instruction:
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.
question:
Paragraph: On Sunday, China’s ambassador to the United States, Cui Tiankai, said in a New York Times opinion piece there had been “unpleasant talk” between the two countries about the virus but that now was the time for “solidarity, collaboration and mutual support.”  “If Ambassador Cui is saying that China is willing to cooperate with the U.S., we would appreciate the opportunity to work directly with their Virology labs in Wuhan to share whatever research they have, since they’ve known about it and have been fighting it for at least a month longer than our scientists here in the U.S.,” the official said. The comments come a day before Wuhan, the Chinese city where the outbreak originated late last year, was poised to lift its lockdown after reporting only two new infections in the past fortnight. “Since the pandemic originated in Wuhan, we think cooperation with PRC medical and disease experts there is critical to saving lives globally,” the administration official added. Claim: U.S. official urges China to allow direct work with Wuhan labs on coronavirus.
answer:
A senior Trump administration official urged China on Tuesday to allow the United States to work directly with laboratories in Wuhan on research into the novel coronavirus, saying this was critical to saving lives globally.


question:
Paragraph: Although Pfizer continues to test the drug, called dacomitinib, in another Phase III study, hopes for its success have now largely faded, according to ISI Group analyst Mark Schoenebaum. “We believe consensus expectations (for the drug) will be close to zero given today’s readout” of unsuccessful trial results, Schoenebaum said in a research note. In one of the failed trials, called ARCHER 1009, patients given Pfizer’s once-daily pill did not show improved survival without the cancer worsening, compared with Roche Holding AG’s widely used Tarceva (erlotinib). Tarceva is the current standard of care in patients with mutated forms of a protein called Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR). The protein plays a role in normal regulation of cell growth, but when mutated is believed to cause cells to proliferate and thereby help spur various types of cancer. Dacomitinib is designed to block several types of Epidermal Growth Factor receptors, while Tarceva and similar treatments for lung cancer target only one type of receptor. Cowen and Co had forecast annual sales of $500 million by 2020 for dacomitinib, if it were approved for lung cancer. That would make it a moderate-sized product for Pfizer, the largest U.S. drugmaker, which has annual revenue of $50 billion. Schoenebaum said there has been little investor interest in the drug and that Wall Street had expected it to generate annual sales of only $300 million by 2018. The second failed trial, named BR.26, involved patients that previously had failed to benefit from chemotherapy as well as from treatment with an EGFR inhibitor. Overall survival of patients taking the Pfizer drug was not prolonged in the study, compared with patients given a placebo. Pfizer said adverse events seen with dacomitinib were consistent with those seen in smaller earlier studies. In the meantime, Pfizer said dacomitinib is also being tested in a third late-stage trial, called ARCHER 1050, among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer who have not received prior treatment. The study will compare dacomitinib with Iressa (gefitinib), an EGFR inhibitor sold by AstraZeneca Plc. Results from that study are expected in 2015. Pfizer shares were little changed in morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange. Claim: Pfizer lung cancer drug fails in two large studies.
answer:
Pfizer Inc on Monday said one of its experimental drugs had failed to meet its goals in two late-stage studies among patients who had received prior treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer, the most common form of the disease.


question:
Paragraph: "Washington and the nation were captivated a week ago by the controversy over Shirley Sherrod, a once-obscure U.S. Agriculture Department official who became a villain, and then a victim, over the course of 24 hours. Because the story began and ended so quickly, we were unable to fact-check it at the time, but here's a recap of what happened. Andrew Breitbart, a conservative provocateur, started things off July 19, 2010, when he posted a video on one of his websites, BigGovernment.com, that seemed to show Sherrod, who is black, telling an NAACP audience that she had discriminated against a white farmer. After conservative bloggers raised an outcry about Sherrod's apparent revelation, the NAACP moved to condemn Sherrod, and senior Agriculture Department officials quickly pressured Sherrod to resign. But within hours, it came out that the video had been selectively edited, and the uncut version made clear that Sherrod had actually been telling the story about the white farmer to explain how she had overcome her own prejudices. She ended up helping save the family's farm, and the farmer and his wife took to the airwaves to defend Sherrod. The Agriculture Department then reversed itself, with Secretary Tom Vilsack making a heartfelt apology and asking Sherrod to return to the department. Sherrod also received a personal call from President Barack Obama. This whirlwind of charges and counter-charges prompted a round of soul-searching by most of those involved in the episode, including those in government, advocacy groups, the blogosphere and the media. One question that quickly emerged was how culpable Fox News was. In the past, Fox news commentators have often beaten the drum on stories critical of Democrats, liberals and the Obama Administration, so to some who were sympathetic to Sherrod, Fox seemed like a plausible villain. They took as evidence a July 20, 2010, CNN interview with Sherrod, in which she explained how, while driving through Georgia, she was forced out by Cheryl Cook, the deputy undersecretary. When Cook called her cell phone, Sherrod recalled telling Cook, ""'Cheryl, I've got a three-and-a-half-hour ride to get into Athens.' She called me a second time, (saying,) 'Where are you now?' I said, 'I'm just going through Atlanta.' She called me again and I said, 'I'm at least 45 minutes to an hour from Athens. She said, 'Well, Shirley, they want you to pull over to the side of the road and do it (formally resign), because you're going to be on Glenn Beck tonight.'"" Beck, of course, is an outspoken conservative commentator with popular talk show on Fox. The question of Fox's role came up during the July 25, 2010, edition of ABC's This Week. Host Jake Tapper cited a commentary by Josh Marshall of the liberal website Talking Points Memo. ""Breitbart got a piece of video he knew nothing about and published it with a central claim that he either made up or made no attempt to verify,"" Tapper quoted Marshall as writing. ""To use terminology of infectious disease, Fox was the primary vector of this story. And to the best of my knowledge, there's been not only no disciplining of anyone in the newsroom, but as far as I can see, no retraction, apology, or even discussion of their primary role in an obvious smear. This is a journalistic felony, really, the worst kind of thing that journalists can ever do, a reality only compounded by the fact that they refuse to admit not only culpability but even that they did anything wrong."" For a reaction, Tapper turned to Stephen Hayes, a senior writer with the Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine, who was a member of the show's roundtable that week. ""Stephen, do you think that ... liberals are unfairly using this to try to discredit conservative journalists?"" Hayes responded, ""Yes, of course, they are. Look, the timeline doesn't work. I mean ... Howard Kurtz, at CNN and the Washington Post wrote that the timeline simply doesn't work. She actually resigned before or was forced to retire before anybody on Fox said a word about this."" We thought it would be worthwhile to check the transcripts and see whether it's correct that Sherrod ""actually resigned before or was forced to retire before anybody on Fox said a word about this."" The earliest on-air comment we could find came the toward the end of the 8 p.m. hour, during an airing of The O'Reilly Factor, a talk show hosted by pugnaciously conservative host Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly told viewers that ""speaking at an NAACP event in March, Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod was caught on tape saying something very disturbing. Seems a white farmer in Georgia had requested government assistance from Ms. Sherrod."" He then showed a clip of Sherrod saying, ""I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farmland. And here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So I didn't give him the full force of what I could do."" When the clip ended, O'Reilly said, ""Wow. Well, that is simply unacceptable. And Ms. Sherrod must resign immediately. The federal government cannot have skin color deciding any assistance. We are requesting an explanation from the agriculture secretary, Tom Vilsack, and will keep you posted. By the way, the full transcript of Ms. Sherrod's remarks is posted on BigGovernment.com."" While it's safe to assume that O'Reilly was unaware of Sherrod's ouster at the time he aired those comments -- why would he call for her ouster if it had already happened? -- his producers apparently found out as the segment was underway, because as O'Reilly was speaking, Fox aired an on-screen notice that said, ""Sec. Vilsack has accepted Sherrod's resignation."" A few minutes later, during the 9 p.m. hour of Fox, O'Reilly's fellow conservative host, Sean Hannity, began his show with an alert that Sherrod had resigned. So, based on the Fox transcripts as well as Sherrod's own account in the CNN interview, Hayes appears to be correct that Sherrod ""was forced to resign before anybody on Fox said a word about this."" Indeed, Howard Kurtz, the Washington Post's media critic, reported that ""after a news meeting Monday afternoon (July 19), an e-mail directive was sent to the news staff in which Fox Senior Vice President Michael Clemente said, 'Let's take our time and get the facts straight on this story. Can we get confirmation and comments from Sherrod before going on-air. Let's make sure we do this right.'"" But we think it's worth mentioning two additional points. First, it's clear from O'Reilly's on-air comment that at least one Fox commentator was preparing to make hay over the Sherrod controversy before she resigned -- it's just that the Agriculture Department beat Fox to the punch by ousting her first. If officials above Sherrod had spent more time reviewing her case instead of forcing her to the side of the road, O'Reilly at least, and possibly other Fox hosts, were ready to take up the call for her to be ousted. Second, Fox's television network may not have discussed Sherrod before she was ousted, but there's evidence that two of its web affiliates did mention the story. Media Matters for America -- a liberal group that tracks alleged media bias and regularly spars with both Fox and Breitbart -- located a FoxNews.com story posted around noon on July 19 that began, ""Days after the NAACP clashed with Tea Party members over allegations of racism, a video has surfaced showing an Agriculture Department official regaling an NAACP audience with a story about how she withheld help to a white farmer facing bankruptcy."" Media Matters wrote that FoxNews.com credited BigGovernment.com with posting the video, and added that ""FoxNews.com is seeking a response from both the NAACP and the USDA."" While Media Matters said that the article is no longer available on FoxNews.com, it provided a screenshot. Not long after that post went up at FoxNews.com, Media Matters said, Fox Nation -- an online community for news and commentary that's affiliated with Fox News -- posted the link to the Sherrod clip on BigGovernment.com under the headline, ""Caught on Tape: Obama Official Discriminates Against White Farmer."" All told, it seems clear to us that the USDA ousted Sherrod in order to forestall the possibility that commentators on Fox's cable channel would start calling for her resignation, not because Fox commentators had actually begun to do so. Still, two Fox web affiliates mentioned the controversy before Sherrod's ouster, and the fact that O'Reilly called for her resignation without knowing that she was already out of a job suggests that Fox was already beginning to pounce. On balance, these two caveats persuade us to drop Hayes' otherwise accurate statement that Shirley Sherrod ""was forced to resign before anybody on Fox said a word about this"" by a notch to ." Claim: "Shirley Sherrod ""was forced to resign before anybody on Fox said a word about this."
answer:

Fox News handling Sherrod story defended by 'Weekly Standard's' Stephen Hayes