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.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: There's no discussion of cost, even to mention that statins are relatively inexpensive these days and are mostly generically available. To its credit, the article does mention the cost of a calcium scan. We learn that "anywhere from 50 to 200 healthy people need to take a statin daily to prevent a single heart attack for five years." That's helpful information. It also notes that the observed benefit is less for older patients. The story could have added that even those numbers might disputed by some experts who perceive no meaningful benefit. For example, one review found being on a statin does not help people with low risk for heart disease live longer. The story does a service by highlighting the harms of statins. It explains: "The most common side effect of these drugs is muscle pain, which usually goes away if patients stop taking the medicines. People taking statins are also at a higher risk of developing diabetes, which is harder to reverse." It also mentions the potential for overtreatment with the use of coronary calcium scans. However, we wish it had included absolute numbers. The story says harms are "uncommon," but provides no data to back that up. Rates of adverse effects with statins have been measured at 1 to 10%, which makes them "common" in the definition of the European Medicines Agency. Also noteworthy is that some contend that adverse effects of statins have not been reliably reported. The story doesn't explain the quality of the study, or of studies on which current guidelines are based. We don't explicitly learn that this is a modelling study. In other words, this study consisted mostly of reinterpretations of math, not re-evaluations of real-life patients. The researchers said they were unable to obtain enough data on all possible harms and age-specific data on some harm outcomes, "so the risk thresholds we determined may still be too low." There is no disease-mongering here. This story includes sources that weren't involved in the study. The study's authors reported no conflicts of interest. The story could have acknowledged the influence of pharmaceutical companies in creating guidelines for statin use. The alternative of not taking a statin was the key message here, and that's laudable. However, we have a couple of concerns. First, we learn that "some statins were more effective than others, with atorvastatin (the generic name for Lipitor) being the best of the bunch." However, the story doesn't explain on what basis some statins are "more effective." In fact, some statins may be more effective at lower cholesterol, but the study found that no statin rises above others when it comes to the outcomes that counts most to patients reducing cardiovascular deaths. Also, the story doesn't mention lifestyle interventions diet and exercise. The story makes it clear that statins are widely prescribed. The story states this an attempt to better weigh the benefits and harms of statin use. There was a good range of interviewees with no reliance on a news release Claim: Before Starting A Statin, Talk It Over With Your Doctor

Output: The story reports on a study that re-assessed who benefits from taking a statin to prevent heart disease, with different risk thresholds based on sex, age group, and statin type. It reports the view that current guidelines "haven't adequately considered" the harms from taking these widely used drugs. The story laudably focuses attention on potential adverse events and a need for balanced decision-making. It also incorporated a variety of sources. In our view, the story could done a better job in discussing costs, the quality of evidence, and alternative strategies to prevent heart disease. Statins are among the most widely prescribed drugs, with their use encouraged under guidelines such as those of the American Heart Association of the American College of Cardiology. However, data isn't crystal clear on the benefits and harms of statins for people who don't already have heart disease. As a result, there's concern that they are being overused. It's laudable that some news organizations including CNN as well as NPR highlighted research that explores these complexities and points out the need for patients and physicians to weigh benefits and harms. The headline of this story is, in our view, a winner.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "During this election season, Republicans have been hammering Democrats over cuts they say were made to Medicare as part of the health care bill. Now, in a television ad in the Kentucky Senate race, Democrat Jack Conway is turning the tables, attacking Republican Rand Paul over Medicare deductibles. Here's the transcript of the ad, released Sept. 28, 2010: Narrator: ""More from Rand Paul."" Footage of Rand Paul: ""The real answer to Medicare would be a $2,000 deductible."" Man: ""A $2,000 deductible?"" Man: ""Rand Paul wants us to pay $2,000 just to get Medicare?"" Woman: ""That's crazy."" Woman: ""I can't afford that."" Footage of Rand Paul: ""The real answer to Medicare would be a $2,000 deductible."" Man: ""I don't know what planet he's from."" Woman: ""Rand Paul is off the wall with the $2,000 deductible."" Man: ""He knows we can't afford that."" Woman: ""The more we hear about Rand Paul, the worse it gets."" Conway: ""I'm Jack Conway, and I approved this message."" The grainy footage of Paul is real. It comes from a talk that Paul, an ophthalmologist and longtime libertarian, gave to the Center-Right Coalition, a conservative group, in Lexington, Ky., on June 19, 2009. A longer excerpt from Paul's talk has been posted on YouTube. To see whether Conway's ad takes Paul's remarks out of context, we transcribed the portion of his speech in which he talks about Medicare. ""What's the problem in medicine?"" Paul began. ""No price fluctuation. If you're over 65 and go to a doctor in this country, you pay the exact same price with every doctor in the whole country. So when they want to blame ... that on capitalism, we have to be smart enough and say, 'We don't have capitalism. We already have socialism.'"" He continued, ""Medicare is socialized medicine. People are afraid of that because, 'Oh, you'll say you're against Medicare.' No, I say we have to do something different. We can't just eliminate Medicare. But we have to figure out how to get more to a market-based system. It's counter-intuitive to a lot of people, but you have to pay for things if you want prices to come down. So you really need higher deductibles. And the real answer to Medicare would be a $2,000 deductible, but try selling that one in an election. But that's the real answer is, you have to pay for things. And when you do, but you also get rid of price controls. So you raise the deductible, you get rid of price controls, and you allow more competition. And you may have to allow more competition from other parties. Nurse practitioners, we already have some. Pharmacists. There have to be ways to allow medicine to come down."" His comment was no one-time slip of the tongue. The Conway campaign released another ad with footage of at least five other occasions in which Paul spoke publicly about his preference for high deductibles for Medicare, sometimes even invoking the same $2,000 figure. Indeed, Paul has been caught on camera being open about the political hazards of making such a proposal. In the Lexington talk featured in the first ad, Paul immediately followed his mention of the $2,000 figure with the addendum, ""but try selling that one in an election."" And in the follow-up ad, a clip shows him acknowledging the political risk with striking frankness. ""The hard part,"" he said, ""is how do you present this on national TV? I mean, what's going to happen to me in a statewide race if I tell people I think the Medicare deductible is going to be higher? Am I going to be booted out of the room? I don't know. I'm willing to take a risk because I think it's the right thing to do, and because the other answer is to become just like Canada."" We did not receive a response from the Paul campaign for this article, but the campaign has responded through TV ads. On Oct. 7, the liberal website Talking Points Memo published a side-by-side comparison of the Paul campaign's two response ads and found subtle but noteworthy differences. In the first, the Paul campaign says that Paul ""never supported higher Medicare deductibles."" In the second, the ad was changed to say that Paul ""doesn't support higher Medicare deductibles."" Had they stuck with the first ad, it would have been undermined by a half-dozen film clips. Paul refined his policy toward Medicare during an appearance on Fox News on Oct. 6. Paul said that he did not want to impose deductibles on current Medicare beneficiaries but rather on future beneficiaries, possibly starting with those who are currently 55 or younger. So even Paul now acknowledges that he thinks Medicare deductibles are worth considering. But does Conway's ad fairly portray the views Paul had espoused at the time? They come close, but we do offer one caveat. We think that the general impression Conway's ad gives -- and in particular the line where the man says, ""Rand Paul wants us to pay $2,000 just to get Medicare?"" -- is that what Paul wants to do is slap seniors with a $2,000 deductible, even though his plan is much more comprehensive. Paul's ideas for Medicare may be good or bad, but the ad is somewhat misleading when it reduces them to a simple $2,000 deductible. That said, we see it as a relatively minor exaggeration. Paul has advocated for a $2,000 deductible in multiple settings." Claim: "Rand Paul ""wants us to pay $2,000 just to get Medicare."

Output: Jack Conway says Rand Paul backs a $2,000 deductible for Medicare

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Cobalt is a key ingredient in the batteries that power electric vehicles, a fast-growing sector of the auto industry, and in metal alloys used to make jet engines. It was singled out in LME proposals to embed responsible sourcing principles into metal brands deliverable against its contracts, which include copper and zinc. Most of the world's supply comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo, often from artisanal mines where several organizations have cited human rights abuses. The LME plan outlined last October involves suspending cobalt brands trading at a significant discount to its contract on the grounds that they may be seen as tainted. Now, objections by NGOs to a consultation on its plans could leave the exchange at risk of legal challenges from banned cobalt producers, metal industry sources say. The LME will publish its proposals this quarter. "The LME received 39 responses to its recent discussion paper on responsible sourcing," the exchange said. "The LME's role is now to identify a path forwards which balances the diverse views of its stakeholders (including civil society organizations), while achieving the LME's stated aim of helping the broader metals industry embrace key principles of responsible sourcing and environmental stewardship." The letter from the NGOs said the LME should not immediately ban cobalt brands and that it should work with firms that produce them to ensure responsible sourcing. "It is short-sighted and irresponsible of the LME to single out cobalt and tin as higher risk metals above others, or to single out (artisanal) material as implicitly higher risk," the letter signed by 14 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) said. All companies involved with the exchange should implement responsible sourcing practices in line with the OECD Guidance, the letter dated Dec. 3 said. The OECD Guidance says companies should report in detail about their supply chains and advises on ways in which they can uncover and address human rights and corruption issues. "Heightened supply chain due diligence on cobalt, as with all other LME metals, must be triggered by assessment of all supply chain risks, including corruption risks," the NGO letter said. Sources say the business of an exchange is to facilitate trade between buyers and sellers. "The NGOs don't understand the difference between end consumers and the LME. The LME is a market of last resort, you can't choose which metal to take or reject," a metal trading source said. "Consumers can choose where they source their cobalt from, people buying on the LME can't, that's why there is such a deep discount between LME cobalt prices and (Fastmarkets MB)" Cobalt prices published by Fastmarkets MB at around $44,000 a tonne are $12,000 a tonne higher than those for the LME's contract, which was launched in 2010. However, the NGOs say singling out low-priced cobalt typically produced by artisanal miners ignores other "serious red flags" such as corruption by large-scale miners of all metals. "Is the LME trying to create a reputational green wash that allows it to say its members source responsibly because they tick some boxes," said Sophie Pickles, who leads Global Witness' work on conflict mineral. The director of "mines to market" at NGO Pact, Karen Hayes, said the LME's plan lacked detail on implementation. "We are more than willing to work with the LME or any companies seeking to comply with the LME's responsible sourcing standards," she said. Claim: Fourteen NGOs oppose London Metal Exchange plans to ban tainted cobalt.
Output: Fourteen non-governmental organizations (NGOs) including Amnesty and Global Witness have opposed plans by the London Metal Exchange to ban cobalt tainted by human rights abuses, a letter seen by Reuters showed.