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: "Sen. Barack Obama, speaking to veterans, lashed into his opponent for poor military judgment, alleging Sen. John McCain had fixated on Iraq immediately after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. ""Sen. McCain was already turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, and he became a leading supporter of an invasion and occupation of a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, and that as despicable as Saddam Hussein was posed no imminent threat to the American people,"" Obama said on Aug. 19, 2008. ""Two of the biggest beneficiaries of that decision were al-Qaida's leadership, which no longer faced the pressure of America's focused attention; and Iran, which has advanced its nuclear program, continued its support for terror, and increased its influence in Iraq and the region."" Obama's analysis of the war's consequences aside, we checked the record to see whether he had fairly characterized McCain's views about Iraq after 9/11 and in the run-up to the war. As a military veteran and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, McCain was a prominent voice in late 2001 as the nation grappled with how to respond to the attacks. On Sept. 12, 2001, he appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews, where Matthews asked whether the appropriate response should be ""a legal matter or a military matter."" ""I think it's both,"" McCain replied. ""As as we stated, the a nation has the right to defend itself, No. 1. But No. 2, these organizations could not flourish effectively unless they had the help and assistance and safe harbor of these nations. And it isn't just Afghanistan we're talking about Syria, Iraq, Iran, perhaps North Korea, Libya and others."" That comment was not particularly specific to Iraq. But in an Oct. 18, 2001, appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman, with the nation on edge about the anthrax mailings and in the early stages of the campaign in Afganistan, McCain singled out Iraq. After sharing his views about how events were unfolding in Afghanistan, McCain told Letterman: ""I think we'll do fine. The second phase if I could just make one, very quickly the second phase is Iraq. There is some indication, and I don't have the conclusions, but some of this anthrax may and I emphasize may have come from Iraq."" In January 2002, while touring the flight bridge of an aircraft carrier on the Arabian Sea, McCain shouted: ""Next up: Baghdad!"" He fleshed out his views in a speech at a NATO security policy conference in Munich on Feb. 2, 2002. ""Terrorist training camps exist on Iraqi soil, and Iraqi officials are known to have had a number of contacts with al-Qaida. These were probably not courtesy calls,"" he said. ""Americans have internalized the mantra that Afghanistan represents only the first front in our global war on terror. The next front is apparent, and we should not shrink from acknowledging it. A terrorist resides in Baghdad, with the resources of an entire state at his disposal, flush with cash from illicit oil revenues and proud of a decade-long record of defying the international community's demands that he come clean on his programs to develop weapons of mass destruction."" We should note that McCain suggested on several occasions that he would prefer alternatives to full-on invasion and occupation as a means of displacing Saddam Hussein, such as on Meet the Press on July 14, 2002: ""I have always strongly felt that you must try the option of opposition from within arming, training, equipping and helping oppositions from within; the Kurds in the North, the Shiites in the South,"" McCain told the late Tim Russert. ""At least try that option before we send Americans into harm's way."" But two days later on Face the Nation, he made clear that if it took war to remove Hussein, he was all for it. ""Look, we need a regime change in Iraq,"" he said. ""If we can do it on the cheap by having operations involving just Special Forces and some air power and opponents within, either the Kurds in the south, Shiites in the north [sic], then that's fine. But we have to be prepared to do whatever is necessary to bring about this regime change. I think we also ought to prepare the American public in in by way of informing them that Saddam Hussein has these weapons, continues to attempt to improve the their capability and would not be reluctant to export them to other countries."" He continued, ""So we need to keep telling the American people that as well, as well as basically if I may be so blunt frightening them frightening and scaring them every day."" In early 2003, with calls for invasion of Iraq growing more insistent, McCain's was among the most fervent voices. ""Sept. 11, 2001 showed that al-Qaida is a grave threat,"" he wrote in a Feb. 14, 2003 opinion piece in USA Today. ""Saddam Hussein has the ability to make a far worse day of infamy by turning Iraq into a weapons assembly line for al-Qaida's network. ... Saddam is an international felon who has repeatedly violated the terms of his parole and is planning further crimes with his terrorist accomplices. He must be brought to justice once and for all."" The record clearly supports the contention that McCain ""was already turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11"" indeed he singled out Iraq on Letterman and became a ""leading supporter"" of the war, as Obama said. We find his claim to be ." Claim: Sen. McCain was already turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, and he became a leading supporter of an invasion and occupation of (Iraq).

A: McCain's record on Iraq: eager to attack
****
Q: Paragraph: There's no discussion of cost, even to mention that statins are relatively inexpensive these days and are mostly generically available. To its credit, the article does mention the cost of a calcium scan. We learn that "anywhere from 50 to 200 healthy people need to take a statin daily to prevent a single heart attack for five years." That's helpful information. It also notes that the observed benefit is less for older patients. The story could have added that even those numbers might disputed by some experts who perceive no meaningful benefit. For example, one review found being on a statin does not help people with low risk for heart disease live longer. The story does a service by highlighting the harms of statins. It explains: "The most common side effect of these drugs is muscle pain, which usually goes away if patients stop taking the medicines. People taking statins are also at a higher risk of developing diabetes, which is harder to reverse." It also mentions the potential for overtreatment with the use of coronary calcium scans. However, we wish it had included absolute numbers. The story says harms are "uncommon," but provides no data to back that up. Rates of adverse effects with statins have been measured at 1 to 10%, which makes them "common" in the definition of the European Medicines Agency. Also noteworthy is that some contend that adverse effects of statins have not been reliably reported. The story doesn't explain the quality of the study, or of studies on which current guidelines are based. We don't explicitly learn that this is a modelling study. In other words, this study consisted mostly of reinterpretations of math, not re-evaluations of real-life patients. The researchers said they were unable to obtain enough data on all possible harms and age-specific data on some harm outcomes, "so the risk thresholds we determined may still be too low." There is no disease-mongering here. This story includes sources that weren't involved in the study. The study's authors reported no conflicts of interest. The story could have acknowledged the influence of pharmaceutical companies in creating guidelines for statin use. The alternative of not taking a statin was the key message here, and that's laudable. However, we have a couple of concerns. First, we learn that "some statins were more effective than others, with atorvastatin (the generic name for Lipitor) being the best of the bunch." However, the story doesn't explain on what basis some statins are "more effective." In fact, some statins may be more effective at lower cholesterol, but the study found that no statin rises above others when it comes to the outcomes that counts most to patients reducing cardiovascular deaths. Also, the story doesn't mention lifestyle interventions diet and exercise. The story makes it clear that statins are widely prescribed. The story states this an attempt to better weigh the benefits and harms of statin use. There was a good range of interviewees with no reliance on a news release Claim: Before Starting A Statin, Talk It Over With Your Doctor

A: The story reports on a study that re-assessed who benefits from taking a statin to prevent heart disease, with different risk thresholds based on sex, age group, and statin type. It reports the view that current guidelines "haven't adequately considered" the harms from taking these widely used drugs. The story laudably focuses attention on potential adverse events and a need for balanced decision-making. It also incorporated a variety of sources. In our view, the story could done a better job in discussing costs, the quality of evidence, and alternative strategies to prevent heart disease. Statins are among the most widely prescribed drugs, with their use encouraged under guidelines such as those of the American Heart Association of the American College of Cardiology. However, data isn't crystal clear on the benefits and harms of statins for people who don't already have heart disease. As a result, there's concern that they are being overused. It's laudable that some news organizations including CNN as well as NPR highlighted research that explores these complexities and points out the need for patients and physicians to weigh benefits and harms. The headline of this story is, in our view, a winner.
****
Q: Paragraph: A woman smokes a cigarette in an undated file photo. REUTERS/File Independent Pharmaceutica, a private company based at Stockholm's Karolinska Institute and founded in 1997 by Professor Torgny Svensson, joins a growing line-up of biotech companies seeking to develop an anti-nicotine shot. Its researchers say the vaccine eliminates the quick high smokers relish by creating antibodies that bind to nicotine molecules, making them too bulky to enter the brain. Once the high is gone, the argument goes, so is the main cause of addiction. In the Phase II study on 400 people in three Nordic countries, researchers will measure the effect of the vaccine on those who have quit smoking and want to avoid relapse. But they may use it in future to help active smokers quit, according to Independent Pharmaceutica. Several other vaccines against nicotine dependence are under investigation, but Independent Pharmaceutica Chief Executive Lena Degling Wikingsson said her company hopes to produce a more potent product with fewer side effects than competitors. "After this Phase II study, we want to have co-operation with a bigger pharmaceutical company to be able to take this further," Wikingsson told Reuters on Tuesday. "We are discussing (this) with the world's biggest pharmaceutical companies." Switzerland's Cytos Biotechnology published results from a Phase II trial in 2005, showing 42 percent of patients who achieved high antibody levels at vaccination stayed smoke-free after 12 months, against 21 percent in the group given a placebo. Bermuda-based private equity firm Celtic Pharma has said it will announce results from its Phase II trial on a nicotine vaccine this quarter, while U.S. company Nabi Pharmaceuticals is developing a similar product. According to the World Health Organization, tobacco use is the number one preventable cause of death in the world, killing 5.4 million people every year, an increasing proportion of those in low-income countries. Claim: Nordic scientists start trial on nicotine vaccine.

A:
Nordic scientists have launched a trial on a vaccine designed to help smokers kick the world's deadliest habit by depriving them of one of its chief pleasures, the firm that owns the vaccine said on Tuesday.
****