TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Paragraph: In February 2020, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh announced that he had been diagnosed with lung cancer. While U.S. President Donald Trump honored the controversial commentator with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, some social media users noted that Limbaugh had a history of making demeaning comments on his program. For instance, one widely shared video clip supposedly showed Limbaugh mocking actor Michael J. Fox and claiming that he was "exaggerating" symptoms of his Parkinson's disease. Just A Quick Reminder Of The Time Rush Limbaugh Mocked Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's By Pretending To Shake Uncontrollably. pic.twitter.com/dX3L0jtnUv Austin (@austin63867) February 3, 2020 This is a genuine clip of Limbaugh describing Fox on his program. Media Matters archived the full audio of this segment, which originally aired during an Oct. 23, 2006, episode of Limbaugh's radio show. Here's a partial transcript of the segment: In this commercial he is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He is moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. This is the only time I've ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any of the symptoms of the disease he has. He can control himself to keep himself in the frame of the picture. And he can control himself enough to keep his eyes right on the lens, the teleprompter. But his head and shoulders are moving all over the place. This is really shameless, folks. This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting. Fox, who is probably best known for playing young conservative Alex P. Keaton on the show "Family Ties" and the time-traveling high school student Marty McFly in the "Back to the Future" series, was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease in 1991. In 2006, he filmed a 30-second ad for former Democratic U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill and her support of stem cell research: Limbaugh was commenting on this advertisement in the above-displayed clip. The segment stirred considerable controversy at the time and even drew an apology from Limbaugh. The Guardian reported: "Hours later the talkshow host was forced to retract. 'I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong. '" While Limbaugh initially apologized, he would later say on his show that he never made fun of Fox and that this controversy was created by the "drive-by" media. Limbaugh also renewed attacks on Fox and said that the actor was "allowing his illness to be exploited" and was "shilling for a Democratic politician." The Washington Post reported: After his apology, Limbaugh shifted his ground and renewed his attack on Fox. "Now people are telling me they have seen Michael J. Fox in interviews and he does appear the same way in the interviews as he does in this commercial," Limbaugh said, according to a transcript on his Web site. "All right then, I stand corrected. . . . So I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox, if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act." Claim: "Radio host Rush Limbaugh once claimed that actor Michael J. Fox was ""exaggerating"" his Parkinson's disease symptoms in a political ad."

SOLUTION: Then Limbaugh pivoted to a different critique: "Michael J. Fox is allowing his illness to be exploited and in the process is shilling for a Democratic politician."

PROBLEM: 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.

SOLUTION: 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.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: "Thought there was no discussion of cost, most people have a general idea how much cocoa costs. The story fails to describe the improvement in blood flow in absolute terms, instead noting only relative or percent improvement (e.g. 37% compared to baseline for consumption of artificially sweetened cocoa). The reported 37% improvement is much greater than that reported in a press release from the American College of Cardiology (2.4% over baseline); the reason for the discrepancy is unclear. The story notes that chocolate is laden with fat and calories, potentially harmful in people who are already overweight or obese. This story is based on the preliminary results of a small, unpublished study presented at a national cardiology meeting. The researchers fed three different foods (two types of chocolate and a placebo whey powder) to 39 people during three separate 6-week trials, and then after each trial used ultrasound to measure arterial blood flow in the arms of their subjects, a test that purportedly "corresponds well to heart disease." Unfortunately, the story says little about the methodological shortcomings inherent in such a research design. Are there enough subjects in the study to muster the statistical power to answer the question being askedor could the improvements in blood flow be the result of chance? Did the researchers account for other factors that might affect arterial blood flow, such as exercise routines? Is there research to suggest that the observed differences in arterial blood flow correspond to any outcome of clinical significance, such as rates of heart attack, stroke, or death? This news report says nothing about such potential limitations. We suspect many observers would say that this study simply raises an interesting question, but certainly doesn't answer it. Despite the researcher's assertion""This tells you that it (cocoa) is cardio-protective""the data seem only to show that cocoa simply relaxes smooth muscle in the arm." Claim: Study: Dark chocolate improves blood vessel health

SOLUTION:
This news report describes a study which suggests that dark chocolate might be healthy for the heart. It provides some background on flavonols, the constituent in dark chocolate that might be beneficial, notes some of the potential harms associated with this "chocolate therapy," and includes interviews with three experts who are mostly enthusiastic about the study's findings. Yet the story fails to examine the rigor of the new evidence. The researchers enrolled 39 people. Were there enough subjects to muster the statistical power needed to answer their question? Could the improvements in blood flow be the result of chance? Did the researchers account for other factors that might affect arterial blood flow? What are the true benefits of improvements in blood flow to an arm? Is there research to suggest that they correspond to any outcome of clinical significance, such as rates of heart attack, stroke, or death? What else could patients do to derive the same apparent benefit without the fat and calories of chocolate? Could they take a low-cost, fat-free, calorie-burning walk once a day? The story answers none of these. The study appears to be one small, preliminary step in the investigation of a scientific hypothesis. Readers should not be left with the impression that consuming chocolate every six hours is a sound, scientifically proven, good idea.