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.

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
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.

Paragraph: "I could not go to the DRC (Congo) without coming to meet the brave inhabitants of this beautiful territory," U.N. chief Antonio Guterres said. "There are major concerns about health. There is measles, malaria, cholera and now the terrible drama of Ebola. We are fully on the side of the Congolese people to try to meet all these challenges." Guterres also pledged the U.N. peacekeeping forces' support with the armed forces of Congo in the fight against extremism "that is threatening not only Congo but Africa and the world." He is on a three-day trip to Congo. He stopped in Goma earlier and on Monday will meet with Congo's President Felix Tshisekedi. "It is important for the people of Beni to know that we have heard their cries of distress. The United Nations as a whole is committed to supporting the Congolese authorities, local communities and civil society actors in the fight against insecurity," he said while in Beni, adding that he will discuss these issues when he visits Kinshasa on Monday. Guterres' trip comes as Ebola cases are about the topple 3,000 along with nearly 2,000 deaths in eastern Congo since the outbreak was declared a year ago. Health authorities have faced major challenges trying to stem the spread of the disease amid insecurity and mistrust from communities. Traumatized by Ugandan Allied Democratic Forces rebels since October 2014, residents of Beni say they do not trust the U.N. peacekeepers, who they say have done little to protect them from rebel attacks. The region is home to numerous rebel groups vying for control of the mineral-rich land. "Imagine rebels attacking in the evening but we try to call MONUSCO but they arrive in the morning with cameras," said Nzanu Nzoli a former resident of the town of Eringeti who traveled to Beni to flee the attacks. "The visit of Antonio Guterres will not change the current state of our situation in Beni because before him we had already received the promises of the Congolese government and the U.N. ... But it will soon be five years without action. ... Nothing will change." Others in the area said a visit from the head of the U.N. could boost military operations. "I believe that with his visit ... Antonio Guterres will learn about the current situation of the rebels, and the evolution of Ebola. Often he receives reports but he will feel the situation, so I hope for a favorable outcome," said Kambale Mundoleko, an Ebola survivor near Beni in Mangina who lost her entire family. Upon his arrival in Mangina, Guterres visited an Ebola treatment center and also witnessed the unloading of four Ebola patients. Claim: UN chief visits Congo Ebola region, pledging support.
The United Nations secretary general visited Congo's eastern city of Beni on Sunday, pledging solidarity as the region faces an Ebola outbreak that has killed nearly 2,000 people in a year and ongoing insecurity that has residents skeptical of outside help.

Paragraph: The FDA has set a May 2020 deadline for e-cigarette makers to submit a formal application to keep their products on the market amid its efforts to curb the use of e-cigarette among teens. Reynolds, whose Vuse e-cigarettes deliver nicotine via a cartridge-based vapor system, said it had provided the health regulator with over 150,000 pages of documentation, including information on the composition, design and manufacturing process associated with its product, as well as safety data. The company said it had also worked with a team of more than 100 people to prepare the filing, including multiple regulatory experts and scientists. U.S. regulators are exploring ways to monitor the manufacturing and marketing of e-cigarettes following a rise in use of these products among teens, and a recent outbreak of a mysterious lung illness linked to vaping that has claimed at least 29 lives. Vaping devices such as Juul's, which vaporize liquid containing nicotine, have borne the brunt of the regulatory crackdown globally. The Trump administration also outlined plans in September to remove all flavored e-cigarettes from store shelves, pointing the finger at sweet flavors that had drawn millions of children into nicotine addiction. Claim: Reynolds American files for FDA review of e-cigarette.
British American Tobacco Plc unit Reynolds American Inc said on Friday it had filed for a review of its Vuse e-cigarettes by the U.S. Food and Drug administration, giving it a lead over its main rival Juul Labs Inc.