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: The European Medicines Agency had already restricted the use of Protelos - also known as Osseor or strontium ranelate - last April but its pharmacovigilance committee said on Friday the drug should no longer be used to treat osteoporosis at all. The move follows an analysis which found that for every 1,000 patient-years there were four more cases of serious heart problems, including heart attacks, and four more cases of blood clots among patients taking the drug than those on placebo. The recommendation will now be sent to the agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, which is expected to issue a final opinion at its January 20-23 meeting. Claim: EU panel recommends suspension of risky bone disease drug.
[A]: European regulators have recommended suspending a popular bone-building drug made by unlisted French firm Servier because of the risk of serious heart problems and blood clots.


[Q]: Paragraph: The Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) said there were 47 new infections as of midnight on Sunday compared with 81 recorded a day earlier, taking the national tally to 10,284. The death toll rose by eight to 191, while another 135 people have recovered from the virus for a total of 6,598. South Korea has been bringing the epidemic under control, with about 100 or fewer new daily cases for the past month, but this was the first time the daily tally of new cases was less than 50 since 909 were reported on Feb. 29. In February, South Korea uncovered what was believed to be the biggest outbreak outside of China. But a programme of mass testing and contact tracing helped contain the virus, which has spread far more quickly in other countries. The head of the World Health Organization (WHO), Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, held a 25-minute phone call with President Moon Jae-in, praising South Korea’s leadership in containing the virus, Moon’s presidential Blue House said. Moon said in the call that South Korea was “willing to actively support other countries with prevention skills and supplies as the circumstances permit”. Moon said he recently had phone calls with about 20 global leaders. Tedros proposed that Moon help support sub-Saharan African countries with virus-related supplies including test kits, the Blue House said. Despite the encouraging evidence in South Korea, officials have urged even greater vigilance, saying a large epidemic could re-emerge at any time, with smaller outbreaks appearing in churches, hospitals and nursing homes, as well as among travellers returning from abroad. “We are taking great caution against any optimistic expectations with this one-off figure,” Vice Health Minister Kim Gang-lip told a regular briefing. Click here for an interactive graphic tracking the global spread of coronavirus  On Saturday, the government extended its intensive social distancing campaign by two weeks, citing the sustained small clusters of infections. South Koreans had refrained from socialising in February when the number of cases rose exponentially but more people started going out recently as the weather became warmer and people became weary of the isolation, Kim said. The movement of people spiked about 20% over the weekend compared with the end of February, he said, citing data from the state-run statistics agency and SK Telecom, the country’s largest mobile operator. Starting on Sunday, the government toughened penalties for those who violate self-quarantine rules to up to 10 million won ($8,100) in fines or one year in prison from 3 million won  ($2,400) in fines. Authorities have reported several cases of quarantine rules being broken over the past few days. The Gunpo city government south of Seoul said on Sunday it has filed a complaint with police against a couple in their 50s and their children who broke away from isolation and went out even after testing positive for the virus. A Korean student living in the United States sparked public uproar after taking a fever remedy before flying home late last month. The student was found to have contracted the virus, putting some 20 other people who took the same flight in self quarantine. “We cannot maintain social distancing forever,” Kim said. “But it is the most effective measure to help protect others and yourself.” Claim: South Korea reports fewer than 50 new infections, earning WHO praise.
[A]: South Korea reported fewer than 50 new coronavirus cases for the first time since its peak in late February, earning the praise of the World Health Organization for combatting the spread in one of the first countries to be hard-hit by the disease.


[Q]: Paragraph: The article does not discuss the costs associated with inoculation. However, it’s implied that vaginal microbial transfer is very inexpensive (it only requires a piece of gauze, saline, and a sterile bottle – all standard hospital supplies) so we won’t ding the story for this omission. With that being said, there is a tacit assumption in the article that the transfer of bacteria from the mother’s vaginal fluids to the newborn is always in the best interest of the newborn. Clearly this is not the case as we will articulate later. If there is a risk of the transfer of less than desirable bacteria, it is reasonable to assume that bacterial screening of vaginal secretions might be undertaken (which would add cost). The transfer of pathogens to the newborn inducing infection would also have a cost. While it is beyond the scope of this report, we think that thinking about the potential downsides of a new intervention is in order. The article does a nice job of detailing the potential benefits of the microbial transfer and the results seen in the study, while giving the caveat that longer follow up studies are needed to understand the implications of various microbiome make-ups. But to be fair, the results are from a total of 4 newborns, hardly a number on which to base any strong conclusions. The story says that thus far the procedure “has proved entirely safe,” but we’re talking about only four babies here! The article assumes that all the bacteria in the mother’s vaginal secretions are “friendly.”  This is clearly not the case in all patients. Significant infections can be transmitted to the newborn from bacteria resident in the mothers vaginal secretions from less than friendly bacteria including Chlamydia, Listeria and group B Strep to name a few. Suggesting that the procedure is not recommended but then pointing out that Dr. Brubaker had the procedure done for her newborn supports the notion that this is a harmless procedure — a potentially dangerous message. The story describes the study as small and proof-of-principle, although it arguably should have made more out of the fact that only four babies underwent the swabbing procedure. That’s a very small number. Nevertheless, we think the story injects enough caution to earn a Satisfactory rating. We liked that it spelled out the next phase of study to provide readers with a realistic sense of the scientific process. This article appropriately addresses the issue of increasing C-section use in U.S. and its potential repercussions. The article quotes several outside sources with the comments of Drs. Gilbert and Khoruts. We’ll rate this as Not Applicable. There is an outstanding hypothesis that colonization of the newborn with ‘friendly” bacteria from the mother’s vaginal secretions confers some advantages. This study merely test the ability to colonize a newborn delivered by cesarean delivery artificially. There aren’t really any alternatives to discuss here. The article mentions that this is not widely used among medical professionals but that women are sometimes doing it on their own or “arranging” to have it done. Given the potential risks of colonizing a newborn with less than friendly bacteria, we think that the story’s suggestion (and implicit encouragement) for women to do this on their own are unfortunate. The study was intended to determine if newborns could be colonized artificially and not to study the effects in later life. The article places this concept in proper context. The article clearly goes beyond the news release. Claim: Bacteria From Mother May Colonize Cesarean Births
[A]:
This is a well-articulated but incomplete story about a proof-of-principle study suggesting that when babies born by C-section are swabbed with their mother’s vaginal fluids, they have a microbiome more closely approximating those of their vaginally-born peers up to a month after birth. The article does a nice job of explaining the science and placing the evidence in context, but we think that it missed the mark on the potential harms of the intervention. This is a significant omission. Emerging research suggests that the types and patterns of natural bacteria growing on our bodies are important for healthy immune, digestive, and metabolic systems. Babies born by C-section do not have the benefit of being colonized by the natural bacteria in their mothers’ vaginal tracts, so an alternative method for inoculating babies with these bacteria (and an inexpensive, easy-to-implement one, at that) may even the playing field for C-section babies.