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: "Even though the majority of strokes and heart attacks occur in people who are 65 and older, studies have found that cholesterol-lowering drugs are not prescribed as often for older people as they are for younger people," Dr. Seemant Chaturvedi of Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, said in a statement. "These results show that using these drugs is just as beneficial for people who are over 65 as they are for younger people." In April, British researchers reported in the New England Journal of Medicine that treating high blood pressure in people 80 and older cut their risk of fatal strokes and other heart problems. Statins cut the risk of heart attack or stroke by lowering levels of fatty substances such as low-density lipoprotein, or "bad" cholesterol, and triglycerides. They also raise levels of high-density lipoprotein or "good" cholesterol. They include atorvastatin, made by Pfizer Inc under the brand name Lipitor; pravastatin or Pravachol, made by Bristol-Myers Squibb; fluvastatin, made by Novartis AG under the brand name Lescol, and several others. Seemant and colleagues studied 4,731 people 18 and older who had a recent stroke or a mini-stroke as part of a study sponsored by Pfizer. About half were over 65, with an average age of 72. The other half were under 65 and had an average age of 54. In each age group, about half were taking Lipitor and the other half were on a placebo. The statin worked equally well in both groups, the researchers reported in the journal Neurology. It lowered LDL cholesterol by about 61 points in the group of older patients and by about 59 points in the younger age group. Stroke is the No. 3 killer in the United States behind heart disease and cancer. The U.S. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention estimate 780,000 Americans will have strokes this year. They will kill 150,000 people and permanently disable 15 percent to 30 percent of survivors. Claim: Statins fight stroke in older people too.

Answer: Older people who have had a stroke or mini-stroke benefit from cholesterol-lowering statin drugs just as much as younger people do, U.S. researchers said on Wednesday.

Question: Paragraph: "It's time to go back on offense," Lechleiter said in a recent interview. New treatments for diabetes and cancer now awaiting approval and increased sales of animal-health products and drugs in China and Japan are some of the aggressive moves he has in mind. He is also counting on a robust success rate among three dozen other experimental drugs now in mid- and late-stage trials, including a cancer drug called ramucirumab. "We're on the cusp of launching products in cancer and diabetes, two therapeutic areas where we're well established and where we have built out the infrastructure we need," Lechleiter said. "And we believe that's going to be the beginning of our return to growth." Skeptical investors only now appear to be catching on to Lilly's potential upside. After rising only 3 percent in 2013, badly underperforming a 27 percent average advance for other large drugmakers, the stock is up 6 percent this month. "Instead of having to play defense and manage through this difficult patent cliff, the company will be able to use additional cash flow to invest in its pipeline, to partner with others or make bolt-on acquisitions," said Atlantic Equities analyst Richard Purkiss. "The outlook is much brighter, and they'll try to get that message across in coming months." Lilly, which reports quarterly and 2013 results on Thursday, has forecast earnings of $2.77 to $2.85 per share this year, the final and worst year of its patent cliff. That's 41 percent less than 2010. Lilly last year sought U.S. approvals for four drugs, three of which Lechleiter said could be approved in 2014: ramucirumab for stomach cancer, and dulaglutide and empagliflozin for type 2 diabetes - the most common form of diabetes, which is closely linked to obesity. Analysts have forecast annual sales of more than $650 million for ramucirumab, saying sales could be far higher if the drug also wins approval for cancers of the colon, lung or liver. But they caution that the diabetes drugs may have a hard time competing against existing options. Lechleiter said Lilly plans to seek approval of necitumumab for squamous-cell lung cancer this year. The medicine, like ramucirumab, was acquired by Lilly through its $6.5 billion purchase of ImClone Systems in 2008. If approved, necitumumab could capture eventual annual sales of more than $1 billion, analysts say. Such sales could make a big difference for Lilly, whose annual revenue of $20 billion is far lower than Big Pharma rivals like Pfizer Inc and Merck & Co. In the meantime, Lilly is testing nearly 40 medicines in mid- and late stage studies, compared with only 7 in those stages of development a decade ago. They include new treatments for cholesterol, psoriasis, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis and Alzheimer's disease. Animal health unit Elanco, with annual sales of about $2 billion, is thriving as Lilly introduces new products and has expanded the business in China and other fast-growing markets. Many analysts are wary, however, of the company's ability to win approvals of prescription drugs because it has not launched any major products in recent years and has suffered setbacks in clinical trials, including ramucirumab's failure to delay progression of breast cancer. Of 20 analysts tracked by Thomson Reuters, 12 have hold or sell ratings on Lilly, versus 8 with buy ratings. Lilly shares trade at 19 times expected 2014 per-share earnings, compared to a price-to-earnings ratio of 14.6 for other large drugmakers. That could be more a reflection of the company's poor earnings this year than excitement about the stock. "We believe that overall the pipeline will disappoint investors," said Alex Arfaei of BMO Capital Markets in a research note, citing low sales expectations for ramucirumab and the new diabetes drugs. When Lilly's Zyprexa was confronted with cheaper generic treatments for schizophrenia in October 2011, it faced one of the industry's steepest patent cliffs ever, quickly losing 80 percent of its onetime $5 billion in annual sales. Similarly precipitous declines are expected for Cymbalta, Lilly's $5 billion-a-year antidepressant, which lost U.S. patent protection last month, and for blockbuster osteoporosis treatment Evista, which goes generic in March. Many other large drugmakers, when faced with patent expirations and earnings declines of lesser scope, have resorted to megamergers to cushion the blow from generics and prop up earnings with cost savings. Huge layoffs, sapped morale and poor track records in introducing new drugs are more common results. Pfizer Inc stands out, having snapped up U.S. rivals Warner-Lambert, Pharmacia and Wyeth since 2000. Lechleiter, who began his career at Lilly in 1979 as a senior organic chemist, has steadfastly spurned any suggestion of a big merger: "It's never entered our minds, and we remain adamantly opposed." John Boris, an analyst for Suntrust Robinson Humphrey, said he expects Lilly earnings to grow an average of 10 percent a year between 2015 and 2020, which would make it second to Bristol-Myers Squibb Co in profit growth over that period. Atlantic Equities' Purkiss said he anticipates Lilly will deliver industry-topping earnings growth in the "mid-teens" percentage range in 2015, 2016 and 2017. "The sentiment has been very negative on Lilly, but it looks like it will go from one of the most growth-starved to the fastest growing of the major U.S. drugmakers and the European players," Purkiss said. By avoiding a disruptive megamerger, Lilly has allowed itself to press ahead with ambitious research, said Barclays analyst Tony Butler. He said to date the company has met long-term sales and earnings forecasts it provided in 2009 - before patents went over the cliff - while maintaining its generous dividend, with a current yield of 3.6 percent. "At the time, the market was incredibly skeptical about Lilly's ability to fund its dividend and to have enough remaining cash flow to fund its business," said Butler. "Lilly proved everybody wrong." (This story has been refiled to change second subhead) Claim: Lilly CEO: 'It's time to go back on offense'.

Answer: After three years of seeing major drugs like Zyprexa for schizophrenia lose patent protection and wipe away billions of dollars in revenue, Eli Lilly and Co Chief Executive Officer John Lechleiter wants to change the game plan.

Question: Paragraph: As tensions rose in September 2017 in response to football players' protesting police brutality and inequality by kneeling during the U.S. national anthem, astronaut and former football player Leland Melvin jumped into the fray with a lengthy open letter to president Donald Trump. During a September speech in Alabama, Trump hadcalled for a boycott of the National Football League (NFL), saying: Wouldn't you love one of the NFL owners when someone disrespects our flag, 'get that son of a bitch off the field right now' . . . If you see it, leave the stadium, I guarantee things will stop. Trump's words heightened emotions on both sides of the issue, but for athletes and team owners, it seemed to heighten solidarity and even spread the protest to as quarterback Tom Brady and National Basketball Association players Steph Curry and Lebron Jamesspoke out against Trump. Amidst all this, a lengthy open letter to the President purportedly penned by astronaut and former NFL Player Leland Melvin came to light: To Donald Trump I believe in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of this country even though at the time they were drafted, their tenets of life, liberty justice for all and eventual freedom of speech, religion, assembly, press and petition amendment ratified in Dec 1791, only applied to a select group of people and not ones that looked like me. Donald Trump I listened to your Alabama rally rant and could not believe how easily you say what you say. We have become numb to your outlandish acts, tweets and recent retweet of you knocking down Hillary Clinton with a golf ball that you hit. Donald Trump your boorish and disgusting actions are not funny. They actually promote violence against women especially when your followers act out what you say. I used to walk the grounds of UVA in Charlottesville, VA as a graduate student only to watch in horror as those same grounds became a battlefield being trod by Nazi and anti-Semitic worshippers armed with assault style weapons ready to fight to make America White again. (their words). You actually said there were nice people on both sides. People armed and ready to kill other Americans for the purpose of eradicating Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Mexicans, Asians, Latinas and even the first real Americans, Native Americans to make America Great Again were "nice people"? Verses what you say in condemnation of an unarmed black man peacefully protesting by exercising his constitutional First Amendment rights by silently taking a knee is appalling, unnerving and reprehensible. You called Colin Kaepernick "a son-of-a-bitch." And said he should be fired. You are basically calling his white mother a bitch. The strong contrast in language for a black man and a Nazi is very telling. Do you have any sense of decency or shame in what you say to the American people that are part of your duty to serve respectfully with dignity, presidentially? The National Anthem that we listen too has been edited to try not to offend because when Francis Scott Key penned the song he watched freed slaves fighting for the British and wrote this stanza: "And where is that band who so vauntingly swore, That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion A home and a Country should leave us no more? Their blood has wash'd out their foul footstep's pollution. No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave, And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave." I guess if I were a slave back then I probably would have done anything to obtain freedom from my American oppressors who were whipping, killing, raping, dismembering, hanging or releasing the dogs on people like me all under our Constitution. In 1814 former slaves fought with the British for their freedom from their American enslavers and Key witnessed a battle from a ship off the Maryland shore at Fort McHenry which inspired him to write what became our National Anthem. I served my country not in the military but as 1 of 362 American Astronauts that have explored the universe to help advance our civilization. Not just Americans but all humans. I also was briefly in the NFL and stood for the National Anthem with my hand over my heart. What makes us great is our differences and respecting that we are all created equally even if not always treated that way. Looking back at our planet from space really helps one get a bigger perspective on how petty and divisive we can be. Donald Trump maybe you should ask your good friend Mr. Putin to give you a ride on a Soyuz rocket to our International Space Station and see what it's like to work together with people we used to fight against, where your life depends on it. See the world and get a greater sense of what it means to be part of the human race, we call it the Orbital Perspective. Donald Trump please know that you are supposed to be a unifier and a compassionate and empathetic leader. If you can't do the job then please step down and let someone else try. I pray that you do the right thing. May God bless you. Sincerely, Leland Melvin Former Astronaut and NFL Player It's unclear why this particular response was met with skepticism, but several readers wrote in to ask us if the letter was authentic. It's possible that many were unfamiliar with Melvin. Some may have also questioned the authenticity of the national anthem stanza mentioned by the former NFL Player (it is indeed part of the song). The length of Melvin's post, which was significantly longer than most of the other responses that circulated on social media, may have also raised some doubts. However, this open letter was truly written by Leland Melvin. It was originally posted to his Facebook page on 23 September 2017: To @realDonaldTrump I believe in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of this country even https://t.co/FezF6vqZuO pic.twitter.com/VUGdZa7lL0 Leland Melvin (@Astro_Flow) September 23, 2017 Claim: "Astronaut and former NFL player Leland Melvin wrote an open letter to Donald Trump concerning the President's comments about the ""Take a Knee"" protest."

Answer:
An open letter to President Trump addressing his comments about football players truly originated with astronaut and former NFL player Leland Melvin.