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: 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.
[A]: 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.


[Q]: Paragraph: We’ll give the story a “N/A” in this category since it makes clear early on that this research is in the earliest of stages, done in an animal model, and says clearly that clinical trials are a future hope. This is way too early to consider costs which, we assume, would be substantial. The story says the stem cell intervention extended the rodents’ lives “by 10-15% compared to untreated animals.”  At another point, it said, “the mice lived longer than controls, typically several months more, an increase of about 15%.” The story makes no mention of the potential harms that might arise from this approach. Since this has never been tested in humans, we have no idea what they risks are. The story needed to point this out. Theoretically, the stem cells would have to be delivered into human brains via injections, which would make the intervention incredibly risky and possibly a non-starter. In the original paper, the stem cells were injected into the hypothalamus of the mice using viruses as “vectors.” The researchers used lentiviruses, which are used often as vectors for research, but can be deadly in humans. Some discussion of this hurdle also was warranted. The story does a good job at explaining various aspects of the research and depicting the stages through which the research team drew its conclusions. It also is up front about this being animal research, so far untried in humans at even the earliest stages of clinical trials. Of note, the original paper mentions that this study was conducted in very few mice (total of about 20) and only in male mice. That detail would have been useful to include. One thing we wanted to point out that was problematic: The story said “if a similar extension was achieved in humans, a person with a life expectancy of 80 years could live to 92.” We have no idea how this may impact humans; the evidence doesn’t support that kind of speculation. The story doesn’t appear to commit disease mongering, though it could have pointed out that aging in and of itself is not a disease. The story does quote one source unaffiliated with the research and we didn’t detect any conflicts of interest. (The paper itself notes that the authors of the study have no conflicts of interests.) The story is all about basic research that suggests an approach that one day might slow, or possibly reverse, the aging process. There are no real alternatives available now to affect the aging process beyond lifestyle choices that might be healthier and appropriate treatments for illnesses that might otherwise shorten lifespans. It’s clear from the story that this research is preliminary. The story clearly says, “The next step is to create human neural stem cells in the lab for testing.”  It also states that, “Researchers at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York hope to launch clinical trials of the procedure soon, but must first produce supplies of human neural stem cells in the lab which can be implanted into volunteers.” The story heralds this research as a “tour de force” and a “breakthrough.” Yet is it accurate in a news story to call anything done in animals a “breakthrough?” That word implies relevance to humans, and this is far from established in a mouse study. Studies in mice are essential but many of them fail to show similar evidence in humans. Likewise, stem cell research is often seen as a magic bullet for some conditions but there have been few cases where the preliminary hope/hype has born out. The story does not appear to rely on a news release. Claim: Stem cell brain implants could 'slow ageing and extend life', study shows
[A]: This story describes some interesting but very early research into the mechanisms of aging and how they might be altered. The story made it clear that this was mouse-level research and has several hurdles to go before it’s ever tested in people. One weak point for the story was how the story assumed there might be benefits in people yet overlooked the potential risks. Considering this intervention involves inserting stem cells into the brain via the assistance of a viral strain known to be harmful to humans, it’s logical to assume there could be some safety concerns. It also overplayed the novelty here by quoting an expert who called it a “tour de force” and a “breakthrough.”  The desire to somehow combat aging seems inherent in humans. If there is a fairly straightforward “switch” that can control the aging process — and this story suggests so — then this would be a major advance. Yet we are looking at decades before this becomes a rigorous Phase III human trial, let alone a potential intervention in humans. The bottom line is: We are talking about approximately 20 male mice.


[Q]: Paragraph: In late March 2020, controversy erupted when U.S. President Donald Trump suggested that, despite a deadly COVID-19 pandemic with a rising death toll, Americans should end social-distancing measures and return to work by Easter in order to avert further harm to the economy. Trump’s suggestion flew in the face of the recommendations by health experts, as well as a number of locally-mandated social distancing and shelter-in-place orders. It also raised fears that encouraging people to go back to work before the disease was contained amounted to putting a price on human life. But Trump staffers, supporters, right-wing media personalities, and the president himself all expressed concern that shutting down the economy could be a cure worse than the disease. Amid this debate, national politics and financial news outlet Bloomberg published an article headlined, “Billionaires Want People Back to Work. Employees Aren’t So Sure.” The story contrasted the fears expressed by one front-line service worker worried about contracting COVID-19 against comments by wealthy business leaders who worried about further damage to the economy if lockdowns persisted. Former Wells Fargo CEO Richard Kovacevich was quoted as one of the latter. Kovacevich, who was CEO of Wells Fargo until 2007 and chairman until 2009, was quoted in the article as saying: We’ll gradually bring those people back and see what happens. Some of them will get sick, some may even die, I don’t know. Do you want to suffer more economically or take some risk that you’ll get flu-like symptoms and a flu-like experience? Do you want to take an economic risk or a health risk? You get to choose. The statement resulted in considerable blowback. And subsequent headlines didn’t help matters for Kovacevich: “‘Some may even die, I don’t know’: Former Wells Fargo CEO wants people to go back to work and ‘see what happens,'” read one from Business Insider. In a followup interview with CNBC two days later, Kovacevich said he felt the remark wasn’t placed within the the proper context in the Bloomberg article. Kovacevich explained that he meant people should start returning to work after various regions in the U.S. had succeeded in “flattening the curve,” meaning when a steep increase of COVID-19 cases had leveled out to more manageable numbers. He gave examples of China, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan, which he claimed had succeeded in doing so and commenced restarting their economies after about a month on lockdown. Here are Kovacevich’s comments on CNBC in full: Claim: "In regards to reopening the economy during the COVID-19 pandemic, the former CEO of Wells Fargo stated, ""We’ll gradually bring those people back and see what happens. Some of them will get sick, some may even die, I don’t know."
[A]:
I would say I was misquoted in that interview. There was a lot of context that was omitted. What I think is that we need, we do need to get people back to work as soon as it is safe to do so. This is not just for economic reasons. Those of us who have been in San Francisco and in lockdown now for almost two weeks. It’s really not a healthy and enjoyable experience either physically, mentally or psychologically. It is devastating economically, especially for low-income workers. So if I were the president I would be taking the advice of Dr. Fauci who appears to be a very knowledgeable and experienced and balanced professional, about when it’s right to go back to work.