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.

[Q]: Paragraph: The significant costs of both drugs were mentioned. Nice job. Good job describing the benefits reported in the two drug studies. The two papers present a bewildering array of statistics. This story did a nice job distilling the information into a couple of very understandable sentences. Good job explaining signifcant potential harms of both drugs something competitors didn't do at all. Nice job, including linking (in the online version) to the papers in the New England Journal of Medicine. No disease-mongering of melanoma. Several independent sources cited. The story adequately explained the comparisons between both new drugs and the older dacarbazine chemo drug. Vemurafenib was described as experimental and as "expected to be approved by the FDA within a few months." Ipilimumab was explained to be approved in March and already on the market. The relative novelty of both drugs was well explained. It's clear that the story did not rely on a news release. Claim: Drugs Show Promise Slowing Advanced Melanoma
[A]: The story made strong, clear attempts to report in a restrained manner, using terms/phrases such as: "notable progress" "do not cure" "might add two to several moths to expected lifespans" "To be sure, more than half of patients with metastatic melanoma would not be helped all that much by either drug." Stories about cancer perhaps especially melanoma because of its treatment challenges should balance promise with realistic context. This story did a better job of that than the competitors' efforts we reviewed.

[Q]: Paragraph: A Lehigh County judge tossed out evidence cited in support of drug and firearms counts stemming from the Nov. 7 search in Allentown, The (Allentown) Morning Call reported . "The smell of marijuana is no longer per se indicative of a crime," Judge Maria Dantos wrote in her opinion filed earlier this month. Authorities said Timothy Barr, 27, was a passenger in the car driven by his wife that was stopped by state troopers on a traffic violation. Troopers said they smelled a strong odor of marijuana and told Barr that gave them the legal right to search the vehicle even after he showed them his card authorizing the use of medical marijuana. Officers found small amounts of marijuana and residue and also found a loaded handgun under the driver's seat. Court records indicate that Barr cannot legally possess a firearm due to a prior conviction. In her ruling, Dantos said it was "illogical, impractical and unreasonable" for the troopers to suspect illegal activity once Barr showed them his medical marijuana card. She said Pennsylvania lawmakers never contemplated people with such cards being arrested and prosecuted for possession of marijuana in a package not clearly marked with a dispensary name. "Such actions are merely means of hampering the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes," Dantos wrote. Prosecutors must now decide whether to appeal to state Superior Court or try to move forward without the evidence. District Attorney Jim Martin said his office is reviewing the opinion and transcripts from a July 17 hearing and had made no decision on an appeal. Defense attorney Joshua Karoly said the ruling could be the first step in changing a procedural rule that allows police to search a vehicle based on the smell of drugs alone. "This case will put a spotlight on the plain smell doctrine in Pennsylvania which police use far too often to invade citizens' privacy," he said. Dantos wrote in the opinion that officers' confusion over medical marijuana exemplified a "clear disconnect between the medical community and the law enforcement community." One trooper testified that he believed medical marijuana had no smell and the other said she mistakenly thought dried marijuana was illegal and not used for medical purposes. Marijuana in flower and dry leaf form has been offered at dispensaries since August 2018. ___ This story has been corrected to show that the medical marijuana card belonged to the passenger, not the driver, and decision came earlier this month rather than Friday. ___ Information from: The Morning Call, http://www.mcall.com Claim: Vehicle search prompted by marijuana smell ruled illegal.
[A]: An eastern Pennsylvania judge has ruled that state police troopers who said they smelled marijuana in a car weren't allowed to search it once they were shown a passenger's medical marijuana card.

[Q]: Paragraph: "The story says gum costs ""a few pennies."" The study itself puts the cost at 4 cents per stick. The report does a good job of handling the statistics, with proper caveats. The story reports: The story does include a comment from a physician who warns that someone chewing gum after surgery may swallow air, which can create problems. The story explains that the findings come from an analysis of five studies, alluding to the fact that this was a meta-analysis. The story could have given a line about the quality of such evidence. The story does not exaggerate the complications following colon surgery. The story is based on a credible meta-analysis published in a top-shelf journal. The report includes comments from both a study co-author and a skeptical independent expert. The independent expert interviewed offers an alternative to chewing gum to speed recoveryintroducing liquids and then foods after surgery. He also recommends avoiding the use of pain killers to speed recovery time. The availability of sugarless chewing gum is not in dispute. The story makes no claims for the novelty of the treatment. By indicating the meta-analysis is based on five previous studies, the article implies it's been used before. The story does not draw excessively from the press release." Claim: Study: You can chew gum and get well at same time
[A]:
Any story with a clever headline announcing surprising results of a study involving a simple household item immediately raises concerns that the findings are being distorted, trivialized or sensationalized. But this report on a study suggesting chewing gum may speed recovery after colon surgery is responsible and informative. More specifically: It's based on a credible study published in a top-shelf medical journal It discusses the results in enough detail so a reader can appreciate the limitations of the findings It quotes an independent expert skeptical about the findings, who describes alternatives to the studied treatment Although it's based on a meta-analysis, whose findings should not drive treatment decisions, the treatment is one which people are not going to try themselves. This eliminates the risk of people treating themselves based on inconclusive findings. It's worth pointing out that a 101-word edit of this article, published by the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, fails nearly all of the HealthNewsReview.org criteria. That brief squeezes in all of the positive findings but none of the caveats or context that help a reader determine the value of the study. This is not a failure of editing text so much as it is failure in editorial decision-making. If only 101 words will fit, there's probably better use to make of that space rather than a provocative, one-sided report on a health issue.