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: The two Massachusetts Democrats this week sent a letter to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases within the National Institutes of Health seeking the current state of federal research into EEE and whether research into other viruses could help lead to better treatment for the mosquito-borne infection. Two new human cases of EEE were confirmed in Massachusetts this week, bringing the total this season to seven. One of the previously announced cases was fatal. There are now 36 communities statewide at critical risk, 42 at high risk, and 115 at moderate risk. Massachusetts has seen a disproportionately high number of EEE cases since 2009, second only to Florida. Claim: Sens. Markey, Warren press health officials on EEE research.
U.S. Sens. Edward Markey and Elizabeth Warren are pressing federal health officials on research efforts to combat eastern equine encephalitis.

Paragraph: It’s true that eos lip balm users have reported finding black mold inside the product. Reports of black mold found inside eos lip balm have sporadically appeared on social media for years. In February of 2015, one eos lip balm user’s  account of finding black mold inside a container of half-used lip balm gained a lot of attention on Facebook: “I really liked your lip balm, until I got to the middle of mine and found the bottom was full of mold. I thought there was an air bubble in the middle, but it turns out it was a blob of mold. I tried to scrape it off, but it went all the way down to the bottom of the container. Super disappointed and disgusted. That was a waste of my money, and I won’t be buying any of your products again.” In the comments section under the post, many people uploaded  photos of eos lip balm speckled with what they call black mold. And these reports aren’t necessarily new, either. Online reports of black mold found inside of eos lip balm date back to 2012. For its part, eos responded on Facebook that it “very occasionally” gets reports of its lip balm users finding black mold because it’s a  natural product that doesn’t contain any preservatives: “We do very occasionally hear of this. Mold will grow on many surfaces, especially warm and moist places and on products with natural ingredients. The best way to prevent this is to try to not get the lip balm itself wet when applying it (apply to dry lips) and/or let any moisture that’s on the lip balm dry before you put the top back on. I hope this helps and thank you for using our products. “While mold very rarely grows on our lip balm, it has been known to happen, especially with all-natural ingredients. Our policy is that we’re happy to replace any defective lip balm so long as the customer provides a picture. So if you want to send a picture of the moldy lip balm to  [email protected], we’d be happy to send a coupon for a replacement. Thanks again for the feedback as it helps us improve.” The USDA  reports that most molds found on food and consumer products are not toxic, but it is possible for some varieties to cause allergic reactions or respiratory problems. Comments Claim:   Black mold has been found inside eos lip balm containers. 
Customers Find Black Mold Inside Eos Lip Balm.  

Paragraph: We’ll give this story a Satisfactory rating in this category since it does mention the $1,000 cost of a colonoscopy and that one of the two at-home screening tests costs about $25. But readers would benefit more by knowing the average costs of the two alternatives, rather than just the cost of one. This story focuses on the available methods of colorectal screening, comparing them based on available data, and points out that the two at-home screening kits are comparably effective to the two invasive procedures: sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. One of the at-home tests — the FIT, or fecal immunochemical test — when used, is estimated to prevent 20-23 deaths per thousand people screened, while estimates among those using colonoscopy suggest 22-24 deaths are prevented per thousand people screened. The story is clear in saying that there has been no head-to-head comparative study pitting the techniques against each other. The story gets a Satisfactory rating here since it does mention that with colonoscopy, there’s “a small but real risk of harm, such as a perforation” from the screening test. But, as with all screening methods, there is the possibility of false positives or false negatives with the at-home tests which could produce either false confidence or needless worry, not insignificant issues. We would have liked the story even better had it mentioned these factors. The story is quite open with the fact that comparative data assessing the various screening methods against each other are not available, but it strengthens its offerings by citing recommendations from both the US Preventive Services Task Force and the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. The recommendations of these independent groups are based on a rigorous evaluation of the highest-quality evidence available. Colon cancer is the second-leading form of cancer-related death in the country; the story does not disease monger. The story quotes three independent sources for information and the recommendations of agencies from two different governments. There is no suggestion that in a story offering a selection of screening techniques, with no one preferred above another, that there is any issue with conflicts of interest. Since this story is totally about the available alternatives for colorectal cancer screening, it easily gets a Satisfactory rating. Both colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy have been available for years and the at-home screening tests mentioned in the story are said to be available through a patient’s doctor’s office. These details establish the methods’ availability. It also quotes one source as recommending against the use of over-the-counter home screening tests for this disease. The story notes that what’s novel here is that the U.S. Preventive Task Force recently finalized their guidelines on colon cancer screening. There is no indication that this story relied on a news release. Claim: You Could Skip Your Colonoscopy If You’re Willing To Collect Your Poop

This story points out that, based on available data, two at-home screening tests appear to be equally effective compared to the more traditional, and more invasive, sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. We have only minor quibbles with the story–overall, it provided an excellent assessment of the at-home test options, particularly the fecal immunochemical test. However, for any story about screening methods, particularly blood tests, we think it’s important to include the risks of false-positive and false-negative results, which carry harm. The story didn’t go there. Given that the public has reservations about aspects of the invasive screening methods, information suggesting that they might be adequately replaced by non-invasive approaches is important to the public’s health. All too often, colonoscopy is promoted as the “gold standard” and no mention is made of effective alternatives. This news story does a good job explaining options, and also explores the reasons why so many Americans think that screening with colonoscopy is the best way to be screened for colon cancer and why that attitude is not supported by the evidence and may (in rare cases) be much worse than non-invasive screening methods.