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: But COVID-19 is shaking her views. The woman who would identify herself only as Stephanie, citing a fear of reprisals from committed anti-vaxxers, says she is now 50:50 on taking a vaccine should one be discovered for the respiratory disease caused by the new coronavirus. “I’ve definitely thought about it,” she told Reuters by phone from the United States, also expressing frustration at what she considers the anti-vax community’s downplaying of the pandemic’s seriousness. “We’re all being affected by this virus, schools closing, young people in hospital, and they still say it’s a hoax.”  As the world’s scientists and pharmaceutical companies seek a cure for the coronavirus, other anti-vaxxers are gearing up for a fight against any potential new vaccine. “Refuse, demonstrate,” said a Briton on Facebook in response to a post asking people how they would react if a vaccine was made mandatory. But some virologists say the quest for a vaccine is so widely supported that resistance will be eroded. The latest national surveys by pollster ORB International for the Vaccine Confidence Project (VCP), which monitors attitudes to immunisation, appear to support this idea. In France, where a 2018 poll showed one in three people did not view vaccines as safe, just 18% would refuse a coronavirus vaccine now, according to the VCP poll of around 1,000 people on March 18, a day after France locked down. In Australia, the VCP’s figure was also 7%, while Britain, where about 2,000 people were polled, and Austria registered 5% opposition in polls there a week later. “If a vaccine were made available tomorrow, everyone would jump to get it,” said Laurent-Henri Vignaud, who co-authored a history of France’s anti-vax movement. That view was challenged by Mary Holland, vice-chair of American non-profit group Children’s Health Defense, which is critical of vaccination in the United States. “I don’t think this virus fundamentally changes people’s deeply held concerns about vaccines,” she told Reuters. Although the term “anti-vax” is sometimes associated with conspiracy theories, many people are simply concerned about side-effects or industry ethics. Globally, one person in five does not view vaccines as safe or is unsure, according to a 2018 survey by the Wellcome Trust health fund. reut.rs/2JTb27q  In China, where the COVID-19 disease caused by the novel coronavirus originated, surveys by VCP researchers show safety is an important cause of concern. Several scandals eroded trust, including in 2018 when a unit of China’s vaccine maker Changsheng Bio-technology Co Ltd was heavily fined for falsifying data for a rabies vaccine. The company said it was “deeply sorry” for the incident. Online discussions tracked by Reuters - including closed Facebook pages with more than 200,000 members, Twitter feeds such as the Children’s Health Defense and YouTube videos totalling over 700,000 views - showed considerable mistrust that a rushed vaccine would be improperly tested. VCP director Heidi Larson said that was also the main reason for concern around the vaccine against the H1N1 swine flu pandemic in 2009. A quickly produced swine flu vaccine in 1976 led to about one in 100,000 people developing Guillain-Barre syndrome, a paralyzing immune-system disorder, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Some 115 coronavirus vaccine candidates are being developed by institutes and drugmakers, according to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation, a global alliance financing and coordinating the development of vaccines. “I will not be injected with anything, especially a fast-tracked vaccine,” added American Vicki Barneck, 67, who believes a strong immune system is enough to combat the disease. Holland, of the Children’s Health Defense, said: “Some react fine to vaccines, others are paralysed or killed.”   However, a 2015 paper by CDC epidemiologists said “multiple studies and scientific reviews have found no association between vaccination and deaths except in rare cases.”  The VCP is running an 18-month study tracking conversation online about the coronavirus and conducting global polls to measure attitudes towards social distancing, isolation, hand-washing and anticipating a vaccine. From analysing more than 3 million posts a day between January and mid-March 2020, director Dr Heidi Larson said the vast majority were eager for a treatment, fast. “People are hungry for a vaccine,” she said. In Italy, which has been hit badly by COVID-19, the anti-vax movement has “virtually disappeared” in the discussion on the coronavirus, according to virologist Dr Roberto Burioni. For a coronavirus vaccine to be effective, wide uptake and annual vaccination is likely to be required, said George Kassianos, immunisation lead at the Royal College of General Practitioners in London. There is also the question of how to distribute fast enough to people lining up for the vaccine. “Essential workers will be the priority. Police officers, hospital workers, cleaners. Then at-risk groups,” said Douglas L. Hatch, a physician specialised in pandemic preparedness working on the COVID-19 response in San Francisco. “By the time you get to the anti-vaxxers, they’ll have trouble getting it even if they wanted to.”  (Corrects French poll data in eighth paragraph) Claim: Could the new coronavirus weaken 'anti-vaxxers'?.
[A]: An American mother-of-three is a long-time member of “anti-vaxxer” groups online: a small but vocal global community that believes vaccines are a dangerous con and refuse to immunize themselves or their children.


[Q]: Paragraph: Cancer patients increasingly are having their care guided by gene tumor boards, a new version of the hospital panels that traditionally decided whether surgery, radiation or chemotherapy would be best. These experts study the patient’s cancer genes and match treatments to mutations that seem to drive the disease. “We dissect the patient’s tumor with what I call the molecular microscope,” said Dr. Razelle Kurzrock, who started a board at the University of California, San Diego, where Cairnes is treated. It’s the kind of care many experts say we should aim for — precision medicine, the right drug for the right person at the right time, guided by genes. There are success stories, but also some failures and many questions: Will gene-guided care improve survival? Does it save money or cost more? What kind of gene testing is best, and who should get it? “I think every patient needs it,” especially if cancer is advanced, said Kurzrock, who consults for some gene-medicine companies. “Most people don’t agree with me — yet. In five years, it may be malpractice not to do genomics.” Few people get precision medicine today, said Dr. Eric Topol, head of the Scripps Translational Science Institute. “The only thing that’s gone mainstream are the words.” HOW IT WORKS NOW If you have a cancer that might be susceptible to a gene-targeting drug, you may be tested for mutations in that gene, such as HER2 for breast cancer. Some breast or prostate cancer patients also might get a multi-gene test to gauge how aggressive treatment should be. Then most patients get usual guideline-based treatments. If there’s no clear choice, or if the disease has spread or comes back, doctors may suggest tumor profiling — comprehensive tests to see what mutations dominate. That’s traditionally been done from a tissue sample, but newer tests that detect tumor DNA in blood — liquid biopsies — are making profiling more common. The tests cost about $6,000 and many insurers consider them experimental and won’t pay. Gene tumor boards analyze what the results suggest about treatment. They focus on oddball cases like a breast cancer mutation in a colon cancer patient, or cancers that have widely spread and are genetically complex. The only options may be experimental drugs or “off-label” treatments — medicines approved for different situations. But as tumor profiling grows, it’s revealing how genetically diverse many tumors are, and that oddball cases are not so rare, said Dr. John Marshall. He heads the virtual tumor board at Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center that also serves cancer centers in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan and Tennessee. “There is a little bit of faith” that testing will show the right treatment, but it’s not a sure thing, said Dr. Lee Schwartzberg, who heads one participating center, the West Cancer Center in Memphis. Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, the American Cancer Society’s deputy chief medical officer, is optimistic yet wary. Drugs that target BRAF mutations work well for skin cancers called melanomas, but less well for lung or colon cancers. “Just because a mutation occurs it doesn’t mean that drug is going to work in that cancer,” he said. LUCKY CASES When it does, results can be dramatic. Cairnes’ cancer was between her stomach and esophagus, and had spread to her liver, lungs and lymph nodes. Tissue testing found 10 abnormal genes, but on the liquid biopsy only EGFR popped out as a good target. Two drugs aim at that gene but aren’t approved for her type of cancer. A tumor board advised trying both — Erbitux and Tarceva, the drug her husband also had taken. Within two weeks, she quit using pain medicines. After two months, her liver tumor had shrunk roughly by half. There are signs that cancer may remain, but it is under control. She feels well enough to travel and to take care of her granddaughter. “I’m very, very grateful to have a targeted therapy,” Cairnes said. “I cannot expect a better outcome than what we’re seeing right now,” said her doctor, Shumei Kato. WHAT STUDIES SHOW But is gene-guided treatment better than usual care? French doctors did the first big test, with disappointing results. About 200 patients with advanced cancer were given whatever their doctors thought best or off-label drugs based on tumor profiling. Survival was similar — about two months. Another French study, reported in June, was slightly more encouraging on survival but exposed another problem: No drugs exist for many gene flaws. Tests found treatable mutations in half of the 2,000 participants and only 143 got what a tumor board suggested. Some doctors worry that tumor boards’ recommending off-label treatments diverts patients from research that would benefit all cancer patients. For example, the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s TAPUR study tests off-label drugs and shares results with their makers and federal regulators. LETTING PATIENTS CHOOSE Ann Meffert, who lives on a dairy farm in Waunakee, Wisconsin, endured multiple standard treatments that didn’t defeat her bile duct cancer. “She was going to be referred to hospice; there was not much we could do,” said Dr. Nataliya Uboha, who took the case to a tumor board at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The panel gave several options, including off-label treatment, and Meffert chose a study that matches patients to gene-targeting therapies and started on an experimental one last October. “Two weeks in, I started feeling better,” she said, and when she saw test results, “I couldn’t believe the difference.” Many lung spots disappeared and the liver tumor shrank 75 percent. She is not cured, though, and doctors are thinking about next steps. And that could involve a fresh look at her tumor genes. ___ Marilynn Marchione can be followed at @MMarchioneAP __ This Associated Press series was produced in partnership with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Claim: Ultra-personal therapy: Gene tumor boards guide cancer care.
[A]: Doctors were just guessing a decade ago when they gave Alison Cairnes’ husband a new drug they hoped would shrink his lung tumors. Now she takes it, but the choice was no guesswork. Sophisticated gene tests suggested it would fight her gastric cancer, and they were right.


[Q]: Paragraph: On October 26 2019, a Facebook user shared a PSA involving the popular meme often called “woman yelling at a cat,” stating that the image’s ubiquity led them to research the origins of the image:After seeing this image on many different memes, I decided to research it. I had hoped there was some humor or ridiculousness behind it. Instead there is nothing but very serious tragedy. This is a woman named Taylor Armstrong from the show Beverly Hills Housewives defending herself against her “friends” about coming forward on the physical abuse she endured from her husband Russell. Her friends were claiming she lied. This transition happened soon after he committed suicide and while she was having a nervous breakdown. Until recently her hospital records were kept private, including the reconstructive surgery she had to have on her eye from an injury she sustained by him. Her friends attacked her honesty because he said he didn’t do it. Don’t they all. So an abused woman and a dead abuser, … and a child left fatherless. Sometimes we should be more careful of what we’re laughing at.According to KnowYourMeme, the image of the two women and the image of the cat came together to form one meme around May 2019. Prior to that, the image of the woman yelling circulated as a meme in its own right, as seen in a March 2016 Instagram post:A post shared by Betches Media (@betches) on Mar 24, 2016 at 2:29pm PDTThat same year — 2016 — the image of the women appeared in an USMagazine.com ranking of fights on various Real Housewives shows, identifying the image’s origin as an episode in the second season of the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. The magazine identified the blonde woman in the image as Taylor Armstrong:In season 2 of The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, the ladies conducted an intervention for [Taylor] Armstrong over her allegedly abusive late husband, Russell. After the meeting didn’t go over so well, things got even worse at a Malibu bash, where Armstrong completely lost it.Real Housewives of Beverly Hills season two episode “Malibu Beach Party from Hell” originally aired in December 2011. Vulture recapped the episode, focusing more on the behavior of an ancillary character during the argument seen in all the memes. On YouTube, footage of the entire segment as it originally aired was uploaded in August 2019.Vulture‘s recap included Armstrong’s explanation for her dispute with castmate Camille Grammer, from the episode’s subsequent Watch What Happened Live. The clip was filmed after Armstrong disclosed her pending divorce from husband Russell Armstrong, and the argument in question was over Grammer’s risky gossiping about the events leading up to the filing for divorce.Before the argument and prior to Armstrong’s arrival, Grammer admitted her unease at facing Armstrong under those circumstances. That recap coupled the events of the show with the additional background provided by cast members:Camille … expressed her concerns about seeing Taylor, who had been dodging her calls since Camille said out loud to a group of their peers that her husband was beating her. And since Taylor has appeared on WWHL to clarify and spin the events accordingly, we now know that her official statement is that what she was angry at Camille about had more to do with Camille saying that Russell had abused her on-camera than anything else. And being as the women are not allowed to allude to the fact that they are being filmed throughout the course of the series, it’s a fair point of Taylor’s to have made. [Taylor] claimed, when talking to Andy Cohen, that when Camille said what she had about Russell she put Taylor in danger, because Taylor feared that her husband would see the footage and beat her up or kill her. And those claims are so terrifying and believable, despite what you may think of Taylor’s pathologies, that her meshugganah antics on last night’s episode actually seemed less despicable and more justifiable than her prior lashings-out.Immediately after “Malibu Beach House from Hell” aired, Taylor Armstrong confirmed to Watch What Happened Live‘s Andy Cohen that Grammer’s gossiping led her to fear that her husband “would see the footage and beat her up or kill her.” And once again, the episode aired on December 5 2011.On August 16 2011, E! News published a “timeline” of Real Housewives of Beverly Hills happenings after news that Russell Armstrong had died by suicide the day before:May 11, 2011: Taylor’s rep denies reports that she and Russell have split up, saying they are “both really committed to making their marriage work.”July 15, 2011: Taylor announces that she has filed for divorce, calling it a “difficult decision,” but one that’s in her family’s best interests. In her petition, she cites their date of separation as July 1, requests primary physical custody and joint legal custody of their 5-year-old daughter, Kennedy, and asks that her maiden name be restored.Aug. 15, 2011: Bravo sends out a RHOBH press release noting that one of Taylor’s plot points this season will be her continuing struggles with “a loveless marriage.” Taylor had told E! News that the coming season would include, for her, “a lot more tears and a lot more pain.”Aug. 15, 2011: Russell Armstrong commits suicide by hanging. He is survived by his wife, their daughter and two sons from previous relationships. An autopsy is expected to take place[. ]In a December 2011 People item on the episode, Taylor Armstrong was quoted reiterating her fears that the decisions of others to disclose the abuse endangered both Armstrong and her young daughter, Kennedy:Taylor explained that she was upset that her abusive relationship, which she had divulged to her costars off camera, had become a plotline on the show.“Admitting that I was being abused on national television was a step that I never though any of my friends would take,” she said. “I was so stunned and I felt so betrayed that I couldn’t get past it. And I was scared.”A November 2011 People item that only available in archived form quoted Grammer’s commentary from previous episodes in the season, specifically portions about Armstrong’s injuries:When Taylor returned [to a scene], she found her costars talking once again about her marriage to Russell. She suggested they should all start being completely honest and stop talking about each other behind their backs. […]“We don’t say that he hit you,” Camille said, as a mortified Kyle hid her face in her hands. “We don’t say that he broke your jaw, or that he beat you up, and he hit you.”In March 2019, Taylor Armstrong told BravoTV’s Daily Dish that the decision to file for divorce from her husband came after he fractured bones in her face to such an extent that she needed reconstructive surgery:The RHOBH alum said that she finally decided to file for divorce from Russell after he fractured her orbital floor and she had to undergo reconstructive surgery on her right eye. Kennedy was 5 years old at the time.It was on one of the days when Taylor was supposed to meet with Russell to discuss the custody of their child that she discovered his body after he died by suicide. “I went to go meet him one day, and his office was dark and he wasn’t there and he was a workaholic, so it was completely unusual for that to be the case. And I just had this sinking feeling that something terrible had happened,” she said. “And it had never crossed my mind in the past. He was very narcissistic and not someone you would ever think would take their life. But ultimately, I had found him hanging in the house that he had moved into.”Dedra Whitt, the redhead seen in the argument scene, told a different blog in 2012 that the events as they happened juxtaposed with the filming and airing schedule made re-watching the scene difficult:I really liked Taylor, and I really felt for Taylor. I could feel that she was in pain. I didn’t know to what extent. I didn’t know how truthful a lot of it was, because when someone tells you something that’s going on, you can’t even believe it. I was completely shocked. Completely shocked when Russell killed himself. I didn’t know him, I’d met him a couple of times. It definitely came as a shock to me. I knew they were separated, and I knew she was doing okay with the separation. I think it was probably a good thing for her to separate from him and to try and get her life together. I didn’t know anything that was going on with their financial situation. I just knew that she was having a hard time, and she got a separation from her husband. I thought that was a really good thing. And then when I found out that he killed himself, it floored me, and any feeling that I had negative about her at that moment completely went away. I felt really, really bad for her. You just don’t want anybody to have to go through that. That’s horrible. Just because she was separated doesn’t mean she didn’t love him. She obviously loved him. He was her husband, and she has a young child with him … Unfortunately, the problem with a reality show is now you’ve got to go back and watch all this crap you filmed six months ago. We’re all in a different place now. Every single person on that show is in a different place. But you have to go back and re-live it. It’s agony. I don’t feel that way now.Taylor Armstrong remarried in 2014. On October 27 2019 (right after the Facebook post was published), a Twitter user asked Armstrong if seeing the meme was upsetting to her:Genuinely curious if that photo is hard to see circulate so much? I remember how upset you were during that scene.— MarioKiki (@mariokiki) October 27, 2019Armstrong replied, telling social media users it was “ok to laugh” at the meme:Thank you – that is my past and I have moved on and am in a really healthy, happy marriage. It doesn’t seem like my life any longer. I work w domestic violence shelters and support victims. It’s ok to laugh at the images that have been created. https://t.co/Zup8szsDNb— Taylor Armstrong (@TaylorArmstrong) October 27, 2019A Facebook post shared in October 2019 focused on the “woman yelling at a cat” meme, which was a mashup of two previously unrelated memes, one of which featured a crying former Real Housewives of Beverly Hills cast member Taylor Armstrong. The post was broadly accurate, explaining that Armstrong was confronting her friends (namely Camille Grammer) over their handling of abuse she suffered at the hands of her then-estranged husband Russell Armstrong. At some point not long after the party (before the show aired), Russell Armstrong died by suicide.After the post appeared, Armstrong said on Twitter that it was “ok to laugh” at the meme, but acknowledged that it depicted a very painful part of her life. Claim: "Part of a meme known as ""woman yelling at a cat"" has a tragic backstory."
[A]:
The Sad Backstory of the ‘Woman Yelling at a Cat’ Meme