts it:""There are so many snake oil salesmen out there, it's just incredible."""

Question: Paragraph: "Senate Republicans' surprise move to repeal the requirement to have health insurance into their tax reform bill revealed numbers that few people had noted before. (The mandate says that everyone must have coverage or face a fine.) ""80 percent of the tax falls on those who make $50,000 a year or less,"" Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., told Fox News Nov. 15. ""We're taking a failed policy that punishes people with taxes -- low-income people. (We're) taking that tax away, giving them tax relief there, and then ploughing that back into tax relief for middle-income families."" This was no throw-away line. Thune is the third-ranking Republican in the party's Senate leadership, and his colleagues delivered similar versions of the talking point throughout the day. In 2016, the fine for not having insurance stood at $695 for adults. The formula has a few wrinkles that brought the maximum penalty to $2,085 for a family, or 2.5 percent of income, whichever was larger. Going forward, it rises with inflation (unless of course, Congress repeals it). Not everyone without insurance has to pay the fine. The list of exemptions is long. It includes a family with income under $20,800; people who have suffered domestic violence in the household; anyone who has suffered the death of a close family member; someone who has receiveda utility shut-off notice, and more. Thune's office said he got his information from 2015 data from the Internal Revenue Service. In one key sense, Thune is correct. Out of all the tax returns sent to the IRS that included a payment of the fine, 79 percent came from households making $50,000 a year or less. (Technically, the income is adjusted gross income, which understates actual income. But on average, the adjustment makes little difference for this check.) However, Thune didn't specify that he was talking about the number of people. His description of the tax could just as equally refer to the dollars paid. The government collected a little over $3 billion from about 6.6 million households. Of that, about $1.8 billion, 60 percent, came from households with incomes under $50,000. So in dollar terms, about 60 percent of the tax fell on people in that income range, not the 80 percent that Thune said. Thune's communications staff told us he was talking about the number of people and the number of returns. We reached several health care and tax researchers, and none of them challenged the core numbers. Gordon Mermin with the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center ran the numbers and found that as a percentage of income, the tax fell heaviest on the $25,000 to $50,000 group. On average, that group paid 3.1 percent of income. Mermin told us households in this range are more likely to lack insurance, and due to their incomes, are less likely to be able to claim an exemption from the fine. ""People shouldn't be surprised the $25,000 to $50,000 group is affected the most,"" Mermin said. But researchers found it odd that people making less than $25,000 had paid as much as they did. The $10,000 to $25,000 group accounted for 22 percent of the payments, and about 36 percent of the households. ""Folks are just making a mistake,"" said Jonathan Gruber, one of the architects of Obamacare and an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ""Given the exemptions, there is no way such low-income folks should be paying."" The IRS knows this has happened. It's been sending out letters since 2015, telling filers ""it appears that you may have reported owing too much Health Care Shared Responsibility Payment,"" the penalty's formal name. ""The IRS has reached out to some taxpayers to let them know they've overpaid the penalty, but they don't have the capacity to do that in all cases,"" said Tara Straw at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning think tank. Straw said the IRS targets people who automatically qualify for an exemption because of their income, a factor that is stronger in states that did not expand Medicaid to people making 138 percent of federal poverty. Where the IRS effort falls short, she said, relates to personal circumstances such as a death in the family or a utility service cut-off notice. Larry Levitt at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a neutral source of health care data, also agreed that ""there certainly appear to be some low-income people paying the penalty who could be claiming an exemption."" A just-released study from Kaiser suggests the number could be large. The report found that about 5 million uninsured people could get coverage for less than the cost of the penalty. Thanks to the subsidies in Obamacare, the lowest-level plans would be free to many of those people, or if not free, available at a very low cost. If everyone took advantage of those subsidies, the 6.6 million households paying the penalty because they lack coverage would fall significantly. We don't know how the numbers would shake out because about 4 million people neither paid the fine nor told the IRS that they had coverage. Republicans offer the repeal of the penalty as a boon to working Americans, and for some it would be. But the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan analytic arm of Congress, has found that removing the penalty makes it less likely that people will seek out insurance, even if it would be free or very affordable. Thune said that 80 percent of the individual mandate penalty falls on those who make $50,000 a year or less. In terms of the number of returns in which people paid the fine, that figure is correct. In terms of the dollars collected, it overshoots the mark. People in that income range account for about 60 percent of the payments. Still, an independent analysis showed that households in the $25,000 to 50,000 income range paid the highest percentage of income on the penalty. There's strong evidence that many lower income people are paying the fine by mistake, and millions could both avoid it and gain health coverage for less than the cost of the fine. But as far as who is paying the fine." Claim: 80 percent of the (individual mandate) tax falls on those who make $50,000 a year or less.

Answer: Thune said that 80 percent of the individual mandate penalty falls on those who make $50,000 a year or less. In terms of the number of returns in which people paid the fine, that figure is correct. In terms of the dollars collected, it overshoots the mark. People in that income range account for about 60 percent of the payments. Still, an independent analysis showed that households in the $25,000 to 50,000 income range paid the highest percentage of income on the penalty. There's strong evidence that many lower income people are paying the fine by mistake, and millions could both avoid it and gain health coverage for less than the cost of the fine. But as far as who is paying the fine.

Question: Paragraph: On 9 September 2016, a photograph of two adults passed out in the front seat of their car with a small child in the back seat hit social media. The photograph is legitimate and was taken by an East Liverpool, Ohio, police officer who had stopped the car after seeing it being driven erratically. The city of East Liverpool posted pictures showing the driver and an adult passenger, James Acord and Rhonda Pasek respectively, looking extremely pale, limp and unconscious in the front seat of the vehicle. A little blond boy can be seen behind them in the back seat: Brian Allen, the city's director of public safety, confirmed to us that the photograph is real. Both adults survived and have been charged with crimes, and the child has been taken into protective custody. Acord has been convicted of operating a vehicle under the influence and Pasek has been charged with child endangerment and drug use, Allen told us. Acord and Pasek were presumed to have been under the influence of heroin, but blood test results are still pending. The city posted the photograph and a copy of the incident report to their official Facebook page with the following cautionary message: We feel it necessary to show the other side of this horrible drug. We feel we need to be a voice for the children caught up in this horrible mess. This child can't speak for himself but we are hopeful his story can convince another user to think twice about injecting this poison while having a child in their custody. According to the report posted by the city, on 7 September 2016, just after 3 p.m. local time, Kevin Thompson, a police officer for the city of East Liverpool, noticed a dark Ford Explorer driving erratically toward a bus full of schoolchildren. After the car skidded to a stop, it drifted a little before coming to a stop again. Thompson wrote in his report that he had to turn off the engine and take the keys out of the ignition to prevent the driver from continuing on. Claim: A photograph taken by a responding police officer shows a couple passed out in their vehicle from a suspected heroin overdose, with their child in the back seat.

Answer:
Thompson said when he tried talking to Acord, his head was bobbing, his pupils were pinpoint, and his speech was slurred. Thompson wrote that Acord said he was attempting to take Pasek to the hospital, but during the conversation, Acord went totally unconscious. Thompson noticed Pasek was turning blue and tried to assist her while he called for an ambulance. Thompson also wrote that he saw paramedics administer the anti-narcotic Narcan, which enabled both adults to regain consciousness before they were transported to the hospital.