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.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: The story devotes its second paragraph to cost, including how that cost may differ depending on whether patients have insurance. Well done. This is a really close one. The story does a lot of things well here. It notes that, in one trial, there was no difference in the benefits between Xofluza and existing flu treatment drug oseltamivir (better known as Tamiflu). However, it does not actually quantify the benefits associated with Xofluza. Instead, the story states that it "may alleviate some symptoms and shorten the time patients feel sick." We approve of the cautious language used throughout the story, but we like to see quantified benefits in instances where the information is available. In this case, an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine in September reported that Xofluza reduced the "time to alleviation of symptoms" by a mean of 25-38 hours, compared to placebo (the difference depended on the age group of the patient). Ergo, a not satisfactory rating here. The story addresses this issue head on, earning it a solid satisfactory rating from us. One point that would have made it even stronger would have been to note that the company selling Xofluzawarns that pregnant women and nursing mothers may want to avoid the drug, as it is not known whether the drug may harm the fetus or if it would pass into breastmilk for nursing mothers. The story does a good job of describing the supporting evidence clearly and concisely. No disease mongering here. In fact, the story provides good context on the risks posed by influenza. The story incorporates input from two sources at the FDA, but the information appears to stem from an FDA statement. Information from pharmaceutical companies is clearly marked, but we really look for news stories to incorporate input from independent sources beyond what may be available in a news release. The story addresses the similarities (and differences) to other drugs that address flu symptoms, particularly oseltamivir (Tamiflu). The story notes that Xofluza has received FDA approval. As noted above, the drugs similarities and differences to existing pharmaceutical treatment options was laid out clearly. The news peg here was FDA's approval of the drug, which is also made clear. The work goes well beyond what you would find in any news release. We particularly applaud the story's discussion of viruses developing resistance to antiviral drugs. Claim: F.D.A. Approves New Drug for Flu

Output: This story is one of two we are reviewing that focuses on FDA's approval of a drug designed to speed patient recovery from flu symptoms (the second story is from ABC News). The drug is baloxavir marboxil, marketed under the trade name Xofluza. This New York Times story hits most of the points that we want to see in a story about a new drug. The criteria that we use at HealthNewsReview.org to review health-related news stories were not developed in a vacuum. Rather, these are the criteria we feel are essential to allow patients and health care providers to make informed decisions about diagnosis and treatment options. While we do ding it on a couple things, the story does not exaggerate the findings, and provides people with the fundamental details they need to be informed patients. We were especially pleased that this story did not perpetuate misinformation that's developed around this drug that is, that it could help reduce transmission of the virus. To date, there is no evidence to show that as a benefit.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: The FDA has set a May 2020 deadline for e-cigarette makers to submit a formal application to keep their products on the market amid its efforts to curb the use of e-cigarette among teens. Reynolds, whose Vuse e-cigarettes deliver nicotine via a cartridge-based vapor system, said it had provided the health regulator with over 150,000 pages of documentation, including information on the composition, design and manufacturing process associated with its product, as well as safety data. The company said it had also worked with a team of more than 100 people to prepare the filing, including multiple regulatory experts and scientists. U.S. regulators are exploring ways to monitor the manufacturing and marketing of e-cigarettes following a rise in use of these products among teens, and a recent outbreak of a mysterious lung illness linked to vaping that has claimed at least 29 lives. Vaping devices such as Juul's, which vaporize liquid containing nicotine, have borne the brunt of the regulatory crackdown globally. The Trump administration also outlined plans in September to remove all flavored e-cigarettes from store shelves, pointing the finger at sweet flavors that had drawn millions of children into nicotine addiction. Claim: Reynolds American files for FDA review of e-cigarette.

Output: British American Tobacco Plc unit Reynolds American Inc said on Friday it had filed for a review of its Vuse e-cigarettes by the U.S. Food and Drug administration, giving it a lead over its main rival Juul Labs Inc.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Since this is about affordable and widely available cooking oils, this is N/A. The story does not quantify. We are told the 45-year-old data showed a "lowering" of cholesterol for study participants who swapped animal fats for vegetable fats. But we aren't given any numbers for by how much or even by what percentage. In a similar shortcoming, one of the most counter-intuitive findings was dismissed. "In fact, the study found that the lower the cholesterol, the greater the risk of death. But that's a misleading association because a variety of illnesses can also cause drop in cholesterol, which is unrelated to diet." The story should have given us some numbers for that "greater risk." Even if it is misleading, we are entitled to know the size of the risk found in the study. The intervention in the study (eating more unsaturated fat)is unlikely to cause adverse side effects, risks, orcomplications, so we're rating thisN/A. The story did point out the surprising association between lower cholesterol levels and increased risk of death, though that could have beenexplained more clearly. The story gives us information about both the old Minnesota study and the new British Medical Journal publication. We know the old study was randomized and included 9,000 people. At the end of the story, we also learn the study has "many"limitations and some of these are mentioned. Ideally, the story would have specifically pointed out that the study population included only residents of nursing homes and mental health hospitals, which may affect generalization. Also, given that this is decades-old data, we're wondering how researchers took that into account, and how it might have impacted the quality of evidence. There was no disease mongering. There don't appear to be any conflicts of interest, and the story includes an independent source. The story does a good job of talking about the complicated recommendations regarding diet, as well as medications, specifically statins. The different oils are widely available; this is N/A. The story explains that the novelty is not with any treatment or discovery but rather a novel statistical examination of old data. The story does not appear to rely solely on a news release. Claim: Using Vegetable Oils to Lower Cholesterol May Not Improve Longevity
Output: This story is about new evidence that may diminish the importance of limiting animal fats in people's diets to reduce risk of deaths from heart disease. A new group of researchers re-examined a 45-year-old randomized controlled study of 9,000 people who were put in two groups: one group replaced animal fats with corn oil in their diet, the other ate animal fats. The risk of death from heart attack was higher in the vegetable-oil group, even though certain markers of cholesterol in their blood did become lower. The story does a good job of explaining the study's design, and some of the complex issues surrounding dietary habits and heart disease. But this story falls short by not quantifying study elements: no numbers for cholesterol level changes, no numbers for changes in risk. Diet appears to play a role in dozens of chronic diseases, including heart disease. Research that helps tease out which fats are truly better for peoplehelps us further understand the issue, though it is complexand evolving. News coverage should not only be accurate, it should help readers understand how the latest study fits into the greater body of scientific knowledge.