instruction:
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.
question:
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
answer:
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.

question:
Paragraph: The confirmation hearing of Ronny Jackson, Trump's White House doctor and a Navy rear admiral chosen to speed up improvements to the VA, is scheduled for next week. On Tuesday, he met privately with Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, the top Democrat on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, as a part of visits this week to assure lawmakers he could effectively lead the government's second-largest department. Tester said after the meeting that Jackson had committed to the same stance against privatization as David Shulkin, who pledged before his confirmation as VA secretary last year to continue strong investment in core VA programs and facilities while expanding access to private doctors. Shulkin was fired last month. "We talked extensively about why Shulkin got fired with the issues revolving around privatization and capacity building," Tester said. He "seems to be somebody who doesn't want to privatize the VA." Asked if Jackson had pledged not to privatize VA, Tester said "yes." "He said basically the same thing Shulkin said--that he wanted to build capacity at the VA," Tester said. According to Tester, Jackson had not yet informed Trump of his views but would be doing so. Both Tester and Sen. Johnny Isakson, the Republican chairman of the veterans committee who met with Jackson Monday, have declined to endorse Jackson in advance of his confirmation hearing on April 25, saying they need to hear more about his plans to fix VA. Jackson is "certainly not an expert on VA," Tester said. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., a Senate committee member who also met Tuesday with Jackson, said she needed more assurances that Jackson would resist undue White House pressure to aggressively expand private care. Major veterans groups view VA medical centers as best suited to treat complex battlefield injuries, such as traumatic brain injury. "In our meeting today, I appreciated how strongly Dr. Jackson spoke against privatizing the VA, but I still need to know more about how he will stand up to ideological opponents of VA and remain fully committed to putting the needs of veterans first," Murray said. The issue of privatizing VA has been a political hot button since the 2016 campaign, when Trump pledged to aggressively expand veterans' access to private doctors outside the government-run VA system at taxpayers' expense via the Veterans Choice program. Trump's comments came in the wake of a 2014 scandal at the Phoenix VA medical center in which some veterans died while waiting months for medical appointments. After he was fired as VA secretary, Shulkin blamed "political forces" in the Trump administration that he says are bent on privatizing the agency and prioritizing "companies with profits" over the care of veterans. On Tuesday, the White House reiterated that there were "no discussions" about privatizing VA. "This administration has taken several unprecedented steps to transform and modernize the VA," White House spokesman Raj Shah said in a statement. "We look forward to continuing our work with Congress to reform and strengthen the VA Choice program to provide our veterans with more choice in their health care." Several Democratic senators, including Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, have vowed to oppose Jackson's nomination if it leads to greater privatization at the agency. Before he was confirmed last year as VA secretary, Shulkin, a holdover from the Obama administration, declared in advance that he wouldn't "privatize" VA. "VA is a unique national resource that is worth saving, and I am committed to doing just that," Shulkin said in February 2017. "There will be far greater accountability, dramatically improved access, responsiveness and expanded care options, but the Department of Veterans Affairs will not be privatized under my watch." ___ Follow Hope Yen on Twitter at https://twitter.com/hopeyen1 Claim: Dem senator: Trump VA pick vows not to privatize vets care.
answer:
President Donald Trump's pick to be Veterans Affairs secretary is promising not to privatize the agency, a key Democratic senator said Tuesday, taking a stance on a politically charged issue that his predecessor says led to his firing.

question:
Paragraph: The new paper, published like the first in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, slams the research for "dubious analyses" and "erroneous methodology" and says it "conjured nonexistent effects out of thin air." In the 2013 study, researchers had adults answer a 14-item questionnaire meant to sort them into two groups: interested in hedonic well-being (fun and selfish pleasure) or eudaimonic well-being (leading a meaningful life). The two groups, researchers led by psychologist Barbara Frederickson of the University of North Carolina reported, had different patterns of activity in 53 genes. Hedonists had DNA activity akin to people suffering from chronic, illness-inducing stress. Stress-related genes including those involved in inflammation were overactive; genes involved in making antibodies that fight infection were underactive. Hedonists, it seemed, were headed for a disease-ridden existence and an early grave, as media reports warned in stories with headlines like "Meaning is healthier than happiness." The claim caught the eye of Nick Brown, a British information technology worker who has become a persistent amateur critic of what he sees as shoddy statistical analysis in psychology research. As he and colleagues scrutinized the 2013 paper, they saw numerous problems, he said. For one thing, the authors failed to rule out that people with specific gene-activity patterns in the immune system might be under the weather when tested. More crucially, Brown said, the happiness questionnaire was flawed. People who scored high on three items meant to identify hedonists scored equally highly on 11 items meant to identify people who seek eudaimonic well-being. "The two constructs are essentially measuring the same thing," Brown said, so putting people in one category rather than another was "meaningless." Most devastating was what happened when Brown grouped the items randomly, calling those who scored high on questions 1, 7 and 8 (or any of 8,191 other combinations) one kind of person and those who scored high on others a second type. Even with such meaningless groupings, there were patterns of gene activity seemingly characteristic of each group. Statistics professor Andrew Gelman of Columbia University, who was not involved in either study, called Brown's critique "reasonable." Flawed statistics have become such a serious problem for journals that many of the world's top titles are adding extra levels of statistical checks in the peer-review process. Deputy executive editor Daniel Salsbury said PNAS was not changing its longstanding practice, which is "to work within our review process to ensure the work is sound in all aspects." In a reply to Brown, Frederickson and coauthor Steven Cole of the University of California, Los Angeles, reject the criticism and say they have replicated their 2013 findings in a new sample of 122 people. Claim: Happiness study draws frowns from critics.
answer:
A high-profile 2013 study that concluded that different kinds of happiness are associated with dramatically different patterns of gene activity is fatally flawed, according to an analysis published on Monday which tore into its target with language rarely seen in science journals.