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 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.
[EX 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.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: A bill that would allow trained pharmacists to administer the influenza vaccine to children 12 years and older cleared the General Assembly’s Public Health Committee in a 17-7 vote this year, but it later died on the Senate calendar due to inaction. Bill supporter, Nathan Tinker, CEO of the Connecticut Pharmacists Association, said his organization doesn’t plan to push hard for it again in the next regular legislative session because he is worried the debate over the General Assembly’s efforts to scrap a religious exemption for some vaccines will ultimately spill over into discussions about the flu shot and likely doom the bill in the short, three-month session. “There is a community of people who are concerned about the impact or potential impact, whether real or perceived, about vaccines,” Tinker said. “And they get a lot of attention from legislators and that can make it difficult.” When the new legislative session opens in February, lawmakers are expected to consider ending the state’s longstanding religious exemption after newly released data showed a continued decline in immunization rates for measles, mumps and rubella among kindergarteners. That proposal has already met resistance and some of the concerns raised are like the ones voiced during this year’s discussion of the flu vaccine bill. Legislators were flooded with testimony earlier this year from parents with concerns about whether making the vaccine more convenient could lead to injuries that pharmacists might not be trained recognize. Others questioned the motives of the pharmaceutical industry and necessity of flu shots. Dr. Sandra Carbonari, a primary care pediatrician in Waterbury and the medical director of the Connecticut Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, also opposed the bill, but for different reasons. She questioned whether state regulations for providing the flu vaccine to children who receive Medicaid benefits might ultimately make the shot too expensive, and whether DPH’s vaccine program can handle a large increase in the number of providers. She also noted that immunizing a child can be complicated. “Determining the appropriate vaccine for a pediatric age patient is not simple and requires accurate information about the medical history and current state of health,” she said in written testimony. Supporters of the flu shot bill argue that allowing parents to drop by a pharmacy, rather than make an appointment with a pediatrician, would ultimately lead to higher flu immunization rates. The bill had the support of the state’s Department of Public Health, which noted three children in Connecticut died from flu-related complications during the 2017-18 flu season. Pharmacists in Connecticut are currently allowed to vaccinate people 18 years or older. According to DPH, individuals under 18 can be administered the flu vaccine by advanced practice registered nurses at retail locations, such as a CVS MinuteClinic. Sen. Heather Somers, of Groton, the top Senate Republican on the Public Health Committee who co-sponsored this year’s bill, stressed that the legislation is voluntary and requires the consent of a parent or guardian. Somers contends the legislature just ran out of time to act on the bill earlier this year, and she plans to resurrect it when lawmakers convene again in February for the 2020 session. “This is something that saves lives,” said Somers, who helped to organize a mobile flu clinic in her district last year. “I think accessibility is key in our health care system.” Claim: Bill allowing pharmacists to give kids the flu shot at risk.
[EX A]: The contentious debate about whether Connecticut lawmakers should scrap a religious exemption for certain childhood vaccinations could inadvertently end up sinking efforts to make the flu vaccine more accessible to children.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: In February 2020, we received multiple inquiries from readers about remarks attributed to U.S. presidential candidate and former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg, in which the billionaire businessman appeared to say he could teach “anybody” to be a farmer, but that information technology required greater intelligence. On Feb. 16, Wisconsin Republican official Anna Kelly posted a 60-second clip of Bloomberg to Twitter, writing: “Billionaire Bloomberg claims he ‘could teach anybody to be a farmer,’ even implying that farmers don’t have the same level of ‘skill set’ or ‘grey matter’ as folks in tech jobs. So demeaning, elitist, and out-of-touch it’s appalling.” Her post was retweeted by Donald Trump Jr., son of President Donald Trump. The younger Trump added: “Bloomberg wouldn’t last 3 seconds as a farmer… you can tell he really hates regular hardworking Americans. He will never fight for them because he couldn’t care less about them.” In the clip, Bloomberg can be heard saying: “I could teach anybody — even people in this room, no offense intended — to be a farmer. It’s a [process]: you dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn.” Later, he contrasts the nature of that work with that of the “information economy”: “[…] The information economy is fundamentally different because it’s built around replacing people with technology and the skill sets that you have to learn are how to think and analyze, and that is a whole degree level different. You have to have to have a different skill set, you have to have a lot more gray matter.” Bloomberg wouldn’t last 3 seconds as a farmer… but like his comments on minorities, you can tell he really hates regular hardworking Americans. He will never fight for them because he couldn’t care less about them. https://t.co/03CmskF5Vn — Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) February 17, 2020  The 60-second clip, and Bloomberg’s remarks, garnered widespread coverage and prompted an angry response from some right-leaning observers. In an interview with Fox News, South Dakota’s Republican Gov. Kristi Noem accused Bloomberg of exhibiting “pompous ignorance” in his comments. The video footage contained in Kelly’s Twitter post, and subsequently shared widely online, was authentic and not doctored. Although clearly it was cut from a much longer video, its removal from its original context did not substantively alter its tone or sense, nor deprive the viewer of context which might significantly change or impinge upon their understanding of Bloomberg’s remarks. As such, the claim that Bloomberg had said he could “teach anybody to be a farmer” and that information technology work required “more gray matter” was accurate. The original video was recorded at the University of Oxford’s Saïd Business School on Nov. 17, 2016. Bloomberg appeared there as part of the school’s “Distinguished Speaker Seminar Series.” The full video can be viewed on YouTube, below. When he made his remarks about farming and technology, Bloomberg was responding to a question, placed by an audience member, about the role of business leaders in addressing or alleviating public perceptions of economic inequality, especially in the context of Trump’s 2016 election victory, which had taken place only days earlier. The following is a complete transcript of that question, and Bloomberg’s full response. The segment shown in the 60-second clip is in bold type: Ewen Hollingsworth: Ewen Hollingsworth, doing my MBA here. Mr. Bloomberg, Trump got in on a great sense of inequality, not just in the United States but across the world. There’s been a divide, and there’s an increasing divide, between the haves and the have-nots. What do you think business leaders — what’s their responsibility to addressing that divide and uniting, perhaps, the central America [read: ‘Middle America’] and the coasts? Mike Bloomberg: Well, number one, I question whether you’re right. We have, in the last four decades, cut poverty in half in the world, if you measure poverty by people who go to bed without a roof over their head, a meal in their stomach and [who] can’t read. So society is making some progress. Life expectancy is going up, we’re [inaudible] cure more diseases, and we’re about to eradicate — thanks to [Bill] Gates and a little bit of money from us — eradicate polio. So we’re doing some things to help. Number two, the bottom 20% is a lot better off than the bottom 20% in the past. The bottom 20% in America — the bottom 20% in New York City, 80% have cars, 30% have two cars, virtually everybody has a cellphone, they all have 72-inch TV screens and sort of thing. So there is some of this, so you’ve got to be careful in this. And, incidentally, before we address the basic issue, if you measure poverty by the top 1% versus the bottom 20%, you get very different numbers than if you measure it by the two to 20% down from the top here, and the bottom 20%. Because of very low interest rates, you have inflated values of fixed assets, which are almost always owned by the very wealthy, and so, they’ve shot up — maybe it’s the top 5% — but if you adjusted for that, it’s not as disparate as you would think. So that’s what the real world is. We have a problem of income inequality, nevertheless. I would argue what’s more important is we have educational inequality. There was a story on the front page of the FT [Financial Times] today, I think it was, that said there’s nobody from the poor districts of London that comes to this great school, one of the great universities of the whole world, and zero from poor neighborhoods, at least I assume the statistics are right and they didn’t just cherry-pick one neighborhood. So that is more important than net worth because that says what the future is going to be for the young people. Having said all of that, you can fix the inequality. You take money from the rich and you give it to the poor. We’ve always done that, we have a tax system, generally, around the world, that is graduated at the top end, progressive tax system, takes more money from the rich per capita and redistributes it. Tuition in a university, in America certainly, is a Robin Hood plan. You want — the kids are always on the wrong side of that, they always want lower tuition, no you don’t, you want to raise tuition in the university, as high as you can, so the wealthy will contribute more money, and then use the extra money to subsidize those kids who have no money. If you reduce the amount of money you take in from the rich, it’s the poor that get hurt, not helped. So some of these things are a little bit counterintuitive. But you take the money from the rich, you give it to the poor, you do it for altruistic reasons, you do it because you don’t want the poor on your doorstep and there are a variety of things. But I think what you’ve got to understand is the people who are getting the subsidy want the dignity of a job. They want the dignity of being responsible for their family and being able to take care of it. And that’s the conundrum we’re going to have here because technology is reducing the ability to give them the jobs. We just — more and more, if you think about it, the agrarian society lasted 3,000 years, and we could teach processes. I could teach anybody — even people in this room, no offense intended — to be a farmer. It’s a [process]. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that. Then you have 300 years of the industrial society. You put the piece of metal on the lathe, you turn the crank in the direction of the arrow and you can have a job. And we created a lot of jobs. [At] one point, 98% of the world worked in agriculture, today it’s 2%, in the United States. Now comes the information economy. And the information economy is fundamentally different because it’s built around replacing people with technology, and the skill sets that you have to learn are how to think and analyze. And that is a whole degree level different. You have to have a different skill set, you have to have a lot more gray matter. It’s not clear that teachers can teach or the students can learn. So the challenge for society is to find jobs for these people — who we can take care of giving them a roof over their head and a meal in their stomach, and a cellphone and a car and that sort of thing. But the thing that’s the most important, that will stop them from setting up the guillotines some day, is the dignity of a job. And nobody’s yet come up with a simple solution, in this day and age, to how we create jobs, particularly for people already out of school. I can tell you how to fix the school system so that the kids come out with better skills, more ability to appreciate life and to work collaboratively and collectively and read the instruction manual and follow orders. But it’s very hard to figure out where the jobs they’re going to get will come from, and for those that are already out in the work force, to get them back into the system and teach them new skill sets, is almost impossible. It’s very very hard to do and nobody’s really shown they could it. There’s individual cases where you can retrain them, I don’t want to overstate it. But the coal miner I talked about in West Virginia is not going to move, and his family, out to California where the solar jobs are, and even if he got there he’s not going to get those jobs. Nobody’s going to hire an older person. It’s fascinating to me — older people are always willing to hire younger people; younger people are not willing to hire older people. I think it’s just they’re afraid of older people that may have skill sets they don’t have, and you know, they make fun of them, they say they’re not able to change and think — none of those things are true, there are plenty of older people who are really smart and really can do new things if you gave them the opportunity. But there’s a discrimination from young managers to hire older people. It’s reasonably well documented I think, and certainly observable. So your basic premise is, it’s not that bad, it’s better than it was before, but it’s a big problem and the problem is not the redistribution of wealth, it is the job where you’re going every day. And you say ‘What’s business’s responsibility?’ It’s not business’s job. Business’s job is to take the investors’ money and to maximize the money by creating products that the public wants and are willing to pay for. And you can’t say to them they should go and create jobs deliberately. You can have a tax policy that encourages that, and that’s one of the things you should do, and then use the collective wisdom of all of the heads of companies, to create small pockets, and it adds up to a lot of jobs. That’s what I would do right away. Your taxes are lower the more people you hire, and higher the fewer people you hire. And let capitalism work, because government’s not going to be able to solve the problem directly. But short of that, who’s going to create the jobs? Well if it’s not industry, there’s only one group left to do it. And so the next time you want more efficient government, think twice. I’m not so sure you do want more efficient government. Back in the ’30s, we created an inefficient government. We put people to work building infrastructure we needed. They weren’t maybe the — you could have had other people do it more efficiently but we wanted to create jobs and we did, and it took us — World War II was really what took us out of the Depression, but it got us through the Depression. And maybe that is the answer, that we’re going to say ‘government’s got to create no-show jobs,’ or jobs that you have to show but that aren’t needed. We can pass a law that says you’ve got to move all the paper from the left to the right side of the building every day, and back again. Okay. And then the government are going to hire people to do it. But it’s better than people being out on the streets, desperate for a job, not being able to find it, [destabilizing] society.” Claim: "In 2016 Mike Bloomberg said he ""could teach anybody to be a farmer"" but information technology required ""a lot more gray matter."
[EX A]:
Despite the significant volume of words, Bloomberg’s basic argument can reasonably be summarized as follows: Income inequality is not as chronic as it was in the past, but is still a significant problem. The primary cause for concern is educational inequality, and in particular the extent to which older people who previously worked in agriculture and in relatively low-skilled manual work can transition to participating in the information economy.