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 says the procedure to insert stents costs from $11,000 to $41,000 in the U.S. The story makes clear there was no significant difference between a sham procedure or stent insertion, but it only describes the benefit as "less pain." We would like to see how the pain was measured, some numbers on how much pain was reduced, and how many patients benefitted in each group. The story briefly mentions there are potential harms, including death. The story describes the study's methods in some detail the sham surgery of the control group, for instance and mentions the size of the study and the characteristics of the subjects. It adds heft to the sense that this was a very good study with multiple reactions from expert sources "humbling," "unbelievable," "impressive" and "very well conducted." Importantly, it quotes one source describing a few desired measures that the study didn't address, such as whether stents would be more effective in patients with more severe disease or who were studied for a longer period of time. The story could have done a better job of explicitly calling attention to the relatively small number of participants and the need for confirmatory follow-up studies. Heart disease is very common in our society and opening up blocked arteries is a common almost routine procedure. No disease mongering occurred in the article. We were pleased to see discussion from many experts, however, the story left out two important potential conflicts of interest. The story states that: Dr. William E. Boden, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Boston University School of Medicine, called the results "unbelievable." Readers should have been informed that Boden has received fees from Abbott, a major stent device maker. Also, the story states that: Dr. David Maron, a cardiologist at Stanford University, praised the new study as "very well conducted" but said that it left some questions unanswered. The participants had a profound blockage but only in one artery, he noted, and they were assessed after just six weeks. The story didn't disclose that Dr. Maron is an "employee of and stockholder in Cardiovascular Services of America, which provides outpatient cardiac catheterization and computed tomography angiography services," which was disclosed here. The story (and the study) suggest that medication can manage pain from blocked arteries. Stenting procedures are clearly widely available in the U.S. and across the world. What's less clear, the story says, is whether guidelines or practice for stenting will change in the U.S.: "The idea that stenting relieves chest pain is so ingrained that some experts said they expect most doctors will continue with stenting, reasoning that the new research is just one study." We thought this was an interesting point and are glad it was included. The many expressions of surprise by practicing cardiologists makes clear that the study offers a novel finding. The story did not rely on the news release. Claim: 'Unbelievable': Heart Stents Fail to Ease Chest Pain

A: This New York Times story describes startling news that a very common procedureinserting a stent to open a blocked blood vesseldoes not add benefit over medication in patients with angina. Angina is chest pain due to blocked heart arteries, and is common among people with heart disease. Sourcing is a strong point for this story: It features perspective from many American cardiologists who were shocked to learn of the negative results from this study. However, two important potential conflicts of interest among the sources were not disclosed. In addition, the story contains lots of helpful detail on the limitations of the study, the possibility that placebo effects are at play, and how medical practice may or may not change as a result. It also discussed the costs and potential harms of stenting procedures. That said, the story could have provided more information on what the study itself measuredand what, precisely, the results were. The Wall Street Journal story, which we also reviewed, was stronger on this point. Heart disease is still the leading killer of Americans so any news about treating aspects of heart disease, such as blocked arteries, is newsworthy. In addition, this story suggests that stenting common, but expensive is a prime example of over-treatment. Also the procedure carries some risk and may be causing complications if overused.
****
Q: Paragraph: Given that the premise of the story is explaining there is no benefit to taking these supplements, we'll rate this N/A. That said, it would have been interesting to explore the cost-savings for people if they decide to stop buying calcium and vitamin D. The story does a good job of letting readers know that there was no statistically significant benefit to taking calcium and vitamin D, based on the researchers' systematic review of the evidence. The story cited one instance of harms, saying: "for people who started out with at least 20 nanograms of vitamin D per milliliter of blood, adding more vitamin D through supplements was associated with a greater risk of hip fractures." We also wanted to see a mention of potential harms of calcium, such as kidney stones. Another common side effect is excess gas and one potential harm of high doses is cardiovascular complications such as heart attack. The story hits some key points including the number of studies reviewed, potential confounding factors accounted for, and details about selection criteria. For instance, women on hormone replacement therapy, for whom there's evidence for the benefits of supplementation were excluded from the current analysis. That's a key point for postmenopausal women reading the story. Also the story makes clear that this study examined older adults who live in their own homes and therefore does not apply to older adults who live in nursing homes or similar institutions. Well done. The story does not engage in disease-mongering. It correctly states the risk of broken bones in people over age 50 and the risk of death in older people who break a hip. This story will also help reduce over-treatment and over-medicating of older adults, which is common. The only source quoted for the article is the study itself. There are no quotes from independent expert sources. The story references getting calcium from one's diet and getting vitamin D from sun exposure. We think it's safe to presume that readers know that vitamin and mineral supplements are widely available. The story does a good job of making clear previous claims of benefit from calcium and vitamin D supplementation. This large meta-analysis will provide some clarity of the questions surrounding using these supplements for bone health. The story does not appear to rely on a news release. Claim: Do you take calcium and vitamin D to protect your bones? A new study says it doesn't help

A: Getty Images Reporting on a large review study, this Los Angeles Times article walks readers through the conflicting advice and evidence about calcium and vitamin D supplements. Both compounds play roles in bone health and the routinely accepted claim is that supplementation can help prevent bone breaks in older people. This new meta-analysis shows that claim is not supported by evidence: not for calcium pills, vitamin D pills, or the two in combination. The story is well-done on several points, particularly on explaining how this study worked and what it found. The story would have been stronger if it had included some commentary from experts in the field who were not associated with the study to help put this recent, apparently strong finding, into context for readers. More than two million so-called fragility fractures breaks that wouldn't happen in a younger person, often related to the bone loss of osteoporosisoccur every year in the US. Preventing fragility means attending to bone health, which currently centers around exercise and getting enough calcium and vitamin D. Supplementation is an easy way to make sure a person takes in enough of the mineral and the vitamin, and yet, it's important to understand whether routine supplementation actually prevents bone breaks.
****
Q: Paragraph: The wheelchair-bound Hawking was diagnosed with motor neurone disease aged 21 and told he had two to three years to live. Now 71, he is one of the world's leading scientists, known especially for his work on black holes and as author of the international bestseller "A Brief History of Time". Speaking ahead of the release of a documentary about his life this week, Hawking said he backed the right to die but only if the person involved had chosen that route. He recalled how he was once put on a life support machine after suffering pneumonia and his wife was given the option of switching off the machine but this is not something he wanted. "I think those who have a terminal illness and are in great pain should have the right to choose to end their lives, and those who help them should be free from prosecution," Hawking told the BBC. "There must be safeguards that the person concerned genuinely wants to end their life and are not being pressurized into it or have it done without their knowledge and consent as would have been the case with me." Assisted suicide is illegal in Britain and the issue of whether or not to decriminalize it for people whose lives are unbearable is a matter of debate in many countries. Right-to-die advocates say people capable of making that decision should be allowed to die with dignity. Opponents say liberalizing the law could leave vulnerable people at risk. Switzerland and several U.S. states are among places where some forms of euthanasia or assisted suicide are legal under certain circumstances. Hawking, who has made guest appearances in TV shows such as The Simpsons and Star Trek, says his active mind and sense of humor are key to his survival. Hawking communicates via a cheek muscle linked to a sensor and computerized voice system. He urged anyone with a disability to focus on what they can do and not regret what they cannot do. "Theoretical physics is one field where being disabled is not a handicap. It is all in the mind," said the scientist, who works at Cambridge University. The documentary "Hawking" by Vertigo Films is due to be released in Britain on September 20. Claim: British cosmologist Hawking backs right to assisted suicide.

A:
British cosmologist Stephen Hawking has backed the right for people who are terminally ill to choose to end their lives and to receive help to do so as long as safeguards are in place.
****