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: Given that this is an illegal substance banned by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, cost as a therapeutic would be difficult to ascertain. We liked that the story took pains to explain that approval of this drug faces many hurdles. This is a tough one. While the story tells us what percentage of patients benefited from treatment, it does not, in fact, quantify the extent of those benefitswhich is precisely what this category is designed to assess. However, the story does do a goodand thoroughjob of describing the benefits in qualitative terms. That said, if the story had only chosen one or two examples of changes in the standardized measures of depression or anxiety, this would have received an enthusiastic "Satisfactory" rating. One strong word of caution though: The story cites one source as saying that psilocybin may one day be used to treat a wide range of mental health issues ranging from drug addiction to obsessive-compulsive disorder. The story offers no evidence to support these claims, which were made by a source associated with an organization that exists specifically to promote research on hallucinogens. Substantial claims require substantial evidence. The story would have been much stronger if it had eliminated the unsubstantiated remarks from the source particularly since they had no bearing on the subject of the story. The story addresses this issue thoroughly. Well done. The story does a good job of both describing the design of the studies and explaining why the study design is relevant. For example, the story notes: "But both [studies] were considered to be double-blind placebo trials the gold-standard of medical research in which subjects are left to guess whether they have gotten the active study drug or an inactive lookalike." This is the sort of thing we like to see. However, we did want to note that in the NYU study, researchers did state in the limitations section that there was "limited blinding" how did that possibly affect the outcomes? No disease mongering here. However, the story should have been more cautious about claims of benefit for conditions ranging far beyond the scope of the research at hand, which focused on mental health problems among people with advanced cancer. The story clearly states who funded the studies, and what that organization's long-term goals are. Further, the story clearly identified individuals quoted in the story who have ties to the studies or the funding organization. Lastly, the story incorporates input from an independent expert. However, the story would have been stronger if there had been a skeptical take on the research, which sawin some other coverage, such as this New York Times piece. The story does not address other treatment options for anxiety or depression, such as talk therapy or other pharmaceutical interventions. The story does a good job here. For example, the story notes: "[F]inding drugs like psilocybin effective is by no means the final hurdle to their widespread availability. None are currently in production, and no for-profit pharmaceutical company would likely invest millions of dollars to bring to market a pill intended effectively for one-time use." Well done. This is a close call. The story does do a good job of placing the work in context in regard to overall research involving hallucinogens. That's enough to earn it a "Satisfactory" rating. However, the story doesn't mention any of the work done in the past 10 years on the use of psilocybin specifically to address anxiety in cancer patients, such as this 2007 study, this one from 2011, or this one from 2013. Are the results from the two new studies consistent with these earlier findings? Do they differ in a meaningful way? That would be good to know. The story does not appear to rely on a news release. Claim: Ingredient in magic mushrooms is shown to ease anxiety and depression in cancer patients in one dose
The story focuses on two recent studies that find a single application of the hallucinogen psilocybin is effective at providing meaningful relief to cancer patients suffering from severe depression or anxiety. The studies were published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology, and can be found here and here. In some ways, the story is thorough, addressing potential side effects and conflicts of interest very well. The story discusses the potential benefits in depth, which is good, but fails to quantify those benefits which is problematic. The story also does a good job of placing the work in context, highlighting the increasing profile of research into the use of hallucinogens as therapeutic tools for mental health problems. However, the story would have been even stronger if it had discussed the existing literature on the use of psilocybin to address anxiety in cancer patients. We also reviewed twonews releases related to the research: Depression and other mental health struggles are common and significant among people with cancer, especially terminal cancer. This makes it especially important for reporters to write responsibly about studies like those discussed in this story. You want to give readers enough information to help them make informed decisions. You don't want to raise false hopes, or sensationalize the work. Overall, this story does a nice job of handling a delicate subject well.

Paragraph: Republican Gov. Charlie Baker administered oaths to the 40-member Senate and 160-member House in ceremonies signaling the start of the 191st term for one of America's oldest legislative bodies. Formally known as the General Court, the Legislature traces its roots to the Colonial era. The first order of business in each chamber both firmly controlled by Democrats was the re-election of presiding officers. Rep. Robert DeLeo, of Winthrop, already the longest-serving House speaker in the state's history having first taken the gavel in 2009, returned for another two-year term. Ashland Democrat Karen Spilka will serve her first full term as Senate president after first assuming the post in July. Speaking in the ornate Senate chamber, which reopened Wednesday for the first time in more than 18 months following a $20 million renovation, Spilka called for several "bold" initiatives in response to what she said were demands from Massachusetts residents to move beyond "small ideas and incremental change." Spilka said her priorities would include legislation to better control health care spending by reining in the high cost of prescription drugs and redistribute state education funding to better serve children who live in poorer school districts. Recalling the untreated psychological trauma her father suffered as a result of his military service, the Senate leader also appealed for a broad expansion of mental health services throughout the state. "We simply cannot end the epidemic of addiction or solve the problems of chronic homelessness and unemployment, child abuse and neglect, veteran and first responder PTSD, childhood bullying, or repeated incarceration, without first addressing the underlying issue of mental health," said Spilka. While not specifically calling for tax increases, Spilka said the state would need to "capture new revenues" to support new and existing programs. Spilka, a liberal Democrat, was widely expected to stake out a progressive agenda that could meet resistance in the House, which is also controlled by Democrats but is seen as more conservative than the Senate. Baker, a moderate Republican who remains opposed to any broad-based tax hikes, could also prove a stumbling block. In brief comments following his re-election on Wednesday, DeLeo declared that "no one's rights will be infringed upon in Massachusetts," an apparent swipe at the policies of President Donald Trump and other Republicans in Washington. DeLeo generally waits until a few weeks into a new session before outlining his legislative priorities. Sen. Bruce Tarr, of Gloucester, and Rep. Brad Jones, of North Reading, will again serve as the minority leaders in their respective chambers. There are 32 Republicans in the House and only six in the Senate, with the GOP having lost a handful of legislative seats in the November election. Claim: State Senate leader outlines agenda as lawmakers sworn in.
The Democratic leader of the Massachusetts Senate promised Wednesday to work for lower prescription drug costs, expanded mental health services and a reform to the state's education funding formula as she laid out an ambitious agenda at the start of the Legislature's new two-year session.

Paragraph: But months later, when her daughter saw a TV ad for a law firm asking ovarian cancer victims who used talcum powder to come forward, Giannecchini realized a possible link: She had been using Johnson & Johnson's baby powder for most of her life. "I used it for 45 years, from age 15," Giannecchini, now 63, said Friday. "I was still using it." On Thursday, a St. Louis jury awarded more than $70 million to Giannecchini, of Modesto, California, wrapping up a monthlong trial. It was the third big verdict awarded by a St. Louis jury against Johnson & Johnson in ovarian cancer lawsuits this year. Combined, the three awards amount to nearly $200 million. Giannecchini said she was happy with the verdict, but it doesn't make up for the cancer fight and ongoing health problems caused by chemotherapy. "There's not enough money in the world to pay for fighting the cancer," she said at a news conference arranged by her lawyers. A spokeswoman for Johnson & Johnson said in a statement that while the company sympathizes with women and their families impacted by ovarian cancer, it will appeal the latest verdict "because we are guided by the science, which supports the safety of Johnson's Baby Powder." About 2,000 women nationwide have filed similar suits over concerns about health damage caused by extended talcum powder use. Lawyers are reviewing many additional cases, many of them generated by television ads by law firms. In February, a St. Louis jury awarded $72 million to relatives of an Alabama woman who died of ovarian cancer. Another jury awarded $55 million in May to a South Dakota survivor of the disease. But two cases in New Jersey were thrown out by a judge who said there wasn't reliable evidence that talc leads to ovarian cancer, an often fatal but relatively rare form of cancer. Ovarian cancer accounts for about 22,000 of the 1.7 million new cases of cancer expected to be diagnosed in the U.S. this year. Factors known to increase a women's risk of ovarian cancer include age, obesity, use of estrogen therapy after menopause, not having any children, certain genetic mutations and personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer. Talc is a mineral that is mined from deposits around the world, including the U.S. The softest of minerals, it's crushed into a white powder. It's been widely used in cosmetics and other personal care products to absorb moisture since at least 1894, when Johnson & Johnson's baby powder was launched. But it's mainly used in a variety of other products, including paint and plastics. Much research has found no link or a weak one between ovarian cancer and using baby powder for feminine hygiene, and most major health groups have declared talc harmless. Still, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies genital use of talc as "possibly carcinogenic." Attorneys with Onder, Shelton, O'Leary & Peterson, the firm that handled all three St. Louis cases, cited other research that began connecting talcum powder to ovarian cancer in the 1970s. They cite case studies showing that women who regularly use talc on their genital area face up to a 40 percent higher risk of developing ovarian cancer. The firm has also accused Johnson & Johnson of marketing toward overweight women, blacks and Hispanics the very same women most at-risk for ovarian cancer. Wylie Blair, an attorney for Giannecchini, said the firm is working with about 1,700 additional plaintiffs. Another trial is scheduled for February. Blair said there has been no talk with Johnson & Johnson concerning a class-action settlement. "Acknowledging that a seminal product that everybody identifies with the company has been causing a horrible disease for all these years is going to be a tough pill to swallow for them," Blair said. Giannecchini said that as of now there is no evidence of cancer, but she won't know for years if she is free of the disease. "One day at a time," she said. "Just stay hopeful." Claim: Talc verdict winner: Money can't make up for lost health.
When Deborah Giannecchini was diagnosed with stage 4 ovarian cancer four years ago, it didn't make sense. She had no family history, nor did she seem a high risk.