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: Some 100 medical workers are reported to have died from the disease so far, including many nurses, Howard Catton, ceo of the International Council of Nurses, told a news briefing. The world’s 28 million nurses, 59% of all health workers, were overstretched before the crisis began, the WHO, the Nursing Now campaign, and Geneva-based council said in the first “State of the World’s Nursing Report”. Some have become targets out of people’s fear of contagion. “We have picked up reports around the world of abuse, harassment of health workers, we had one case of somebody being spat on as well. It is completely unacceptable, reprehensible,” Catton said. He called for governments to have a “zero tolerance approach” to such abuse and to ensure that public health messages are clear and fact-based. Giorgio Cometto of WHO’s health workforce department said it was a relatively new phenomenon “whereby health workers are seen as a potential risk, as a potential threat as opposed to being a solution to the current crisis”. “This really reinforces the need to have adequate communication for the public as well as specific measures to be put in place to protect health workers particularly in the context of the response to the current pandemic,” he said. Baroness Mary Watkins, chair of Nursing Now, said nurses have been attacked previously during outbreaks of Ebola and the AID-HIV epidemic. Referring to COVID-19, she said: “We have not had active violence that I know of in the UK, but we have had people trying to take nurses’ badges because they have been allowed to go into supermarkets early to buy food before going on their shift... That seems to have had a stop put to it. “But there has been a very very clear directive from the police in many countries that attacking a health care worker is unacceptable. We need to keep pressure up,” Watkins added. There is still a global shortage of nearly 6 million nurses, mainly in low- and lower-middle income countries, where the number of new recruits barely keeps pace with population growth, the report said. Nurses are particularly lacking across Africa, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Venezuela, it added. Claim: Nurses must be protected from abuse during coronavirus pandemic: WHO, nursing groups.
[A]: Authorities must protect nurses and other health workers from harassment and attacks compounding the already heavy toll they are paying in the pandemic, the World Health Organization (WHO) and top nursing officials said on Tuesday.


[Q]: Paragraph: Late Thursday, a St. Louis jury awarded $70.1 million to Deborah Giannecchini of Modesto, California, who was diagnosed with advanced ovarian cancer in 2012. Giannecchini, then 59, said she had used Johnson’s Baby Powder for more than 40 years to keep her genital area dry, as many women do. She blamed it for her cancer and accused J&J of negligence. Two other jury trials in St. Louis reached similar outcomes earlier this year, awarding the plaintiffs $72 million and $55 million. But in J&J’s home state of New Jersey a judge recently threw out two other cases, ruling there wasn’t reliable evidence talc causes ovarian cancer, a relatively rare disease. Johnson & Johnson says its product is safe, and it is appealing all three losses. And investors don’t seem worried that J&J is in financial trouble, even though the company faces an estimated 2,000 similar lawsuits. J&J shares fell 0.3 percent Friday, about the same as the broader stock market, to close at $115.33. The next trial is set to start in January, also in St. Louis. Here’s what experts say about talc and cancer. WHAT IS TALC? Talc is a mineral that is mined from deposits around the world, including the U.S. The softest of minerals, it’s crushed into a white powder. It’s been widely used in cosmetics and other personal care products to absorb moisture since at least 1894, when Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder was launched. But it’s mainly used in a variety of other products, including paint and plastics. DOES IT CAUSE OVARIAN CANCER? Like many questions in science, there’s no definitive answer. Finding the cause of cancer is difficult. It would be unethical to do the best kind of study, asking a group of women to use talcum powder on their genitals and wait to see if it causes cancer, while comparing them to a group who didn’t use it. While ovarian cancer is often fatal, it’s relatively rare. It accounts for only about 22,000 of the 1.7 million new cases of cancer expected to be diagnosed in the United States this year. Factors that are known to increase a women’s risk of ovarian cancer include age, obesity, use of estrogen therapy after menopause, not having any children, certain genetic mutations and personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer. WHAT RESEARCH SHOWS The biggest studies have found no link between talcum powder applied to the genitals and ovarian cancer. But about two dozen smaller studies over three decades have mostly found a modest connection — a 20 percent to 40 percent increased risk among talc users. However, that doesn’t mean talc causes cancer. Several factors make that unlikely, and there’s no proof talc, which doesn’t interact with chemicals or cells, can travel up the reproductive tract, enter the ovaries and then trigger cancer. One large study published in June that followed 51,000 sisters of breast cancer patients found genital talc users had a reduced risk of ovarian cancer, 27 percent lower than in nonusers. An analysis of two huge, long-running U.S. studies, the Women’s Health Initiative and the Nurses’ Health Study, showed no increased risk of ovarian cancer in talc users. WHAT EXPERTS SAY If there were a true link, Dr. Hal C. Lawrence III says large studies that tracked women’s health for years would have verified results of the smaller ones. “Lord knows, with the amount of powder that’s been applied to babies’ bottoms, we would’ve seen something,” if talc caused cancer, said Lawrence, vice president of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. The National Cancer Institute’s Dr. Nicolas Wentzensen says the federal agency’s position is that there’s not a clear connection. “It is very hard to establish causal relationships,” he said, adding, “A lot of ovarian cancers occur in women who have never used talc, and many women have used talc and not gotten ovarian cancer.” Research director Elizabeth Ward of the American Cancer Society says it is unusual to have so much discrepancy between studies. “The risk for any individual woman, if there is one, is probably very small,” Ward said. ___ Follow Linda A. Johnson on Twitter at https://twitter.com/lindaj_onpharma . Claim: Does baby powder cause cancer? Another jury says yes.
[A]: For the third time, Johnson & Johnson has been hit with a multimillion-dollar jury verdict over whether the talc in its iconic baby powder causes ovarian cancer when applied regularly for feminine hygiene.


[Q]: Paragraph: The drug is still in early experiments, but it would have been nice to give readers some indication of how the eventual price of this drug might compare to available antidepressants. We will give the story a satisfactory rating because it specifies that 7 of 10 patients given SAGE-547 reported significant improvement in their depression within 60 hours, which persisted for up to 30 days. However, the story did not tell readers that the depression questionnaire used in this study, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), has been criticized as placing greater emphasis on sleep than on suicidal thoughts, so that the scores of some patients may improve even if their thoughts of suicide increase. Readers should have been told that the form of the drug used in this trial is given as an IV solution and that it will not be known if a pill can produce similar results until separate trials are completed. Although the story does report that the company said the only problems reported by patients were dizziness or a sedative effect (in both the treatment and placebo groups), it should have specifically cautioned readers that there could be other potential harms that cannot be identified by a one-month test in which only 10 patients received the active drug–notably, if this drug can pass into breastmilk or affect babies in utero. Also, as noted above, the story fails to tell readers that the form of the drug used in this trial is given as an inpatient IV treatment, which carries risks. The story tells readers the study is small, has not been peer reviewed, and that the results were reported in a press release. However, it should have specifically noted that this sort of small, phase 2 trial is not designed to prove whether or not an experimental drug really is effective. The story did not disease monger. However, because milder symptoms of the “baby blues” are common in pregnant women and new mothers, the story should have been clearer about distinguishing the features of a “Major Depressive Episode” like those experienced by the women in this trial from the more common blues that readers are likely to be familiar with. Although the story notes that the results were released in a news release and a company conference call, and were not peer reviewed (thus making it clear that the source is only the company and that the results have not been independently reviewed), the story should have included comments from independent experts. This is a barely passing satisfactory as the story does briefly acknowledge alternatives. The only reference to conventional antidepressant treatment is that it doesn’t work as quickly as this experimental drug appears to. Talk therapy is mentioned, but there is no mention of its effectiveness. While it is true that antidepressants can take weeks, they and mood stabilizing drugs for women with bipolar disorder do treat postpartum depression. In women with a history of this highly recurrent condition, antidepressant treatment may be started or maintained during pregnancy. The story makes clear that this drug is still being tested and that the company has not applied for FDA approval. The story does not mention other GABA-receptor drugs in development. Indeed, it includes a quote from the company CEO calling the study data a “paradigm shift in how the disease is thought about,” thus giving the incorrect impression that this drug is the only one like it being studied. The story clearly states that the study results were put out in a company news release. The story includes a quote from a company conference call, in addition to the numbers from the news release. However, the reliance on company sources undermines the value of the story. Claim: Experimental drug shows promise for quick treatment of postpartum depression
[A]:
This is story about a small, early test of a new type of drug to treat postpartum depression. The story is careful to note the preliminary nature of the findings and that the only source is company statements, since the study report has not been submitted for peer-review. However, it is hard to see the health news in a tiny phase 2 study, especially when no independent sources are included in the story to help provide balance to the claims. As readers, we’re also left wondering about potential harms specific to pregnant and new mothers, such as the drug’s ability to affect a baby in utero or pass through breastmilk. (Editor’s note: STAT has updated the story since this review was posted, and the “Read Original Story” link above will take you to the updated version, not the original version that we saw. Some of these changes address several of the Not Satisfactory ratings below. However, our ratings still stand: While updates are great, they aren’t likely to be seen by people who read the original story.) This story reports some positive early hints about an experimental drug tested in a few women with the symptoms of major depression. But with phrases like “paradigm shift,” readers could easily get the impression that the results are far more reliable, and relevant to many more women, than is justified based on the company announcement. And STAT was far from the only news outlet writing about the study in such a way. It got a lot of play in the financial press and in investor circles, helping boost the company’s stock price, with the price closing up 37%. But whether the source is STAT or a more financial-minded publication, all stories posted online have the potential to reach and influence readers who are searching for health news. That’s why all such stories with health claims should scrutinize medical evidence.