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: "Campaigning for president in the liberal oasis of Madison, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont rose to the defense of marijuana. Critical of the nation's war on drugs, Sanders said the lives of millions of Americans have been ""ruined"" because they got a police record for possessing marijuana. ""Today, under the federal Controlled Substance Act, marijuana is listed in the same Schedule I as heroin. That is nuts,"" Sanders declared March 26, 2016, 10 days before he defeated Hillary Clinton in Wisconsin's Democratic primary. ""Now people can argue -- although I suspect in this audience there may not be much of an argument -- about the pluses and minuses of marijuana,"" he said, drawing cheers from some of the thousands in attendance at the Alliant Energy Center. ""But everybody knows marijuana is not a killer drug like heroin."" Sanders then noted he had introduced legislation to remove marijuana from the Controlled Substance Act because possession of it ""should not be a federal crime."" We found that Sanders wasn't smoking anything funny in claiming that both marijuana and heroin are Schedule I drugs, which he has continued to say while campaigning in New York and Pennsylvania. But his claim is somewhat misleading: That classification is based on a drug's acceptable medical use and the drug's abuse or dependency potential, not on criminal statutes. The law The Controlled Substance Act, adopted in 1970, uses five schedules to classify drugs and narcotics by medical use and potential to incite substance abuse. On the low end is Schedule V, which includes substances such as cough medicines with small amounts of the narcotic codeine. At the high end is Schedule I, which lists the ""most dangerous"" drugs -- those that have ""no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse."" Marijuana is stronger than when the Controlled Substance Act was adopted (as ex-GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina correctly stated). Nevertheless Schedule II includes some drugs often considered more dangerous than marijuana. Here's a look at some of the drugs in the two schedules: Schedule I Schedule II Marijuana Cocaine Heroin Methamphetamine LSD Methadone Ecstasy OxyContin Peyote Fentanyl The Huffington Post in April 2016, citing figures from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said the nation recorded no marijuana overdose deaths in 2015. Likewise, there were zero in 2014. It's possible marijuana might soon be moved off of Schedule I. A week after Sanders' speech, the Washington Post reported that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration said it hopes to decide by July 2016 whether to change the federal status of marijuana. Now let's get to Sanders' implication that the schedule relates to criminal law enforcement. Marijuana treated differently Distribution, manufacturing or possession of a Schedule I substance is indeed a federal offense. Additionally, marijuana being on Schedule I, drug policy experts told us, makes it more difficult for licensed dealers in states that have legalized marijuana or medical marijuana to get bank accounts and to deduct business expenses on their taxes. And the classification makes it more difficult for researchers to study marijuana in clinical trials. But judges come down harder on heroin possession than marijuana possession. And when it comes to enforcement of criminal statutes, the federal government to some extent has looked the other way when it comes to marijuana. As PolitiFact National stated in a related fact check: Schedule I substances cannot legally be used for medical purposes, however, 20 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws legalizing medical marijuana. In 2009, the administration of President Barack Obama, a Democrat, told federal law enforcement agencies to stop targeting medical marijuana dispensaries, signaling a change from the approach of Obama's predecessor, Republican President George W. Bush. Similarly, in 2013, the Department of Justice said it would not target new laws in Colorado and Washington legalizing recreational marijuana. While Sanders equates the handling or marijuana and heroin, it's difficult to imagine the federal government not enforcing the law if states started legalizing heroin. Our rating Criticizing the nation's war on drugs, Sanders says that under the federal Controlled Substance Act, ""marijuana is listed in the same Schedule I as heroin,"" even though ""marijuana is not a killer drug like heroin."" Like heroin, marijuana is indeed listed as a Schedule I drug, the federal designation given to drugs considered the most dangerous. But at least under the Obama administration, the federal government doesn't treat it as one under the law. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification, our rating is . Claim: "Under the federal Controlled Substance Act, marijuana is listed in the same Schedule I as heroin,"" even though ""marijuana is not a killer drug like heroin."
Example Output: "Criticizing the nation's war on drugs, Sanders says that under the federal Controlled Substance Act, ""marijuana is listed in the same Schedule I as heroin,"" even though ""marijuana is not a killer drug like heroin."" Like heroin, marijuana is indeed listed as a Schedule I drug, the federal designation given to drugs considered the most dangerous. But at least under the Obama administration, the federal government doesn't treat it as one under the law. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification.

Example Input: Paragraph: Most people know roughly what a bottle of vitamin D supplements might cost them, so the lack of information on cost is not a significant gap. We appreciate that the story provideddata showing the large and growing amount our society is spending on vitamin Dsupplements ($430 million in 2009), with apparently little health benefit to show for it. The story was mostly concerned with discussing the lack of benefit fromtaking extra vitamin D and calcium. And in this area it excels. While the story does lack precision when itsuggests thatadolescent girls should be getting more calcium (it neverspecifies how much they are getting now, how much more they'd need to meet the recommendations, or what benefits they might expect from this increased intake), it would be difficult for a journalist to come up with any sort of quantifiable benefit or harm estimate from the IOM report. The story captured the overall gist of the problem, which is that the evidence base is complex and still inadequate. The story notes that, contrary to the claims of many advocates for increased supplemental vitamin D, there is evidence thathigh levels of vitamin D mayhave adverseeffects, such as increased risk for fractures and an increasein the overall death rate. The story also explained that too much calcium has been linked to increased risk of kidney stones and, more tentatively, heart disease. The story did a good job of describing how the expert committee conducted its review and what evidence they found. Importantly, it noted that claims of benefit fromextra vitamin D are based onobservational studiesthat most scientists agree "cannot determine cause and effect." We also like that the story solicitedopinions froma variety of expertswith noobvious stake in the controversy. This produced a number of quotes that emphasizedthe need for restraint when interpreting the research on vitamin D. Examples: "I think thisreport will make people more cautious" and "The onus is on thepeople who propose extra calcium and vitamin D to show itis safe before they push it on people." Although we agree with the story's skeptical overall message,we think itmay haveslammed the door just a bit too hard on the possibilityof benefit from supplemental vitamin D. While claims of benefit may not be supported by the currentlyavailable evidence, they have not been conclusively disproved in randomized controlled studies, either. In fact,research isnow underway to determine whether the benefits foundin observational studies of vitamin D can be replicated in more rigorously designed trials. The story probably should have mentioned this research, and left the door to potential benefits open just a crack. No disease-mongering here. The diversity of independent voices included in this story is a real strength. Although it solicits the obligatory comment from a supplement industry spokesman, it didn't go out of its way to find any of the more widely known vitamin D experts,someof whom have been issuing recommendations that are untenable based on current evidence. The enthusiasm of some of these researchersmight beexplained bytheir significant career and financialinterests in promoting vitamin D. Notapplicable for this story. The approaches discussed are not new, and there's notreally any alternative to getting adequate amountsof these essential nutrients. The availability of vitamin D from diet, sunlight and supplements is clear from the story. The novelty of vitamin D and calcium is not really in question, so we'll call this not applicable. This story was not based on a news release. Claim: Report Questions Need for 2 Diet Supplements
Example Output: In one particularly effective passage, the story quoted a representative of a supplement industry group who disagreed with the report, saying that higherlevels of vitamin D could be beneficial. But it then seguedimmediatelyinto an explanation of why claims from supplementation advocates "are not supported by the available evidence."The key problem, as the story points out, isthat these claimsare based almost exclusively on observationalstudies that can't prove cause and effect and are often skewed by factors the researchers haven't accounted for. Proponents of supplementation also have tended to downplay thepossibility that higher doses of vitamin Dand calcium might cause harma stance which the storynotesmay not be justified. We applaudthis story'seffort toshow readers where the weight of the evidence lies on this issue. Vitamin D isthe latest in a longline of "miracle" nutrients that people have turnedto in the hope of improvingtheir health. As we'velearnedfrom copiousprevious experience, these supplements rarely work as advertised andcan sometimes cause harm at the higher doses people often think will be beneficial for them. More isn't necessarilybetter when it comes to vitamin Dor most other health care interventions for that matter.

Example Input: Paragraph: A total of 17,127 people have died from the virus in Italy, the most anywhere in the world, with Lombardy accounting for 55% of the tally. The region also accounts for 39% of the country's 135,586 confirmed cases. The particularly large death toll in Lombardy, the wealthiest region in Italy, has raised eyebrows, with local officials suggesting that both the high urban density and considerable elderly population might have played a part. However, a damning letter by senior doctors, including the heads of 11 provincial health authorities within Lombardy, said failures in the region's health system had exacerbated the greatest emergency Italy has faced since World War Two. Amongst the failings they highlighted was a lack of protective clothing for medical staff - a regular source of anger since the outbreak emerged on Feb. 21. "This determined the death of many colleagues, the illness of many of them and the probable and involuntary spread of the contagion, especially in the early stages of the epidemic," said the letter, which was posted on the website of the national federation of doctors, surgeons and orthodontists. The federation says 94 medics have died in the outbreak, many in Lombardy, which is run by the far-right League party. There was no immediate comment from Lombardy officials. The medics bemoaned an "absence of strategies" in tackling the crisis, a lack of good data and limited testing as the virus spread. This "greatly underestimated the number of patients and, to a lesser extent, the number of dead", they wrote. While the neighbouring region of Veneto engaged in widespread testing in a known coronavirus hotspot, Lombardy only tested the seriously ill arriving for treatment in hospital, saying they did not have the capacity for wider checks. The letter took aim at the management of nursing homes, where hundreds of people have died without ever being tested. The doctors said in the province of Bergamo alone, 600 of the 6,000 pensioners under care had died. Italy's health ministry announced on Tuesday it was sending inspectors to Milan's largest nursing home, Pio Albergo Trivulzio, where more than 100 people have died since March. A photograph of nine bodies in the home's mortuary was published on the front page of La Repubblica newspaper on Tuesday, with another showing its chapel full of coffins. Lombardy's top health official, Giulio Gallera, rejected media allegations that the region had allowed hospitals to send infected patients to local care homes without proper protection in an effort to free up badly needed space in packed wards. "We always acted for the good of everyone in an extraordinary emergency and we will not let anyone cast aspersions on the serious, rigorous work we have carried out," he said on Facebook. He did not refer to the doctors' letter. Italy's healthcare system is decentralized with regions having control over the money that goes to hospitals within their own borders. Lombardy has focused on developing a dual private-public network of high-performing hospitals, but critics say this was done at the expense of grassroots medical care. "Public health and on-the-ground medicine have been neglected and weakened in our region for many years," the doctors said. "It is going to be difficult to recover from this situation at the moment," they wrote, adding that as a starting point, the region should undertake large scale testing of health workers. Claim: Italian doctors slam failings in Lombardy coronavirus response.
Example Output:
Doctors in Lombardy, the Italian region hardest hit by the coronavirus epidemic, have criticised local officials for their handling of the crisis and said the mistakes they made should be a lesson for everyone.