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: "Independents need to know they can invest their vote in the Democratic Party," Carter said Tuesday during his annual report at his post-presidential center and library in Atlanta, where he offered caution about the political consequences should Democrats "move to a very liberal program, like universal health care." That's delicate and, Carter admitted, even contradictory advice coming from the 93-year-old former president, and it underscores the complicated political calculations for Democrats as they prepare for the November midterms and look ahead to the 2020 presidential election. "Rosie and I voted for Bernie Sanders in the past," Carter noted. He was referring to his wife, Rosalynn, and their support for the Vermont senator, an independent who identifies as a democratic socialist, over establishment favorite Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary. At another point, he pointed to California's environmental policies limits on carbon emissions, stiffer fuel-efficiency standards as the model for combating climate change. Still, Carter stressed, Democrats nationally must "appeal to independents" who are souring on the current administration. Trump's job approval rating, according to Gallup, has dipped to 40 percent, mostly because of declining support among independents. Carter alluded to arguments from self-identified progressives that Democrats will sacrifice votes on the left if they don't embrace the liberal base: "I don't think any Democrat is going to vote against a Democratic nominee," and he insisted that he's not asking the left to sacrifice its goals, only to see that winning elections is necessary to accomplish any of them. There is some historical irony in Carter's analysis. He came to the White House in 1976 from the moderate wing of the Democratic Party, and he clashed with party liberals, drawing a spirited primary challenge in 1980 from Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy. Carter prevailed, but he was wounded, abandoned by Kennedy's most liberal supporters and unable to win over independents who helped deliver a landslide for Republican Ronald Reagan. Carter's latest handicapping comes near the conclusion of a midterm primary season that has seen Democratic primary voters move the party to the left. In some states and districts, that means nominating full-throated advocates of single-payer health care, a $15 minimum wage and abolishing or at least overhauling the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. In other races, it means nominees who back more cautious moves to the left, such as background checks before certain gun purchases, a "public option" health insurance plan to compete alongside private insurance policies, step raises for the minimum wage and an immigration overhaul that offers legal status to some immigrants in the country illegally. Carter did not delve into those distinctions, instead offering a sweeping condemnation of his latest successor to remind Democrats of the stakes. He denounced the administration's latest environmental policy proposal to make it easier for energy companies to release methane gas that contributes to climate change. He singled out Trump's policy of separating immigrant families at the border, including those seeking asylum. "America is inherently committed to human rights, and I think in the future we will let that prevail," Carter said, "but for the next two years, I can't predict the imprisoned children are going to be any better off unfortunately." Carter has previously criticized Trump for his repeated falsehoods, and he's chided Trump for his hardline support for Israel over Palestinians. Yet Carter has found common ground with Trump on other foreign policy fronts, and did so again Tuesday. While avoiding any mention of the special counsel's investigation into whether Trump's presidential campaign coordinated with Russia in the 2016 U.S. election, Carter said he has engaged for years with Russian President Vladimir Putin concerning the ongoing Syrian civil war. "I have his email address," Carter said, adding that he and Putin share the same Russian river as their favorite spot for salmon fishing. That friendship, Carter said, means when Russia and other nations hold multilateral talks about the Syrian conflict, "Quite often they invite the Carter Center. ... They do not invite the U.S. government." Carter also praised Trump for meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Carter repeated his frustrations with the last Democratic president, Barack Obama, for not engaging more directly with the insular Asian nation. Carter said he's not sure Trump has made real progress yet with North Korea, but he endorsed calls for the U.S. to formally declare an end to the Korean War and normalize relations with Pyongyang. "Let them be part of the community of nations," he said. "I think that would be enough in itself to bring an end to the nuclear program in North Korea." ___ Follow Barrow on Twitter at https://twitter.com/BillBarrowAP Claim: Jimmy Carter: To beat Trump, Dems cannot scare off moderates.
Former President Jimmy Carter sees little hope for the U.S. to change its human rights and environmental policies as long as Donald Trump is in the White House, but he has a warning for his fellow Democrats looking to oust the current administration: Don't go too far to the left.

Paragraph: Data from the 236-patient trial, which lasted 13 weeks and compared the effectiveness of Cymbalta with placebos, were presented at the annual congress of the European Federation of Neurological Societies in Madrid. Lilly said 31 percent of patients taking Cymbalta experienced a 50 percent reduction in pain, as measured by a standard pain scale, compared with 19 percent of placebo-treated patients. But significantly more patients taking Cymbalta dropped out of the trial because of side effects, which included nausea, dry mouth, fatigue, diarrhea, excessive sweating, dizziness and constipation. Lilly said side effects were similar to those seen in previous trials of Cymbalta for other conditions. Global second-quarter sales of Cymbalta, one of Lilly's biggest products, jumped 26 percent to $654 million, helped by its other approved uses to treat fibromyalgia and generalized anxiety disorder. The drug works by maximizing the presence of two messenger chemicals in the brain, serotonin and norepinephrine. Claim: Lilly depression drug eases back pain in study.
Eli Lilly and Co's Cymbalta depression treatment significantly reduced chronic low back pain in a relatively small clinical trial, the company said on Monday.

Paragraph: Although this therapy only exists for patients in clinical trials, we still think cost should have received more than a single word of attention. "The method is complex and costly," the story stated. Our quick review identified a Wall Street Journal article suggesting that the cost could be as high as $500,000 per patient roughly equivalent to a stem cell transplant. The story's focus on the anecdotal success story of one patient, Bill Ludwig, had the potential to confuse readers since his experience was not typical. However, wethink that the story managed to combine his real-life story along with some generalizable information on the treatment success in a straightforward fashion. The story includes these details: Of the first 14 CLL patients given the T-cell therapy, four had their cancers disappear including the first two, who are now about five years cancer-free. Four others got better but then their cancer progressed. And six had no response to the T-cell therapy. In addition to those results, published last week in Science Translational Medicine, the Penn team has orally presented data for a total of 38 CLL patients. Cancer disappeared in nine (24 percent), and temporarily regressed in another nine. We especially liked the last line,"They've never said 'cured.' But 'cancer-free' works for me." The patient, Ludwig, who was ultimately "cancer free," suffered some serious complications. The story talks about these, but we would have preferred more discussion of the overall risks or harms and not just an anecdotal description. Ludwig "suffered catastrophic side effects as his immune system went into overdrive," the story stated. He had to spend time in intensive care with his organs failing. The story is silent on whether many or most patients who received the therapy suffered harms. Researcher Walter Urba says, "Everything we do in oncology is a risk-benefit balance." These clinical trials for T-cell therapy have enrolled a small number of patients nationally, so there is not the typical history of studies in thousands of people that might be available for other treatments. The story clearly describes the small number of subjects treated to date and provides absolute numbers in terms of success and failures of treatment. Researcher Walter Urba gives some context: "I suspect that over time we'll have better T-cell therapies, maybe given with other immune therapies." There is no disease mongering. The story quotes an expert who was not involved with the study. It contrasts statements the researcher made 4 years ago about the treatment with his thoughts following publication of the new findings an interesting comparison. However, we must rate the story Not Satisfactory here for its lack of discussion of funding for the study, which came in part from the pharmaceutical company Novartis. In addition, one of the study authors is a Novartis employee, and the expert mentioned above is a paid consultant to Bristol Myers Squibb, which is also developing immunotherapies. The story does note that "pharmaceutical giant Novartis partnered with Penn, aiming to commercialize the breakthrough," but the extent of commercial involvement in the study that's discussed isn't clear. The story provides a bit of insight into the tough road that many patients with leukemia travel: "The retired corrections officer from Bridgeton, N.J., was losing his decadelong battle with CLL when he agreed to try the novel therapy in August 2010. "I didn't hesitate because I had no options left," he recalled last week. "And also, these people at Penn had been so wonderful to me and my family for 10 years.".."CLL typically progresses more slowly than other types of leukemia, and may be held in check for years with chemotherapy." Since the story does at least mention one alternative approach chemotherapy we'll give the benefit of the doubt. However, we would have preferred to see just a bit more information on alternative strategies. Single and combination drug therapies are available along with stem cell transplantation; these are all existing alternative to T-cell therapies. The story is clearly about clinical trials only open to select patients. The story explains how the T-cell therapy is novel. The story shows independent reporting beyond any news release. Claim: T-cell therapy results more modest than hoped for chronic leukemia
Patient Bill Ludwig is the focus of this story on a leukemia therapy. Early results of T-cell therapy raised hopes for some leukemia patients, but immunotherapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia is proving helpful only for a minority of those who receive it. In this story, an early pioneer patient shares the terrifying lows and ultimate high of his journey. While the use of a single patient anecdote in a news story is often a red flag for us, this patient's perspective is uniquely engaging and informative. Even though he has benefited from the procedure, he details the significant side effects he faced and calls attention to the fact that most others with the disease have not fared as well. It's not the cheerleading-type narrative that we often see with single-patient-focused stories. Overall the coverage provided a very human story interwoven with a bit of medical science. This story about the emerging science of immunotherapy provides a vivid look inside the near-death complications for one man and the disappointment that only a minority of chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients go into remission after the experimental therapy in which each patient's T-cells are engineered to attack their own disease. We would have liked more detail in places, but this story (and headline) helps the public understand the uncertain world of clinical research. "Thrilling, humbling and a bit of a let-down," the patient called it and that's a great summary.