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: At issue are genes called BRCA1 and BRCA2. When they’re mutated, the body can’t repair damaged DNA as well, greatly increasing the chances of breast, ovarian and certain other cancers. Gene testing allows affected women to consider steps to lower their risk, such as when actress Angelina Jolie underwent a preventive mastectomy several years ago. Most cancer isn’t caused by BRCA mutations — they account for 5% to 10% of breast cancers and 15% of ovarian cancers — so the gene tests aren’t for everyone. But mutations cluster in families, and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has long recommended that doctors screen women who have relatives with BRCA-related cancers and refer those who might benefit from gene testing to a genetic counselor to help them decide. Tuesday, the task force expanded that advice, telling primary care doctors they should also assess women’s risk if: —they previously were treated for breast or other BRCA-related cancers including ovarian, fallopian tube or peritoneal cancers, and now are considered cancer-free. —their ancestry is prone to BRCA mutations, such as Ashkenazi Jewish women. Why screen breast cancer survivors? After all, they already know there’s a risk of recurrence. Take, for example, someone who had a tumor removed in one breast in their 40s a decade ago, when genetic testing wasn’t as common. Even this many years later, a BRCA test still could reveal if they’re at risk for ovarian cancer — or at higher than usual risk for another tumor in their remaining breast tissue, explained task force member Dr. Carol Mangione of the University of California, Los Angeles. And it could alert their daughters or other relatives to a potential shared risk. “It’s important to test those people now,” Mangione said. “We need to get the word out to primary care doctors to do this assessment and to make the referrals.” Private insurers follow task force recommendations on what preventive care to cover, some at no out-of-pocket cost under rules from former President Barack Obama’s health care law. The recommendations were published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Cancer groups have similar recommendations for BRCA testing, and increasingly urge that the newly diagnosed be tested, too, because the inherited risk can impact choices about surgery and other treatment. Identifying BRCA mutation carriers “can be lifesaving, and should be a part of routine medical care,” Drs. Susan Domchek of the University of Pennsylvania and Mark Robson of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, who weren’t involved with the new guidelines, wrote in an editorial accompanying them. But too few high-risk women ever learn if they harbor BRCA mutations, they wrote. For example, cancer groups have long recommended that all ovarian cancer patients be tested, but several studies have found testing is done in less than a third. Don’t skip the genetic counseling, said the task force’s Mangione. BRCA testing can cause anxiety and sometimes gives confusing results, finding mutations that might not be dangerous — things the counselors are trained to interpret. There’s a shortage of genetic counselors, particularly in rural areas, and she said counseling by phone can work. There’s a wide array of gene tests, some that search just for BRCA mutations and others that test dozens of additional genes at the same time. There’s even a direct-to-consumer kit sold by 23andMe — but Domchek and Robson warned it only detects the three mutations found most in women of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, not dozens of other mutations. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Claim: Guidelines say more women may need breast cancer gene test.

Ex Output:
More women may benefit from gene testing for hereditary breast or ovarian cancer, especially if they’ve already survived cancer once, an influential health group recommended Tuesday.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: A 34-year-old woman from Loudi city in the central province of Hunan confessed to poisoning the yoghurt drink before delivering to the students, Xinhua said on Saturday. It said the woman was suspected to be suffering from a mental disorder. Three children were in serious condition but their lives were not in danger, Xinhua said. Investigations were going on. There have been several attacks on schools in China in recent years while at the same time, food safety has become a contentious issue with a rising number of food-poisoning cases due in part to lax safety standards at small factories. Claim: Nineteen students sick in China from poisoned yoghurt.

Ex Output:
Nineteen primary school children in China have been hospitalized after drinking yoghurt said to be laced with rat poison and herbicide, the Xinhua state news said.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: The jury voted 11-1 to deny damages to Nora Daniels, 55, of Columbia, Tennessee, who said she used Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder from 1978 to 2013, when she was diagnosed with ovarian and uterine cancer. She also sued Imerys Talc, a talcum powder supplier, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported (http://bit.ly/2lF7Q0Z ). The verdict for Johnson & Johnson came after three previous St. Louis juries awarded a total of $197 million to the plaintiffs who made similar claims. About 2,000 state and federal lawsuits are in courts across the country over concerns about health problems caused by prolonged talcum powder use. Daniels’ lawyer, Jim Onder, said he thinks the difference between Friday’s verdict and the three previous St. Louis cases was that this jury didn’t think the talcum powder contributed to Daniels’ specific type of cancer. Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman Carol Goodrich said in a statement the company sympathizes with ovarian cancer patients. “The jury’s decision is consistent with the science, research, clinical evidence and decades of studies by medical experts around the world that continue to support the safety of cosmetic talc,” the statement said, while citing two cases thrown out in New Jersey in September 2016 when a judge found insufficient scientific evidence for the claims against talcum powder. Imerys spokeswoman Gwen Myers said in a statement the jury followed “the science that establishes the safety of talc.” “Imerys sympathizes with women suffering from ovarian cancer and hopes that the scientific community’s efforts will continue to be directed toward finding the true causes of this terrible disease,” the statement said. Juror Luke Wilson, 34, of St. Louis, said the jury did not think evidence linking talcum powder with ovarian cancer was strong enough to require Johnson & Johnson to put warning labels on its products. The only dissenting juror, George Stair, 76, of St. Louis, said he thought there was enough evidence. “I wish we could have sent a message to Johnson & Johnson to put a warning on the product label,” he said. ___ Information from: St. Louis Post-Dispatch, http://www.stltoday.com Claim: St. Louis jury rejects lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson.

Ex Output:

A St. Louis jury on Friday rejected a Tennessee woman’s lawsuit that Johnson & Johnson baby powder contributed to her ovarian cancer, a victory for the company after it lost three previous, similar lawsuits in St. Louis.