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 confirmation hearing of Ronny Jackson, Trump’s White House doctor and a Navy rear admiral chosen to speed up improvements to the VA, is scheduled for next week. On Tuesday, he met privately with Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, the top Democrat on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, as a part of visits this week to assure lawmakers he could effectively lead the government’s second-largest department. Tester said after the meeting that Jackson had committed to the same stance against privatization as David Shulkin, who pledged before his confirmation as VA secretary last year to continue strong investment in core VA programs and facilities while expanding access to private doctors. Shulkin was fired last month. “We talked extensively about why Shulkin got fired with the issues revolving around privatization and capacity building,” Tester said. He “seems to be somebody who doesn’t want to privatize the VA.” Asked if Jackson had pledged not to privatize VA, Tester said “yes.” “He said basically the same thing Shulkin said--that he wanted to build capacity at the VA,” Tester said. According to Tester, Jackson had not yet informed Trump of his views but would be doing so. Both Tester and Sen. Johnny Isakson, the Republican chairman of the veterans committee who met with Jackson Monday, have declined to endorse Jackson in advance of his confirmation hearing on April 25, saying they need to hear more about his plans to fix VA. Jackson is “certainly not an expert on VA,” Tester said. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., a Senate committee member who also met Tuesday with Jackson, said she needed more assurances that Jackson would resist undue White House pressure to aggressively expand private care. Major veterans groups view VA medical centers as best suited to treat complex battlefield injuries, such as traumatic brain injury. “In our meeting today, I appreciated how strongly Dr. Jackson spoke against privatizing the VA, but I still need to know more about how he will stand up to ideological opponents of VA and remain fully committed to putting the needs of veterans first,” Murray said. The issue of privatizing VA has been a political hot button since the 2016 campaign, when Trump pledged to aggressively expand veterans’ access to private doctors outside the government-run VA system at taxpayers’ expense via the Veterans Choice program. Trump’s comments came in the wake of a 2014 scandal at the Phoenix VA medical center in which some veterans died while waiting months for medical appointments. After he was fired as VA secretary, Shulkin blamed “political forces” in the Trump administration that he says are bent on privatizing the agency and prioritizing “companies with profits” over the care of veterans. On Tuesday, the White House reiterated that there were “no discussions” about privatizing VA. “This administration has taken several unprecedented steps to transform and modernize the VA,” White House spokesman Raj Shah said in a statement. “We look forward to continuing our work with Congress to reform and strengthen the VA Choice program to provide our veterans with more choice in their health care.” Several Democratic senators, including Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, have vowed to oppose Jackson’s nomination if it leads to greater privatization at the agency. Before he was confirmed last year as VA secretary, Shulkin, a holdover from the Obama administration, declared in advance that he wouldn’t “privatize” VA. “VA is a unique national resource that is worth saving, and I am committed to doing just that,” Shulkin said in February 2017. “There will be far greater accountability, dramatically improved access, responsiveness and expanded care options, but the Department of Veterans Affairs will not be privatized under my watch.” ___ Follow Hope Yen on Twitter at https://twitter.com/hopeyen1 Claim: Dem senator: Trump VA pick vows not to privatize vets care.
[A]: President Donald Trump’s pick to be Veterans Affairs secretary is promising not to privatize the agency, a key Democratic senator said Tuesday, taking a stance on a politically charged issue that his predecessor says led to his firing.


[Q]: Paragraph: Such a test could initially be used to select patients for clinical trials of experimental treatments being developed to try to halt progression of Alzheimer’s, the researchers said, and may one day move into routine use in doctors’ clinics. “Alzheimer’s begins to affect the brain many years before patients are diagnosed (and) many of our drug trials fail because by the time patients are given the drugs the brain has already been too severely affected,” said Simon Lovestone of Oxford University, who led this work from King’s College London. “A simple blood test could help us identify patients at a much earlier stage to take part in new trials and hopefully develop treatments,” he said. Alzheimer’s is the most common form of dementia, a brain-wasting disease which in 2010 was estimated to be costing the world $604 billion a year. The fatal disease affects 44 million people worldwide, with the number set to triple by 2050, the campaign group Alzheimer’s Disease International says. Several big pharma firms including Roche, Eli Lilly, Merck & Co and Johnson & Johnson, are pursuing various approaches to get to the root cause of Alzheimer’s and try to find treatments to halt its progression. Yet over the past 15 years, more than 100 experimental Alzheimer’s drugs have failed in trial. Lovestone and other experts believe this may be because drug trials are conducted too late, in patients whose condition has already gone too far. A predictive test for use before people develop symptoms would help researchers select the right people for drug trials, and help show whether the experimental drugs are working. Previous studies have found that PET brain scans and tests of lumbar fluid can be used to predict the onset of dementia from people with a less severe condition known as mild cognitive impairment (MCI), but these tests are expensive and invasive, so scientists are keen to develop a cheaper, simpler blood test. MCI includes problems with day-to-day memory, language and attention. It can be an early sign of dementia, or a symptom of stress or anxiety. Around 10 percent of people diagnosed with MCI develop dementia within a year. Apart from regular assessments to measure memory decline, there is currently no accurate way of predicting who will or won’t develop dementia. For this study, published in the journal Alzheimer’s & Dementia, Lovestone’s team used blood samples from 1,148 people - 476 with Alzheimer’s, 220 with mild cognitive impairment and 452 elderly controls without dementia. They were analyzed for 26 proteins previously found to be linked with Alzheimer’s. The team found 16 of these 26 proteins to be strongly associated with brain shrinkage in either MCI or Alzheimer’s and then ran a second series of tests to see which of these could predict which patients would progress from MCI to Alzheimer’s. With this second series, they found a combination of 10 proteins capable of predicting with 87 percent accuracy whether people with MCI would develop Alzheimer’s disease within a year. Experts in the field welcomed the results but said they should be replicated in larger studies before an Alzheimer’s blood test could be rolled out for use in doctors’ clinics. “The results reported today are interesting, but as the authors point out there is still a very large amount of work remaining until a usable blood test for Alzheimer’s disease becomes available,” said Adrian Pini of the MRC Center for Developmental Neurobiology at King’s College London. James Pickett, head of research at the Alzheimer’s Society, said the research “does not mean that a blood test for dementia is just around the corner”. “These 10 proteins can predict conversion to dementia with less than 90 percent accuracy, meaning one in 10 people would get an incorrect result,” he said. “Accuracy would need to be improved before it could be a useful diagnostic test.” Claim: Study paves the way for a blood test to predict Alzheimer's.
[A]: British scientists have identified a set of 10 proteins in the blood that can predict the onset of Alzheimer’s and call this an important step towards developing a test for the incurable brain-wasting disease.


[Q]: Paragraph: The story provides the estimated annual cost of hospital visits for chemotherapy-related side effects. The story explains that chemotherapy may be of limited benefit to many women, especially since the incidence of serious side effects is greater than previously estimated. The story provides balance on the risks and benefits of chemotherapy. There is discussion of informed decision making and the importance of weighing the absolute benefit of more treatment with the risks of experiencing serious side effects. The story mentions underreporting of chemotherapy side effects in large clinical trials is due, in part, to the characteristics of participants in clinical trials. Results from clinical trials serve only as a guide and may not provide an accurate estimation of individual risk, especially for younger women or women with co-existing health conditions. The story discusses the study design and the importance of the results for women making decisions about chemotherapy as part of their breast cancer treatment. The story provides evidence of greater incidence of side effects in younger (<63 years), insured women treated with chemotherapy vs. women who did not undergo chemotherapy. The story does not engage in disease mongering. The story appropriately does not advocate chemotherapy for all breast cancer patients. The story discusses targeted treatment for those who would benefit most from this therapy. The story discusses the outcomes of the study with study authors and the federal agency that funded this study. A researcher who wrote an editorial in the publishing journal is cited to provide perspective on the results. The story mentions surgery, radiation, hormone therapy and chemotherapy and the option that a woman might choose different combinations of these treatments. Chemotherapy has been a standard treatment for breast cancer for many years. The story mentions that for some women the attempt to prevent a breast cancer recurrence may not include chemotherapy, depending on her risk of recurrence. The idea of individualizing treatment via molecular profiling is new. The idea that some women at low risk of cancer recurrence and higher risk of serious side effects might decide to skip chemotherapy is also a newer approach to treatment. That there is a higher incidence of serious complications in routine care than when treatments are administered in trials is not new, but this study provides a good estimate for the likelihood of complications in routine care using claims data from large population of patients. The article does not appear to rely on a press release. Claim: Chemo’s toll on breast cancer patients underestimated
[A]:
Chemotherapy has been a standard treatment for breast cancer for many years. The story does an excellent job discussing reasons why chemotherapy may offer limited benefit to many women, especially since the incidence of serious side effects is greater than previously estimated. That there is a higher incidence of serious complications in routine care than when treatments are administered in trials is not new, but this study provides a good estimate for the likelihood of complications in routine care using claims data from many patients. The story mentions that under-reporting of chemotherapy-related side effects in large clinical trials is due, in part, to the characteristics of women enrolled in these trials. Results from large studies serve only as a guide and may not provide an accurate estimation of individual risk, especially for many younger women or women with co-existing health conditions. The story discusses the study design and provides evidence of a greater number and seriousness of side effects in younger (<63 years), insured women treated with chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy. However, the story does not mention that because uninsured women were not represented in this study, these women may have different, and potentially greater incidence of chemotherapy-related side effects. The story provides the estimated annual cost of hospital visits for chemotherapy-related side effects. The story mentions surgery, radiation, hormone therapy and chemotherapy as treatment options for breast cancer, and that a woman might choose different combinations of these therapies. This is a five-star story, and it used only 541 words.