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.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: "The cost of the drug wasn't mentioned a big oversight. Other news stories pegged it at about $35,000 a year. Adequate job. The story explained: ""But experts stress that Benlysta is not a miracle drug: It only worked in 35 percent of North American patients tested and was not effective for patients with the deadliest form of the disease. Additionally, it did not show positive results in African Americans, who are disproportionately affected by lupus."" There was no discussion of harms. An NPR story, by comparison, pointed out that ""There are side effects, of course, and some of them are pretty serious. In clinical tests involving about 2,100 people, 11 taking Benlysta died compared with 4 getting placebo. About 6 percent of people taking Benlysta got serious infections compared with 5.2 percent on placebo."" The story offered an interesting historical perspective on the evidence: ""The company originally tested Benlysta, known generically as belimumab, as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. When a mid-stage trial in lupus patients failed to meet researchers' goals in 2006, many analysts wrote the drug off and downgraded the company's stock. But when scientists reanalyzed the data they found that the drug helped block the antibodies that cause lupus symptoms in a subset of patients."" No disease mongering of lupus. Two independent sources were quoted. Not applicable. With no other new drug approved for lupus in 56 years, there's not been much to compare it with. The story did state that some experts thought this ""could prompt development of other drugs that are even more effective in treating the debilitating immune system disorder."" The focus of the story is FDA approval of the new drug. The headline explains that the FDA approved the first new drug for lupus in 56 years. It's clear the story did not rely solely on a news release." Claim: FDA approves first new drug for lupus in 56 years

Ex Output:
"Good caveats, including in the patient profiled, who said, ""It's a bittersweet thing for me because I have friends with lupus for whom this drug won't work. There's no one-size-fits-all for lupus and I'm just extremely fortunate that my lupus is mild and is helped by Benlysta."" The story should have discussed potential harms and costs. As the story explained, this was not only the first new lupus drug approved in 56 years, but it could be ""a milestone that medical experts say could prompt development of other drugs that are even more effective in treating the debilitating immune system disorder."""

Ex Input:
Paragraph: "There is no mention of cost. The story could have at least reported what the drug costs in its current use against blood cancer. The story did a good job of explaining both the potential benefits and harms of the drugs. This was a particular strength of this story and made it stand out in comparison with the LA Times blog story that we also reviewed. Harms were emphasized from the outset even in the headline in the AP story but were never mentioned in the LA Times story. And this story reminded readers of the side effects encountered with another MS drug, Tysabri. Outstanding job on this issue by the AP. The story did a very good job of explaining the studies. There is no sign of disease-mongering in this story. Two apparently independent sources were quoted. The story did a good job comparing the new drugs with existing approaches to treat MS. Story explains that the drug is already sold to treat a rare blood cancer and stated that ""it's too soon to know if the pills will be approved by the government or widely adopted by physicians."" It does not report, however, as the LA TImes blog did, that ""The drug company MD Serono, an affiliate of Merck, has requested approval from the Food and Drug Administration to market the tablet. However it recently received a ""refuse to file"" letter from the FDA, which means the agency is requiring additional information or data. MD Serono said it is pursuing the matter with the FDA and hopes to re-submit its application."" We think that's a crucial piece of information that affects availability, although, of course, doctors can still prescribe it for off-label use even before the FDA acts on the new request. The novelty of ""tests of the first two oral drugs developed for treating MS"" was clear in the story. It is clear that this story did not rely on a news release." Claim: MS pills show promise and risk, studies say

Ex Output:
Nice job explaining harms and benefits including putting the potential risks/harms right in the headline. The appeal of an oral drug for MS is clear. The risks emphasized in this story, though, raise important questions

Ex Input:
Paragraph: "President Donald Trump's answer to criticism of the U.S. coronavirus response is partly that Joe Biden wouldn't do any better. Trump points, sometimes wrongly, to Obama-era history, when Joe Biden was the new vice president and the country was dealing with swine flu. On Twitter, an account managed by Trump's campaign went on the defensive with an attack on Biden's handling of the H1N1 virus, just hours before Biden announced what he thought the Trump administration should be doing. That March 12 tweet from @TrumpWarRoom says: ""Joe Biden will again politicize coronavirus today. But his record on pandemics is one of incompetence. During the 2009 swine flu outbreak, Biden made reckless comments unsupported by science & the experts. The Obama Admin had to clean up his mess & apologize for his ineptitude."" Biden's statement had to do with the way germs travel through an aircraft. We fact-checked his statement and rated it back in 2009. We decided to take a fresh look at the Trump team's tweet in 2020. Joe Biden will again politicize coronavirus today. But his record on pandemics is one of incompetence.During the 2009 swine flu outbreak, Biden made reckless comments unsupported by science & the experts.The Obama Admin had to clean up his mess & apologize for his ineptitude. pic.twitter.com/5TCKZeShkz The swine flu epidemic, or H1N1, was detected in the U.S. in April 2009. The first cases were found in Mexico before rapidly spreading around the world. The U.S. declared a public health emergency on April 26, and President Barack Obama upped that to a national emergency in late October. Biden went on the Today Show on April 30, 2009, to talk about the outbreak. Then-host Matt Lauer asked Biden, ""If a member of your family came to you and said, 'Look, I want to go on a commercial airliner to Mexico and back,' within the next week, would you think it's a good idea?"" Biden said he would tell them not to be in a confined place, and he gave his reason. ""It's not that it's going to Mexico, it's you're in a confined aircraft,"" Biden said. ""When one person sneezes it goes all the way through the aircraft."" He said he would not suggest taking the subway, either. ""If you're out in the middle of a field and someone sneezes, that's one thing; if you're in a closed aircraft or closed container or closed car or closed classroom, it's a different thing."" Biden's comment drew criticism over fear-mongering, particularly from the travel industry, and experts told us Biden got it wrong. In our 2009 fact-check, we consulted Dr. Tony Overfelt from Auburn University's National Air Transportation Center, which specializes in studying aircraft environment. At the time, Overfelt said that the air in a commercial jet flows from vents above passengers' heads to vents in the floor at their feet. That airflow sends particles down to the floor and into the aircraft's filtration system. The particles from a sneeze ""might travel a row or a couple of rows or something like that,"" Overfelt said. ""They're really not going to travel up and down the airplane as our vice president said."" The tweet said the Obama administration had to ""clean up"" Biden's mess and ""apologize for his ineptitude."" There was cleanup, including a half-hearted apology if anyone was ""unduly alarmed."" A spokesperson for Biden's office released a statement hours later to clarify what he said. They said Biden's advice lined up with the administration's: that people should avoid unnecessary air travel to and from Mexico. ""If they are sick, they should avoid airplanes and other confined public spaces, such as subways,"" the statement said. ""This is the advice the vice president has given family members who are traveling by commercial airline this week."" Biden's presidential campaign declined to comment. As shown in the Trump Warm Room tweet, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs responded to Biden's remark in the White House briefing. ""I think what the vice president meant to say was the same thing that, again, many members have said in the last few days, and that is, if you feel sick, if you are exhibiting symptoms, flu-like symptoms coughing, sneezing, runny nose that you should take precautions, that you should limit your travel,"" Gibbs said on April 30. A reporter then says that wasn't ""remotely close"" to what Biden said, to which Gibbs responded: ""I understand what he said and I'm telling you what he meant to say ... Obviously if anybody was unduly alarmed for whatever reason, we would apologize for that and I hope that my remarks and remarks of the people of the CDC and Secretary Napolitano have appropriately cleared up what he meant to say."" A Twitter account run by the Trump campaign tweeted that, during the 2009 swine flu outbreak, Biden made ""reckless comments"" unsupported by science and the Obama Administration had to clean up the mess and apologize for it. During a television interview, Biden said he would advise his family not to travel in confined places, and claimed that when one person sneezes ""it goes all the way through an aircraft."" His comments were met with backlash for inducing fear, and his spokesperson issued a statement to clarify his words. Experts said the statement on how germs travel was inaccurate. The claim is accurate but needs clarification or additional information." Claim: "During the 2009 swine flu outbreak, Biden made reckless comments unsupported by science & the experts. The Obama Admin had to clean up his mess & apologize for his ineptitude."

Ex Output:
During the 2009 swine flu outbreak, Biden said he would advise his family against traveling in confined places and said when one person sneezes "it goes all the way through an aircraft." Scientists say that's not how germs spread. Biden's comments were met with backlash and his spokesperson issued a clarification. The Obama administration did not issue a formal apology about his comments.