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.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The story notes the price "per squat" at various spas and the cost of a do-it-yourself Internet kit. We think the story's discussion of possible benefits is far too extensive considering the total lack of evidence to support them. We understand the need to identify some of the claims made by boostersof the therapy, but the story devotes some three paragraphs to seemingly every possible ailment the baths (or the herbs used in them) are purported to treat. It also throws in an anecdote from a woman suggesting the baths helped her to conceive at the age of 45. The caveats about chai-yok stand a goodchance of getting lost inthis avalanche of discussion about benefits. Aside from burns the potential for which would seem to be obvious we're not sure if there are any harms associated with herbal steam baths for the vagina. The procedure seems less invasive than a douche, which is associated with potential health risks. We'll call this not applicable. The story states that there are no studies that document the effectiveness of chai-yok for any of the conditions it is claimed to treat. It notes that while there is some biological rationale for why heat in the perineal area might be beneficial, it is impossible to say whether these steam baths do any good. The conceptbehind chai-yok seemsvaguely reminiscent of douching, a treatment that has long been promoted as necessary for vaginal health despite a lack of supporting evidence andindications of possible harm. But while the idea may tap into some of the same psychology that makes the normal vagina seem not quite clean or healthy enough, we don't see any evidence of overt disease-mongering in this particularstory. The story quotes twodoctors with expertise ingynecology and fertility. It also solicits comments from a practitioner of traditional oriental medicine. We don't think the story had to mention alternative treatments for all the myriad problems that chai yok can supposedly help with. But since the story suggests in several places thatchai yok increases fertility,we think a brief mention ofother approachesthat are supported by medical evidence would have been appropriate in this case. The story didn't provide this information. The story identifies several spas in Los Angeles and New Yorkwhere vaginal steam baths are offered. It notes that the treatments "are not easy to find" across the country. The story acknowledges the roots of chai-yok in Korean medicine.The approach is described asextremely avant garde in the U.S. a characterization which is probably accurate. Given the variety ofsources quoted, we can be sure the story wasn't based on a press release. Claim: Vaginal steam bath finds a place among Southern California spa options
[EX A]: We liked that this story points out early on that there is zero evidence to support the health benefits of herbal steam baths for the vagina, which are known in traditional Korean medicine as chai-yok. But we becameconfusedwhen the story explainedthat the treatment is almost totally unheard of in the U.S., even among gynecologists and fertility experts. If there's no evidence thatchai-yokworks and almost nobody knows aboutitor has tried it,what exactly makes this treatmentworthy ofan 850-word article in a leading national newspaper? There are limited journalistic resources to cover the seemingly limitless number of treatments that are out there. So we'd prefer to see journalists pursuing storiesthataidthe decision-making ofa significant number of health care consumers. A story about herbal steam baths for the vagina seems unlikely to meet this objective.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: In February 2018, the web site Newsner, which produces viral content, recounted the horrifying story of the death of Katie Flynn, a seven-year-old girl who was decapitated in a devastating car crash on Long Island, New York, in 2005. We received several enquiries about the veracity of the article, and a similar one published by Trending Stylist, on 28 February. Unfortunately, it's true. In the early hours of 3 July 2005, a drunk driver traveling at 70 miles per hour the wrong way down a highway crashed into a limousine carrying several members of Katie's family, who were returning home after a wedding. The collision caused the instant deaths of the limousine's driver, 59-year-old Stanley Rabinowitz and seven-year-old Katie Flynn, a niece of the bride. Other passengers suffered serious injuries, including Chris Tangney, the father of the bride, whose leg was broken so badly in the crash that it had to be amputated. As CNN reported in 2008: An off-duty security officer returning home from work was first on the scene. "I approached the limo driver, and I guess I went into shock," says New York State court officer Michael Lerardi. "It looked like an explosion. The motor, basically, was just sitting on top of him. I knew he was dead." The limo driver, 59-year-old Stanley Rabinowitz, was killed instantly. Next to arrive was Lt. Michael Tangney, the bride's uncle, who had attended the wedding just hours before. "I was walking to the rear of the limousine when a gentleman was coming away from it, and he said, 'Don't go back there. It's bad,'" Lt. Tangney says. "I opened the rear door to the limousine and realized it was my family." Lt. Tangney's brother Jennifer's father, Chris was lying on the floor, his legs wrapped around the service bar, broken in numerous places. The rest of the family was piled on top of each other. Jennifer's mother, Denise, was severely injured, as was Jennifer's husband, Neil, who tried to crawl out of the limo to get help despite his broken back. Five-year-old Grace was also trapped inside the wreckage. Jennifer, whose foot was injured, managed to climb out and was searching for Katie, who had been lying on the side seat before the crash. "We couldn't find Kate," Lt. Tangney says. Then, Jennifer made a devastating discovery Katie had been decapitated by her seat belt. "Then all of a sudden Mrs. Flynn came out of the car with her child's head in her hand," says Michael Lerardi, one of the 70 paramedics and police officers who were called to the scene. "I got numb. I thought I was going to collapse," says Officer Christopher Pandolfo. "I looked into the back of the limousine, and I saw Katie's remains. She was wearing this dress, and I just started shaking." This fact check includes links to court testimony that some readers might find disturbing. In February 2007, New York Supreme Court Justice Alan Honorof sentenced 25-year-old Martin Heidgen to a minimum of 18 years in prison on two counts of second-degree "depraved indifference" murder, and related charges. Heidgen had been drinking for several hours in Manhattan and Nassau County, before he drove his pick-up truck into the limousine. At the trial, there was some dispute over whether Katie Flynn had been wearing a seat belt at the time of the collision. Dr Michael DeMartino, who conducted Flynn's autopsy, testified under cross-examination from the defense that his autopsy report had described her as a "rear seat unrestrained passenger," based on preliminary information provided to DeMartino by some first responders. However, DeMartino agreed with the prosecution that Flynn's injuries were "consistent with a child who had been lap belted and was lying down on a bench seat and thrown forward during the high-speed crash," but also said that the injuries "might be" consistent with the girl not wearing a seat belt. Ultimately, DeMartino appeared to lean heavily toward the likelihood that Flynn had been wearing a seat belt at the time of her death, and that the seat belt getting caught around her neck may have led directly to the terrible manner of her death. He noted that had she not been wearing a seat belt, it would have been reasonable to expect much more severe injuries to the rest of her body than were actually observed, namely "very small bruising" to her left knee and elbow and some bruising on her left hand. Furthermore, the family of Katie Flynn, who were present in the limousine with her that night, adamantly insisted that she was wearing a seat belt. At the trial, Jennifer Flynn Katie's mother, and the sister of the bride testified that her husband Neil had placed Katie on a bench seat in the limousine, and "seat belted her in" while she was sleeping. Chris Tangney a retired Nassau County police officer, father of the bride, and grandfather of Katie Flynn similarlytestified that the girl had been lying down, asleep, on a bench seat in the limousine, with her seat belt buckled, at the time of the collision. In a devastating and scathing victim impact statement read out to the court, Jennifer Flynn said: Drunk driving continues because people aren't afraid not to. Punishments are not that big of a deal. They are not severe enough because society doesn't view it as the crime it should Katie's head was severed from her body. The entire front end was embedded in Stanley Rabinowitz. To clean it up and water it down so it's morepalatable for the papers and the news, the jury and the defendant is wrong. In 2010, Jennifer and Neil Flynn took part in an anti-drunk driving campaign in New York state, describing the terrible impact of Katie's death. Claim: Katie Flynn was decapitated while wearing a seat belt, in a 2005 car crash on Long Island, New York.
[EX A]: A website that publishes viral content accurately recounts the terrible story of Katie Flynn's death in 2005.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Given that this is an illegal substance banned by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, cost as a therapeutic would be difficult to ascertain. We liked that the story took pains to explain that approval of this drug faces many hurdles. This is a tough one. While the story tells us what percentage of patients benefited from treatment, it does not, in fact, quantify the extent of those benefitswhich is precisely what this category is designed to assess. However, the story does do a goodand thoroughjob of describing the benefits in qualitative terms. That said, if the story had only chosen one or two examples of changes in the standardized measures of depression or anxiety, this would have received an enthusiastic "Satisfactory" rating. One strong word of caution though: The story cites one source as saying that psilocybin may one day be used to treat a wide range of mental health issues ranging from drug addiction to obsessive-compulsive disorder. The story offers no evidence to support these claims, which were made by a source associated with an organization that exists specifically to promote research on hallucinogens. Substantial claims require substantial evidence. The story would have been much stronger if it had eliminated the unsubstantiated remarks from the source particularly since they had no bearing on the subject of the story. The story addresses this issue thoroughly. Well done. The story does a good job of both describing the design of the studies and explaining why the study design is relevant. For example, the story notes: "But both [studies] were considered to be double-blind placebo trials the gold-standard of medical research in which subjects are left to guess whether they have gotten the active study drug or an inactive lookalike." This is the sort of thing we like to see. However, we did want to note that in the NYU study, researchers did state in the limitations section that there was "limited blinding" how did that possibly affect the outcomes? No disease mongering here. However, the story should have been more cautious about claims of benefit for conditions ranging far beyond the scope of the research at hand, which focused on mental health problems among people with advanced cancer. The story clearly states who funded the studies, and what that organization's long-term goals are. Further, the story clearly identified individuals quoted in the story who have ties to the studies or the funding organization. Lastly, the story incorporates input from an independent expert. However, the story would have been stronger if there had been a skeptical take on the research, which sawin some other coverage, such as this New York Times piece. The story does not address other treatment options for anxiety or depression, such as talk therapy or other pharmaceutical interventions. The story does a good job here. For example, the story notes: "[F]inding drugs like psilocybin effective is by no means the final hurdle to their widespread availability. None are currently in production, and no for-profit pharmaceutical company would likely invest millions of dollars to bring to market a pill intended effectively for one-time use." Well done. This is a close call. The story does do a good job of placing the work in context in regard to overall research involving hallucinogens. That's enough to earn it a "Satisfactory" rating. However, the story doesn't mention any of the work done in the past 10 years on the use of psilocybin specifically to address anxiety in cancer patients, such as this 2007 study, this one from 2011, or this one from 2013. Are the results from the two new studies consistent with these earlier findings? Do they differ in a meaningful way? That would be good to know. The story does not appear to rely on a news release. Claim: Ingredient in magic mushrooms is shown to ease anxiety and depression in cancer patients in one dose
[EX A]:
The story focuses on two recent studies that find a single application of the hallucinogen psilocybin is effective at providing meaningful relief to cancer patients suffering from severe depression or anxiety. The studies were published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology, and can be found here and here. In some ways, the story is thorough, addressing potential side effects and conflicts of interest very well. The story discusses the potential benefits in depth, which is good, but fails to quantify those benefits which is problematic. The story also does a good job of placing the work in context, highlighting the increasing profile of research into the use of hallucinogens as therapeutic tools for mental health problems. However, the story would have been even stronger if it had discussed the existing literature on the use of psilocybin to address anxiety in cancer patients. We also reviewed twonews releases related to the research: Depression and other mental health struggles are common and significant among people with cancer, especially terminal cancer. This makes it especially important for reporters to write responsibly about studies like those discussed in this story. You want to give readers enough information to help them make informed decisions. You don't want to raise false hopes, or sensationalize the work. Overall, this story does a nice job of handling a delicate subject well.