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: "Patients used to pay $10,000 a year for cancer drugs, but now they're paying $10,000 a month, according to HBO talk show host Bill Maher. That's a message circulating on Facebook recently, promoted by the""Bill Maher Fanpage."" A reader asked us to check it out. The quote comes from the Oct. 2 episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, where Maher discussed Turing Pharmaceuticals, the company that jacked up the cost of a life-saving drug from $13.50 to $750 essentially overnight. ""Not that (Turing CEO Martin) Shkreli is unusual for the pharmaceutical industry,"" Maher said on his show. ""Fifteenyears ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it's $10,000 a month because this cartel owns the U.S. government every bit as much as Mexican drug lords own theirs."" It's well known that the cost of health care is on the rise,but has the annual cost of cancer drugs really increased so dramatically in just a decade and a half? Maher's team sent us links to some news articles about the rising cost of cancer drugs, and we tracked down information that speaks to his claim. The best information we could nail down is the cost of anticancer drugs at launch,the initial price when the Federal Drug Administration approves a drug. These are the sticker prices set by the pharmaceutical companies, not the prices patients actually pay out of pocket, which are reduced by insurance payments, patient assistance programs and other discounts. Costs increases, though, are often passed on to consumers. Maher has a point that cancer drug costs are on the rise. We charted the launch costs of cancer drugs the FDA approved since 1999, using a list compiled by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. The second half of Maher's statement -- that cancer drugs now cost about $10,000 a month -- is also on solid ground. Of drugs approved in 2015, the monthly average cost is $11,319. And experts in the field often cite that $10,000 figure themselves. Because many cancer drugs are not administered to patients for a full year, it's difficult to determine an average annual cost, so the first half of Maher's statement -- that they cost about $10,000 a year 15 years ago -- is hard to nail down. To his point, though, the monthly cost of a new drug was dramatically lower in 2000 than what it is now at about $4,634. One of the news articles that Maher's team sent us is an academic article in the Journal of Oncology Practice that supports his statement. The report reads, ""The average cancer drug price for approximately one year of therapy or a total treatment duration was less than $10,000 before 2000."" Maher's statement is ""in the ballpark,"" if not an understatement, said Rena Conti, a health economist at the University of Chicago who researches cancer drug prices. In a 2015 paper Conti authored with three other leading health economists, she examined the launch cost of anticancer drugs controlled for inflation and the benefit to the patient (how much it prolongs life expectancy). For example, in 1995, anticancer drugs cost $54,100 for an additional year of life, the study found. In 2005, drugs cost $139,100 for the same benefit, and the price grew to $207,000 in 2013. In the United States, pharmaceutical companies set their own drug prices. What's pushing them to increase the costs? It's not necessarily that cancer drugs are getting better and are thus worth more. Conti's research concluded that just about one-fifth of the cancer drug cost increase can be attributed to a better product. There are two primary forces behind annual cancer drug cost increases, Conti said: First, pharmaceutical companies estimate a ""zone of indifference"" -- based on last year's prices, how much more would buyers be willing to pay? Second, rebates and discounts for drugs have also increased over time, and this creates an incentive for drug companies to increase their costs alongside the discounts. Pharmaceutical companies defend drug price increases by emphasizing that the revenue funds innovative research and that drugs lower overall health care costs by treating illnesses. Because there's no formal price regulation and competition in the industry is rare, ""It really is a system where there's no downward pressure on drug prices,"" said Peter Bach, director of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Center for Health Policy and Outcomes in an interview with Fortune. Our ruling Maher said, ""15 years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it's $10,000 a month."" The average annual cost of a drug isn't easy to calculate, given the way cancer drugs are scheduled; many drugs aren't used every month for an entire year. So the first half of the statement is hard to verify,though we did find one academic source that cites a similar figure. However, Maher has a point that the cost of cancer drugs has increased dramatically since 2000, when the average monthly price of a cancer drug, when it first hit the market, was about $4,600. In 2015, the monthly cost is over $10,000. Maher's numbers are a little squishy, but they're in the ballpark." Claim: 15 years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it's $10,000 a month.
"Maher said, ""15 years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it's $10,000 a month."" The average annual cost of a drug isn't easy to calculate, given the way cancer drugs are scheduled; many drugs aren't used every month for an entire year. So the first half of the statement is hard to verify,though we did find one academic source that cites a similar figure. However, Maher has a point that the cost of cancer drugs has increased dramatically since 2000, when the average monthly price of a cancer drug, when it first hit the market, was about $4,600. In 2015, the monthly cost is over $10,000. Maher's numbers are a little squishy, but they're in the ballpark."

Paragraph: True, the news hit hard last month that the so-called "Boston patients" - two men who received bone marrow transplants that appeared to rid them completely of the AIDS-causing virus - had relapsed and gone back onto antiretroviral treatment. But experts say the disappointment could lay the basis for important leaps forward in the search for a cure. "It's a setback for the patients, of course, but an advance for the field because the field has now gained a lot more knowledge," said Steven Deeks, a professor and HIV expert at the University of California, San Francisco. He and other experts say the primary practical message is that current tests designed to detect even very low levels of HIV present in the body are simply not sensitive enough. As well as having the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the Boston patients both also had a type of blood cancer called lymphoma, for which they were treated using bone marrow transplants - one man in 2008 and the other in 2010. They continued taking the antiretroviral AIDS drugs, but eight months after each patient's transplant, doctors found they could not detect any sign of HIV in their blood. In the early part of 2013, both patients decided to stop taking their AIDS drugs and both appeared to remain HIV-free - prompting their doctors, Timothy Henrich and Daniel Kuritzkes from Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital, to announce at a conference in July that they may have been cured. Yet in December came news that one of the men had begun to show signs of an HIV rebound by August, while the second patient had a relapse in November. Henrich said the virus' comeback underlined how ingenious HIV can be in finding hiding places in the body to evade attack efforts by the immune system and by drug treatment. "Through this research we have discovered the HIV reservoir is deeper and more persistent than previously known and that our current standards of probing for HIV may not be sufficient," he said, adding that both patients were "currently in good health" and back on antiretroviral therapy. Barely a decade ago, few HIV scientists would have dared put the words HIV and cure in the same sentence. Yet some intriguing and inspiring cases in recent years mean many now believe it is just a question of time before a cure is found. First was the now famous case of Timothy Ray Brown, the so-called "Berlin patient," whose HIV was eradicated by a complex treatment for leukemia in 2007 involving the destruction of his immune system and a stem cell transplant from a donor with a rare genetic mutation that resists HIV infection. Such an elaborate, expensive and life-threatening procedure could never be used as a broad-spectrum approach for the world's 34 million HIV patients. But the results in Brown focused scientific attention on a genetic mutation known as 'CCR5 delta 32' as a target for possible gene therapy treatment. Then last March, French scientists who followed 14 HIV-positive people known as the "Visconti patients", who were treated very swiftly with HIV drugs but then stopped treatment, said that even after seven years off therapy, they were still showing no signs of the virus rebounding. That announcement came only weeks after news of the "functional cure" of an HIV-positive baby in Mississippi who received antiretroviral treatment for 18 months from the day she was born. By the time she was two this appeared to have stopped the virus replicating and spreading. A "functional cure" is when HIV is reduced to such low levels that it is kept at bay even without treatment, though the virus can still be detected in the body. Sharon Lewin, an HIV expert at Monash University in Australia, said all these developments, as well as the setback suffered by the Boston patients, inspired scientists to investigate many different approaches in the search for a cure. "We've learnt many things here - and one of the most important is that a tiny, tiny amount of virus can get the whole thing going again," she told Reuters. "It's a clear message that we need better ways to pick up the virus." Scientists are now more convinced than ever that a two-pronged approach which aims to firmly suppress the virus while bolstering the immune system provides the best way forward. "We need to attack in two ways - reduce the virus to very low levels and also to boost the immune response. We can't do one without the other," said Lewin. "So we still have to think of other creative ways to control HIV. And it's still early days... before we can say which approach is likely to be the winner." Claim: Relapse of 'cured' HIV patients spurs AIDS science on.
Scientists seeking a cure for AIDS say they have been inspired, not crushed, by a major setback in which two HIV positive patients believed to have been cured found the virus re-invading their bodies once more.

Paragraph: The money he makes from the hundreds of nose jobs and Botox injections he performs on wealthy Afghans allows him to perform life-changing surgery on low-income patients at a discount or sometimes for free. Ghayur's practice in the capital Kabul offers a microcosm of Afghan medicine, where doctors, driven by a sense of civic duty, try to fill huge gaps in a public health system devastated by decades of war. The surgeon ticked off parliamentarians, business directors and other "rich people" among his clients, who got their ideas online or during trips abroad and were prepared to pay thousands of dollars for cosmetic surgery. The average Afghan monthly wage is around $35. Income from such treatments, a relatively new phenomenon in Afghanistan, allows him to make a good living as well as treat low-income patients who turn up unannounced seeking reconstructive surgery to treat disease, congenital disorders and post-traumatic wounds. Many of these patients arrive with late stage illnesses and require urgent attention. "If a patient comes and says 'I can only pay $100', I can do it for $100. Or $20, or $30," Ghayur told Reuters during a recent morning consultation. "Because if we decide to wait until the patient has the money, the patient will have no chance of survival." He added: "I have treated lots of skin cancer patients for free, because some of them had small tumors that were 100 percent curable." Healthcare in Afghanistan has improved since the hardline Islamist Taliban movement was ousted in 2001, according to the World Health Organization, but key indicators like infant and maternal mortality still rank among the worst in the world. Public hospitals are also chronically under-funded and patients are expected to cover basic medical supplies like bandages, medicine and even wages. Nose jobs are the most popular cosmetic surgeries, Ghayur said. He performed over 500 since opening his practice in 2013, many on members of the Hazara ethnic minority who wanted to elongate their distinctive Asian noses. Bibi Zara, an ethnic Pashtun who had come to have the bridge of her nose raised with silicone, said her husband wanted her to look more beautiful. "God made my nose so I am happy with it, but my husband wanted it," she said, smiling widely, her eyes the same opal blue color of her burqa. Breast procedures were comparatively rare, Ghayur said, and cost around $3-5,000, depending on the patient's economic status. He has performed five such operations since 2013, when he returned home from his studies in neighboring Pakistan. Plastic surgery in Afghanistan is a particularly neglected field. The health ministry counts just half a dozen registered practices and says it is not offered as a discipline at medical school. "Most surgeons who perform heart, kidney and other surgeries carry out cosmetic surgeries too," said Mohammad Ismail Kawusi, a spokesman for the Ministry of Public Health. Ghayur said low-income patients often arrived after one or more botched operations, performed by doctors who were the only practitioners in the area and trained to deal with war wounds. "Usually if patients arrive, doctors will try. They won't say, 'this is not my field,'" Ghayur said. He spent six years studying plastic surgery in Pakistan and received further training abroad from the German Cleft Children's Aid Society. The group has since covered costs for him to treat hundreds of children, including many without access to medical care in less stable parts of the country. Ghayur performs most operations in Kabul, but also works elsewhere. His latest trip was to Kunduz, a province partially under the control of Taliban militants and battered by intense fighting this summer. "I operated in the city, and there was no fighting," he said of the provincial capital. "Outside the city there was lots of fighting at night, while I was sleeping, about a kilometer away." Claim: Afghan surgeon earns from rich to help pay for treating poor.
Plastic surgeon Abdul Ghafar Ghayur is practicing his own brand of welfare in Afghanistan, where access to healthcare is limited and many cannot afford private treatment.