TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Paragraph: We'll give the story a "N/A" in this category since it makes clear early on that this research is in the earliest of stages, done in an animal model, and says clearly that clinical trials are a future hope. This is way too early to consider costs which, we assume, would be substantial. The story says the stem cell intervention extended the rodents' lives "by 10-15% compared to untreated animals." At another point, it said, "the mice lived longer than controls, typically several months more, an increase of about 15%." The story makes no mention of the potential harms that might arise from this approach. Since this has never been tested in humans, we have no idea what they risks are. The story needed to point this out. Theoretically, the stem cells would have to be delivered into human brains via injections, which would make the intervention incredibly risky and possibly a non-starter. In the original paper, the stem cells were injected into the hypothalamus of the mice using viruses as "vectors." The researchers used lentiviruses, which are used often as vectors for research, but can be deadly in humans. Some discussion of this hurdle also was warranted. The story does a good job at explaining various aspects of the research and depicting the stages through which the research team drew its conclusions. It also is up front about this being animal research, so far untried in humans at even the earliest stages of clinical trials. Of note, the original paper mentions that this study was conducted in very few mice (total of about 20) and only in male mice. That detail would have been useful to include. One thing we wanted to point out that was problematic: The story said "if a similar extension was achieved in humans, a person with a life expectancy of 80 years could live to 92." We have no idea how this may impact humans; the evidence doesn't support that kind of speculation. The story doesn't appear to commit disease mongering, though it could have pointed out that aging in and of itself is not a disease. The story does quote one source unaffiliated with the research and we didn't detect any conflicts of interest. (The paper itself notes that the authors of the study have no conflicts of interests.) The story is all about basic research that suggests an approach that one day might slow, or possibly reverse, the aging process. There are no real alternatives available now to affect the aging process beyond lifestyle choices that might be healthier and appropriate treatments for illnesses that might otherwise shorten lifespans. It's clear from the story that this research is preliminary. The story clearly says, "The next step is to create human neural stem cells in the lab for testing." It also states that, "Researchers at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York hope to launch clinical trials of the procedure soon, but must first produce supplies of human neural stem cells in the lab which can be implanted into volunteers." The story heralds this research as a "tour de force" and a "breakthrough." Yet is it accurate in a news story to call anything done in animals a "breakthrough?" That word implies relevance to humans, and this is far from established in a mouse study. Studies in mice are essential but many of them fail to show similar evidence in humans. Likewise, stem cell research is often seen as a magic bullet for some conditions but there have been few cases where the preliminary hope/hype has born out. The story does not appear to rely on a news release. Claim: Stem cell brain implants could 'slow ageing and extend life', study shows

SOLUTION: This story describes some interesting but very early research into the mechanisms of aging and how they might be altered. The story made it clear that this was mouse-level research and has several hurdles to go before it's ever tested in people. One weak point for the story was how the story assumed there might be benefits in people yet overlooked the potential risks. Considering this intervention involves inserting stem cells into the brain via the assistance of a viral strain known to be harmful to humans, it's logical to assume there could be some safety concerns. It also overplayed the novelty here by quoting an expert who called it a "tour de force" and a "breakthrough." The desire to somehow combat aging seems inherent in humans. If there is a fairly straightforward "switch" that can control the aging process and this story suggests so then this would be a major advance. Yet we are looking at decades before this becomes a rigorous Phase III human trial, let alone a potential intervention in humans. The bottom line is: We are talking about approximately 20 male mice.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: The lawsuits were the latest by states and local governments against drugmaker Purdue Pharma as the country grapples with an opioid epidemic. About a dozen states have also targeted Richard Sackler, the company's former leader, or members of his family. "Purdue and the Sacklers traded the health and well-being of Californians for profit and created an unprecedented national public health crisis in the process," California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said at a news conference announcing the legal action by his state. "We will hold them accountable." Becerra, echoing allegations lodged against Purdue Pharma by others attorneys general across the country, said the company falsely introduced OxyContin in the 1990s as a safe and effective treatment for chronic pain. However, the California's lawsuit alleges that Purdue and Sackler knew in 1997 that drugs containing oxycodone, such as OxyContin, were widely abused. Still, company representatives marketed it as not being addictive and downplayed the potential for abuse, the suit states. In a statement Monday, Purdue Pharma and former directors of the company denied the allegations and vowed to defend against the "misleading attacks." It noted that OxyContin represents less than 2% of total opioid prescriptions and is still approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for its intended use as a painkiller as prescribed by doctors and dispensed by pharmacists. "Such allegations demand clear evidence linking the conduct alleged to the harm described," spokesman Robert Josephson said in a statement. "But we believe the state fails to show such causation and offers little evidence to support its sweeping legal claims." A spokesman for Sackler did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The family has faced a backlash in recent years amid a growing public outcry around opioid addiction. In addition, activists have targeted institutions, such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art, that the family has supported through large contributions. The museum has said it will no longer take money from members of the family linked to the drugmaker. Purdue stopped marketing OxyContin to doctors last year. It settled a lawsuit by the state of Oklahoma in March for $270 million. The company previously said it is pursuing several options, including bankruptcy, which could upend pending litigation by states as well as about 2,000 local and tribal governments across the country. The lawsuits filed Monday allege that Purdue Pharma pushed doctors to prescribe opioids for longer periods of time at higher doses. "Our complaint alleges that their unrelenting sales visits to doctors and deceptive practices led to a marked increase in opioid prescriptions, and a corresponding increase in the number of Mainers suffering from opioid use disorder," Maine Attorney General Aaron M. Frey said. Maine's lawsuit names Richard Sackler, Jonathan Sackler, Mortimer D.A. Sackler and Kathe Sackler all of whom have served on the board of Stamford, Connecticut-based Purdue Pharma. States have also cracked down on doctors who overprescribe the drug. Hawaii Attorney General Clare Connors said in a statement Monday that she has filed lawsuits alleging violations of Hawaii's Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices Law. One complaint alleges Purdue deceptively marketed OxyContin and other opioids. Another says manufacturers and distributors sold more opioids than could be "legitimately prescribed." Meanwhile, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said opioids are the main driver of drug overdose deaths. Opioids were involved in 47,600 overdose deaths in the U.S. in 2017, according to the agency. In 2017, it says, prescription opioids were involved in 1,172 overdose deaths in California; 100 overdose deaths in Maine; and 58 in the District of Columbia. Maine set a state record for total drug overdose deaths in 2017 with 417. Jordan Basileu joined Becerra in announcing California's lawsuit. He said he was prescribed opioid painkillers at 18 following a car crash and became addicted. "People think, 'it's from a doctor. How bad can it be?'" Basileu said of the drug. Basileu said he overdosed four times before getting sober three years ago. "I'm still cleaning up the mess that opioids got me in to," he said. ___ Associated Press reporters Adam Beam and Caleb Jones contributed to this story. Jones reported from Honolulu. Claim: More states sue opioid maker alleging deceptive marketing.

SOLUTION: California, Hawaii, Maine and the District of Columbia filed lawsuits Monday against the maker of OxyContin and the company's former president, alleging the firm falsely promoted the drug by downplaying the risk of addiction while it emerged as one of the most widely abused opioids in the U.S.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: "The story deal with cost very early in the story: ""You have one kind of operation that could cost $20,000 and another that could cost $80,000 and there's not good evidence the expensive one is being used appropriately in the majority of cases"" Add to that the expense for patients whose problems after surgery send them back to the hospital or to a nursing home and ""that's not a trivial amount of money"" for Medicare The cost to Medicare, just for the hospital charges for the three types of back surgery reviewed is about $1.65 billion a year, according to the researchers. The story clearly stated, ""The study didn't address how successful the various types of surgeries were at relieving pain."" Good job using absolute risk data: Nice job emphasizing what's known and what's not known. Excerpts:" Claim: Study: Riskier surgeries for back pain raise costs

SOLUTION:
Thorough report, including a glance at how marketing and financial conflict of interest may have influenced the rise in costly, complex surgeries. The story ends with an important quote from a spine surgeon: "Too much fusion surgery is done in this country and often for inappropriate reasons" and patients "should not hesitate to get a second opinion."