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: 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

A: 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.
****
Q: Paragraph: The Apostles' Creed is a statement of Christian belief commonly recited during services in a number of Christian denominations. The text of the creed varies with translation and denomination, but the English Language Liturgical Consultation version, for example, reads as follows: I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again; he ascended into heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen. The sincerity of President Trump's religious beliefs was called into question on 5 December 2018 as many viewers noticed that he apparently did not recite the Apostles' Creed during President George H.W. Bush's funeral at the Washington National Cathedral. Columnist John Ziegler, for instance, noted how "weird" it was that President Obama, who was often wrongly identified as Muslim, fully recited all the words of that statement of faith, while President Trump, who courted and won support from the Evangelical community, did not: Ziegler was hardly the only one to levy this criticism at President Trump: Similarly, the Washington Post reported on the issue that: The Apostles' Creed is one of the prayers most core to Christianity. It states in a few lines the basic narrative of Jesus's life, is the statement of faith in one God and is said daily by Christians across the globe. [O]ne Christian didn't say it. And Twitter noticed. Video from the funeral of George H.W. Bush showed a front row of presidents at Washington National Cathedral, standing and reciting it along with the program, as the voice of Episcopal Bishop Michael Curry boomed through the speakers to the thousands of mourners. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and their wives glanced up and down from the programs they held in front of them and spoke the prayer, along with everyone else visible in the video. The program, as is typical, calls for the Creed to be said in unison. President Trump stood, with his hands folded in front of him, waist-high, the program in his left hand, his lips not moving. Melania Trump also did not speak, nor did she hold a program. While we can't speak the sincerity of President Trump's faith, we can confirm that these criticisms were backed up by video from George H.W. Bush's funeral. President Trump only appeared on screen for a short time during the recitation, but when he did he could be seen standing silently with his hands clasped and his program unopened, while other attendees, including former president Barack Obama, former first lady Michelle Obama, former president Bill Clinton, and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, all held their programs open as they recited the Apostles' Creed from them. Here's a video from C-SPAN of the relevant portion of George H.W. Bush's state funeral: We examined other broadcasts of the funeral to see if they captured President Trump reciting any part of the Apostle's Creed. While we couldn't find video capturing President Trump during the entirety of the creed recitation, we did find video from Time magazine showing him in the same posture as above (silently holding his program at his waist) for about 15 seconds while others around him recited the statement of faith: We can only speak to what the video record shows, however, and not its significance. It's possible that either or both of the Trumps had religious or other personal reasons for declining to participate in that aspect of the service. Indeed, in a Washington Post opinion piece, Patrick Nugent defended President Trump's actions, regardless of what might have motivated them: The Apostles' Creed is not just a prayer one can or should recite out of courtesy for the sake of show, good manners or good taste. The Creed or any Christian creed is a statement of belief and a public commitment to very specific, carefully enumerated theological doctrines. It is not a bland, generic greeting-card prayer addressing an impersonal creator, a "force," "the universe" or "the spirit of goodness" that could conceivably be uttered by anybody of any religious perspective or none at all. I admit entirely that the Trumps' abstention could well have been motivated by cluelessness, inattention, bad taste, bad manners, unfamiliarity, distraction or any number of other things. But the bottom line is that they abstained from reciting aloud, in public, a personal commitment to the truth of very specific, classic, ancient Christian doctrines. The president participated in a public ceremony in his capacity as head of state, not as a Presbyterian (which is how he has identified himself). As such, he has no obligation to declare those theological truths, or any others, aloud in public. In fact, I'd suggest, he has an obligation not to do so if he disagrees with any of them, or all of them, or doesn't especially care, or isn't sure, or doesn't understand or just thinks the president should be theologically neutral in public. Claim: President Trump did not recite the Apostles' Creed as other attendees did during George H.W. Bush's funeral.

A: This wasn't the only criticism levied at President Trump over something he allegedly did (or didn't do) at George H.W. Bush's funeral. Many social media users also accused him of disrespecting the deceased by failing to place his hand over his heart while the former president's casket was carried into Washington National Cathedral. We investigated this rumor, too, and found that the accusation was largely inaccurate.
****
Q: Paragraph: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration questioned the differences in size and formulation of the patch used in trials and the to-be-marketed patch. The generic drugs maker, which received a "complete response letter" from the FDA, said it planned to work closely with the agency to address the questions. Such letters typically lay out FDA concerns that need to be addressed before a treatment is approved. Actavis' contraceptive skin patch is designed to provide continuous delivery of the hormone norethindrone, a type of progestin, during a once-weekly, seven-day dosing regimen. Progestin, the synthetic form of female sex hormone progestogen, inhibits ovulation and thickens the layer of mucus at the cervix so sperm cannot enter the uterus. The treatment will compete with Johnson and Johnson's Ortho Evra, an estrogen/progestin combination contraceptive patch. Estrogen is another female sex hormone. A progestin-only patch can be safer than combination patches as high levels of estrogen are often linked to blood clotting disorders and an increased risk of cancer. The company also filed on Tuesday an application to market the generic version of Merck & Co Inc's NuvaRing, a estrogen/progestin combination hormonal contraceptive vaginal ring. Actavis said it may be the first applicant to file the application, which, if approved may entitle it to 180 days of generic market exclusivity. Shares of Dublin, Ireland-based Actavis were down 0.6 percent at $165.16 in early trading on the New York Stock Exchange on Tuesday. Claim: FDA rejects Actavis' contraceptive patch, seeks more data.

A:
Actavis Plc said U.S. health regulators denied approval to its contraceptive patch for women and asked for more data.
****