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: In February 2020, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh announced that he had been diagnosed with lung cancer. While U.S. President Donald Trump honored the controversial commentator with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, some social media users noted that Limbaugh had a history of making demeaning comments on his program. For instance, one widely shared video clip supposedly showed Limbaugh mocking actor Michael J. Fox and claiming that he was "exaggerating" symptoms of his Parkinson's disease. Just A Quick Reminder Of The Time Rush Limbaugh Mocked Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's By Pretending To Shake Uncontrollably. pic.twitter.com/dX3L0jtnUv Austin (@austin63867) February 3, 2020 This is a genuine clip of Limbaugh describing Fox on his program. Media Matters archived the full audio of this segment, which originally aired during an Oct. 23, 2006, episode of Limbaugh's radio show. Here's a partial transcript of the segment: In this commercial he is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He is moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. This is the only time I've ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any of the symptoms of the disease he has. He can control himself to keep himself in the frame of the picture. And he can control himself enough to keep his eyes right on the lens, the teleprompter. But his head and shoulders are moving all over the place. This is really shameless, folks. This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting. Fox, who is probably best known for playing young conservative Alex P. Keaton on the show "Family Ties" and the time-traveling high school student Marty McFly in the "Back to the Future" series, was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease in 1991. In 2006, he filmed a 30-second ad for former Democratic U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill and her support of stem cell research: Limbaugh was commenting on this advertisement in the above-displayed clip. The segment stirred considerable controversy at the time and even drew an apology from Limbaugh. The Guardian reported: "Hours later the talkshow host was forced to retract. 'I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong. '" While Limbaugh initially apologized, he would later say on his show that he never made fun of Fox and that this controversy was created by the "drive-by" media. Limbaugh also renewed attacks on Fox and said that the actor was "allowing his illness to be exploited" and was "shilling for a Democratic politician." The Washington Post reported: After his apology, Limbaugh shifted his ground and renewed his attack on Fox. "Now people are telling me they have seen Michael J. Fox in interviews and he does appear the same way in the interviews as he does in this commercial," Limbaugh said, according to a transcript on his Web site. "All right then, I stand corrected. . . . So I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox, if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act." Claim: "Radio host Rush Limbaugh once claimed that actor Michael J. Fox was ""exaggerating"" his Parkinson's disease symptoms in a political ad."

A: Then Limbaugh pivoted to a different critique: "Michael J. Fox is allowing his illness to be exploited and in the process is shilling for a Democratic politician."
****
Q: Paragraph: Brattleboro Retreat Board Chair Elizabeth Catlin said the organization is ready to work "with all willing partners" to help it achieve financial stability. The board began considering its options last week when the state of Vermont rejected a $2 million request for additional funding. "In recent years, the Brattleboro Retreat's board and its management team have taken a number of creative, cost-conscious steps to reshape and modernize hospital operations while meeting the rising tide of soaring labor costs," said Catlin's statement. "The Brattleboro Retreat's quality of care, even with these financial pressures, continues to be excellent." The facility serves more than half the people in Vermont who need psychiatric care and provides all of the child and adolescent psychiatric care in the state. It also provides addiction services including inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation, and treatment services for those who get Suboxone, a prescription medication used to treat opioid addictions. If it closes, the letter said that would mean finding services for 2,500 inpatients annually as well as filling new gaps for Suboxone treatment services, residential programs for children and meeting other critical health needs. On Sunday, Vermont Human Services Secretary Michael Smith said he had rejected a request for an additional $2 million in funding from the retreat. That request would be added to a financial package valued at an estimated $16 million for new beds and a recent rate increase valued at an estimated $3.5 million per year. Smith said he rejected the request in part because he believes it would constitute a taxpayer bailout of financial miscalculations by Brattleboro Retreat's management. But Josephson said the state wasn't paying it enough to care for the patients the state wants cared for. On Friday, Josephson sent a letter Friday to Smith and Gov. Phil Scott, a Republican, that said the facility cannot continue operating without more support from the state. He said the board had authorized him to begin planning for the sale or closure of the retreat "in the very near future." Claim: Psych hospital's financial woes won't stop services, for now.

A: Officials at Vermont's largest private psychiatric hospital said Monday they are dedicated to providing quality mental health care to patients amid the possibility of the facility shuttering or being forced into a sale.
****
Q: Paragraph: Although it is not known how much abaloparatide will cost at this stage, the article does discussthe costof its would-be competitor, Forteo, which costs about $2,500 a month for those without insurance. The story does agoodjob discussingthe quantitative evidence from the study. (The few missteps, which are actually quite critical in their nature, were related to a not-entirely-adequate grasp of the study design. This we discuss in detail in a separate criterion, Quality of Evidence, below.) The story discusses several measures by which the effectiveness of abaloparatide was compared to the placebo (and Forteo), including the number of spine fractures, the number of other types of fractures, and the number of cases of hypercalcemia. And it does so using actual numbers. For example: "Fewer women on the injectable drug abaloparatide had spine fractures (0.58 percent) than women receiving a placebo (4.22 percent)" The story lists nausea and heart palpitations among the serious side effects of both abaloparatide and Forteo. The story contains a subtle misunderstandingof the study design that leads it to misinterpret the quantitative evidence for abaloparatide and Forteo. The study's presentation of the quantitative results suggest that the figures can be directly juxtaposed for the two drugs, when this is not actually the case. Toward the end of the research article on which the story is based, we have the following statement: "Comparison of abaloparatide vs teriparatide [Forteo] for the primaryefficacy end point [cases of spine fractures] was not part of the study objectivesbecause the study would have required a sample size of approximately22,000 per treatment group to provide 90% powerto detect the treatment difference between abaloparatide (observedrate, 0.58%) and teriparatide (observed rate, 0.84%)based on our study results." This effectivelymeans that comparing the 0.58% observed rate of spine fractures under abaloparatide and the 0.84% rate under Forteo, is, quite simply put, rather meaningless. The clinical trial study was never powered to discover a significant difference between the two, i.e. the study was not designed to be able to detect any meaningful difference. Indeed, the statements by Dr. Caroline Messer, interviewed in the story, and the research article's accompanying editorial, partly reprinted at the end of the story, both emphasize that this research study does not in fact compare abaloparatide directly to Forteo. Another minor point is that Forteo had to be injected via its trademarked injection pen in the study, rather than subcutaneously as was done with abaloparatide and the placebo. This obviously has implications for the blinded nature of the study. While an ideal clinical trial is double-blinded, in this case both patients and doctors knew when Forteo was being administered. The story shares the fact that "A study based on 2010 U.S. Census data estimated that more than 3 million women between the ages of 50 and 69 have osteoporosis. A 60-year-old woman has a 44 percent lifetime risk of fracture due to low bone density." An explanation of the term "lifetime risk" would be helpful to the reader. (In this setting, it meansthe probability of experiencing a fracture during the remaining years of life. In fact, the figure reported is really a "residual lifetime risk.") Now for a slight tangent: It is great that the story chose to report an absolute risk here rather than a relative risk. This is a point we at HealthNewsReview.org try to hammer home. In a 2007 article in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, Nguyen et. al. in their article titled "Residual lifetime risk of fractures in women and men" had the following comment on relative versus absolute risk: Communication of risk in the osteoporosis field has traditionally relied on the concept of relative risk. However, relative risk can be misleading to patients and clinicians,(42) because the interpretation of a relative risk or its change is highly dependent on the baseline risk. For instance, doubling a minor risk is still minor, but doubling a common risk is alarming. It is therefore desirable that individuals who have BMD measurements be informed about their fracture probability risk category instead of their relative scores. (4) The lifetime risk estimates from this study provide such a means for communication of risk to an individual patient. Dr. Caroline Messer of the Center for Pituitary and Neuroendocrine Disorders at Lenox Hill Hospital was interviewed as an independent source. She correctly pointed out that a head-to-head trial directly comparing Forteo and abaloparatide is needed in the next step of research. The story also discloses that the research study wasfunded by the maker of abaloparatide, Radius Health. However, the story doesn'tpoint out that the study author (whom they quote extensively) also serves on a Radius Health Advisory Board. The story describes Forteo, the current dominant drug on the market for treating low bone mineral density. But see Quality of Evidence section above for how this could have been done better. The story states that abaloparatide is currently in a Phase 3 trial stage. The story does not make clear the novelty of abaloparatide, and seems to focus rather on the similarities between it and Forteo. The story does not appear to rely on a news release. Claim: Injected Drug May Help Fight Osteoporosis in Women

A:
The story reports on research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association studying an experimental drug known as abaloparatideand its ability to prevent anew vertebral fracture in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. A standout positive for this story is its choiceto reportthe absolute risk, rather than relative risk, of fracture due to low bone density (see Disease Mongering criterion below). Read more on why this matters. But, there are a few problemsconcerning the subtleties of the study design. Specifically, the research study was not powered to detect significant differences between abaloparatide and its currently-available competitor,Forteo (teriparatide). Thus, any juxtaposition of quantitative figures comparing the efficacy of the two drugs must be presented with important caveats,which we didn't see emphasized enough in the news story. Instead, the story leads with a claim thatabaloparatide reduces fracture risk "better" than the competing drugsomething the study wasn't designed to address and which is misleading. We'd note that a JAMA news release about the study, which we also reviewed, largely sidesteps this issue by avoiding any statements that directly compare the two drugs. But could the release have helped reporters out here by making a clear, unambiguous statement regarding the purpose of the study and its limitations? The researchers include such a statement in the text of the research article itself (see below under the "Evidence" criterion), and in hindsight it seems that the news release would have done well to emphasize this key nuance. Another way journalists can avoid this problem? Emphasizethe findings related to the study's primary endpoints, and always read the study's discussion and limitations sections to find important caveats. Accompanying editorials also often have illuminating points to make, too. Given the prevalence of osteoporosis, paired with the few treatment options, a new safe, effective medication would be welcomed. Accurate distillation of the research is essential in news coverage.
****