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.

Example Input: Paragraph: Greece's Prime Minister George Papandreou (C) arrives at a news conference at the end of a euro zone summit in Brussels, October 27, 2011. REUTERS/Yves Herman "Some were under such pressure that they needed medical attention. I see George Zanias, thankfully with us. But George Glynos was unable to join us after suffering a heart attack," Papandreou told a news conference in Brussels after an 11-hour EU summit. Like many of their EU counterparts, Greek officials have worked punishing hours under enormous stress for months. The debt crisis has taken its toll not only on their country and the euro, but on their health. Government officials said Greece's chief economic adviser, Zanias, developed very high blood pressure during Sunday's summit and was ordered to stay in his room all day Monday. Papandreou's aide Glynos suffered a heart attack in Athens after Sunday's summit and missed Wednesday's meeting. "Your body revolts. You go from a plane to meeting after meeting with little sleep, you drink too much coffee and you are forced to eat bad food. It's an unnatural life and there comes a point when we'll all pay for it," said a Greek Finance Ministry official who did not want to be named. While leaders dined on giant shrimp with aubergines followed by roast turbot and a trio of sorbets, for the delegations, usually waiting anxiously to be briefed on a different floor, the dining is not as exciting. "The food is terrible. You eat sandwiches and junk food all day. I got really sick from it Sunday," said one Greek delegate who declined to be named. But even after a meal of roast turbot, the tension is just as high for the leaders meeting in a vast, windowless conference room in the upper reaches of the European Council's headquarters in Brussels. They entered the building at around 5 p.m. Wednesday, and were still bargaining over a deal to rescue the euro zone from its debt crisis almost 11 hours later. At around 2 a.m., when negotiations were at their peak, a team of around 15 medics gathered in the lobby of the brown marble-fronted Justus Lipsius building, although the reason was not immediately clear. EU officials said the talks were extremely intense, with hard-nosed negotiation over very specific numbers before leaders would agree on the outline of a plan to reduce Greek debt and convince banks to take losses. They knew their decisions had to reassure edgy financial markets, but could also cause big losses for financial institutions and perhaps lead to the nationalization of Greek banks. One senior EU official said the talks progressed extremely slowly. In the early hours of Thursday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the IMF's Christine Lagarde entered into direct negotiations with representatives of private sector banks and insurers to persuade them voluntarily to accept heavy losses on Greek debt. At one point, euro zone negotiators said it might be necessary to force the banks and insurers to take losses if they didn't accept at least a 50 percent loss on their investments a move that would constitute an immediate default on Greek debt, with unpredictable fallout for Greece and the European economy. Such a threat is likely to have caused enormous stress to the Greek team, which repeatedly said ahead of the summit that it wanted to do everything to avoid defaulting on its 210 billion euros of private sector debt. "It is hugely tiring. You have to stay mentally focused, and it helps to be physically fit. You go to bed at maybe two in the morning and are up early. There's a huge amount of information you have to be able to process," said Michael Denison, special adviser to David Miliband when he was Britain's foreign secretary, and now research director for the London-based consultancy Control Risks. EU summits are frequently high-pressure events. The leaders gather on the restricted upper floors of the building and barely move from the negotiating room until agreements are reached. "It's a very unhealthy room, with no fresh air, and you don't know if it's day or night outside," the Greek delegate said. "During 11 hours of talks, the leaders took two half-hour breaks and that was not to rest, but to brief delegations." The leaders usually sit around a vast oval table in the low-ceilinged wood-paneled room. Behind them is a separate table for aides and advisers, and on one side of the room a wall of glass booths contains the interpreters. Summits are frequently heated and exhausting, with diplomats telling of heads of state who lose their temper or even fall asleep at critical moments. Not infrequently, they may go to change a shirt or freshen up when the strain begins to show. One official half-jokingly said that supplies of fresh bottles of water to the meeting room are sometimes halted in order to add extra pressure on the negotiators to wrap it up. "Part of the trick is to be able to move on from a topic immediately once a decision has been made," Denison said. "But, however you do it, you need ministers who can keep the pace at these kind of meetings." Claim: Do EU summits need a health warning?.
Example Output: In the small hours of Thursday, George Papandreou thanked his aides for helping clinch a second bailout deal for debt-ridden Greece, and admitted the strain had almost killed one of them.

Example Input: Paragraph: "Emily's List is stoking the abortion debate in Colorado's 6th Congressional District race with a fundraising email saying Republican incumbent Mike Coffman ""co-sponsored a bill to redefine rape."" Emily's List -- a political organization that supports the election of Democratic women who support abortion rights -- has endorsed Coffman's opponent, state Sen. Morgan Carroll, an Aurora Democrat. Its mailer focused on reproductive rights, abortion and Roe v. Wade. In the email, titled ""2016 goal: A Congress that fights for women and families,"" Emily's List said, ""We wish Congress was less like this"" -- citing Mike Coffman's co-sponsorship of the 2011 bill -- ""and more like this Morgan Carroll sponsored a bill to make emergency contraception available to sexual assault survivors."" We wanted to check the accuracy of Emily's List's characterization of Coffman's role in the legislation. Coffman did co-sponsor the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act, which attempted to redefine a ban on federal funding for abortions to exempt ""forcible rape"" -- and not rape in broader terms. Critics said the ""forcible rape"" language could rule out other forms of sexual assault that are considered rape, including statutory rape, attacks where women are drugged or threatened, and date rapes. Facing a backlash from women's groups, Republicans amended the bill in committee to remove the word ""forcible"" and make the exemption for ""rape."" Coffman wasn't on this committee and didn't vote on the removal. ""The bill was amended in committee, and Congressman Coffman supported the amended bill on the floor,"" a Coffman campaign spokesman later said. Congressional records show that Coffman voted for the amended bill in a floor vote, which passed the House but not the Senate. In recent years, Coffman has tempered his position on abortion in one of the country's most competitive ""swing"" districts, which is nearly evenly divided among Democrats, Republicans and independents. In 2012, he said, ""I am against all abortions, except when it is necessary to protect the life of the mother."" But a year later, Coffman said that while he supported a House bill to limit late-term abortions, ""I strongly support the exceptions for rape, incest, and protecting the life of the mother that have been included in this legislation."" Coffman's Democratic opponent, Morgan Carroll, had blunt criticism of his co-sponsoring the 2011 bill's original ""forcible rape"" language. ""Rape is about the lack of consent -- not the degree of force -- and this definition takes us backwards,"" Carroll told Denver7. ""I unequivocally support a woman's right to make her own decisions about her own body, including her health care,"" she said. Coffman's spokeswoman complained that political opponents have repeatedly raised the 2011 bill and ""will twist the facts any way they can in an attempt to mischaracterize and demonize Rep. Coffman."" Our ruling Emily's List said that Coffman ""co-sponsored a bill to redefine rape."" The record shows Coffman did co-sponsor the bill to redefine a ban on federal funding for abortions to exempt ""forcible rape."" Yet he later voted on the floor for an amended version that had removed the ""forcible"" modifier from the bill. Given the totality of his actions on the legislation, we're rating this claim . Correction: This story has been corrected to note that Coffman did not serve on the committee that removed the word ""forcible"" from the bill." Claim: "As part of legislative fights over abortion rights,""Mike Coffman co-sponsored a bill to redefine rape."
Example Output: "Emily's List said that Coffman ""co-sponsored a bill to redefine rape."" The record shows Coffman did co-sponsor the bill to redefine a ban on federal funding for abortions to exempt ""forcible rape."" Yet he later voted on the floor for an amended version that had removed the ""forcible"" modifier from the bill. Given the totality of his actions on the legislation. Correction: This story has been corrected to note that Coffman did not serve on the committee that removed the word ""forcible"" from the bill."

Example Input: Paragraph: This story doesn't discuss how much the vaccines cost. Therefore, readers can't compare the affordability of these vaccines to existing treatment options. The story says that four of the six patients had no cancer recurrence after 25 months in the first study, and in the second study, eight of the 13 patients remained tumor free after 23 months. But the studies cited are both phase I clinical trials designed to address safety, not efficacy. Any claims regarding the latter, especially given the limited number of subjects, would be highly speculative. Therefore, the headline is misleading. As noted in the final sentence of the article: "The next step will be to test these personalized vaccines in larger clinical trials to see if they are better than existing treatments, if they improve survival, and what their long-term side effects could be." We give the story credit for making an important point that waiting for the vaccine to be made might be detrimental to patients with advanced cancer. It says, "As the vaccine therapies are designed and generated specifically for each individual there is a lag time from enrollment to commencement of treatmentapproximately fourmonthswhich may be too long from some patients with advanced cancer." The story also notes that "Both vaccines were deemed safe" but it doesn't discuss any side effects that may have shown up in the trials. What happened to the five patients who were not tumor free at 25 months? The story does mention that more research is needed to identify potential harms. The story mentions the types of studies that were conducted and the size of the trials. Both of these factors impact the claims that can be made from the research. And that's important because the claims made seem out-sized compared to the very preliminary nature of the research. Phase I clinical trials are used to look at safety and side effects, not to make conclusions about the future success of personalized medicine. To its credit, the article includes a very important quote from one of the study authors that clarifies that no conclusions should be drawn from these preliminary studies: "It is still unknown whether these vaccines will extend the survival of cancer patients, or whether they are more effective than other recently developed immunotherapies. Additional clinical trials will be required to determine the utility of these individualised neoepitope vaccines." There is no evidence of disease mongering in this story. The story incorporates insights from a few independent sources. This gives readers additional information about how the findings should be interpreted. However, no information is provided about potential conflicts of interest. The story doesn't mention any other treatment options for melanoma by name but states that additional research is needed to determine the effectiveness of these vaccines in comparison to existing options. The story could have been improved by including information about the prevalence of cancer recurrence among cancer patients using existing treatment options such as surgery and chemotherapy. One of the trials described was conducted in people who had had surgery and no other treatment options. It would have been helpful to include the length of time to tumor recurrence in people who had not received any other interventions. Although not explicitly stated, most readers will understand that the vaccines are not currently available and have to undergo a lot more testing before they are available if ever. The article discusses what is and isn't new about the researchin this section: "Cancer vaccines that are personalized to the patientdesigned tohelp the immune system identify tumors as foreign bodies and destroy themhave been considered as a potential treatment for a number of years. But working out the unique mutations of each person's cancer, a time-consuming and complicated process, must first be identified before a vaccine can be developed for them." The story includes independent sources and does not appear to be reliant on a news release. Claim: CANCER BREAKTHROUGH: PERSONALIZED MELANOMA VACCINES 'SAFE AND EFFECTIVE' IN FIRST HUMAN CLINICAL TRIALS
Example Output:
Ungrounded speculation or reasonable caution? Both are present in this Newsweek story on two very early trials of immunotherapy drugs being developed to protect against melanoma. While the headline calls the research "a cancer breakthrough," quotes from researchers bring some much-need focus on the studies' limitations. These are after all phase 1 safety trials with just six volunteers in one and 13 in the other. Far too small a group to make any claims about successful results. The article does tell readers what questions remain about the vaccines (such as do they extend life and how effective are they compared with other treatments), and the type of research studies that are needed to answer these questions. However, noticeably absent from the story is a discussion about the exorbitant price tag associated with immunotherapy. We're seeing a lot of health news and PR releases devoted to immunotherapy trials so we've put together some tips for covering news on cancer immunotherapy drugs. Results from small, preliminary studies like these involving six and 13 volunteers should be viewed cautiously. Information about the effectiveness of a treatment is of limited consequence if patients cannot afford the treatment. There needs to be a discussion of cost so patients can determine whether such treatment is even possible for them.