TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Paragraph: There was no mention of the potential costs of screening women for vitamin D levels (as encouraged in the release in a statement from the principal investigator) or the cost of supplementation. The release does a good job of comparing data and providing explanations for the measurements used. We’ll award a Satisfactory for that precision, but as noted below under “Evidence,” there was no explicit caution regarding the fact that measurements of interleukin-6 (IL-6) are only surrogates for the effects of weight loss and vitamin D on clinical outcomes related to inflammation (e.g. cancer diagnoses). IL-6 levels dropped in both the placebo and vitamin D arms, and it’s not clear whether the statistically significant additional decline in IL-6 observed in the vitamin D group is clinically important. Because some of the participants were vitamin D-deficient and the dose of vitamin D provided was modest (2000 IU/d), this was a tough call. But supplementation is often so misunderstood, overhyped and oversold that some statement cautioning readers to pay attention to the specifics of this study and not apply its recommendations to everyone seems prudent. For the most part, the release provides a cautious and accurate description of what appears to be a well-conducted clinical trial in a well-defined population. For example, it notes that weight loss and vitamin D lowered inflammation LINKED to cancer — not that these things reduced cancer risk itself (something this study couldn’t establish). But as noted above, we would have appreciated an explicit acknowledgment that IL-6 is a surrogate marker for the clinical outcomes that people care about. And more importantly, we’re concerned about the closing comment that women should talk to their doctors about measuring their vitamin D levels to determine the most appropriate dose. The problem is there is no evidence supporting screening or treating to a level — and certainly not from this study. The US Preventive Services Task Force has concluded that evidence is insufficient to recommend routine vitamin D screening and the IOM has said that while there are data supporting the benefits of vitamin D supplementation with bone health and fall prevention, there is no evidence supporting benefits for cancer. While testing may be warranted in those with signs or symptoms of clinical deficiency, the statement made here implies that everyone should be tested so that an appropriate dose of vitamin D can be selected. That goes beyond the available evidence. It’s hard to argue that overweight, vitamin deficiency, chronic inflammation and cancer are not real threats, so no mongering apparent here. Funding sources are well documented. The study didn’t discuss alternative preventive measures or genetic causes of increased cancer risks. But this is such a broad and expansive topic that we don’t think the release should have been expected to address those myriad issues. We’ll rate this Not Applicable. Primary care physicians and other health providers are well positioned to monitor blood levels of vitamin D, along with dietary and exercise regimens. The news release makes that clear, albeit indirectly. As noted above, we think the release goes too far in suggesting that people ask their doctors about having their vitamin D levels checked. But we’ve already docked points for that, so we’ll award a Satisfactory rating here. The release makes a case for this being the first clinical trial of its kind; although it’s always difficult to make that statement absolutely, the writer of the release attributes the statement to the study author. As a general rule, it’s probably best to say “believed to be the first.”  While the release meets our standard here, we also wish it had delved a bit into the background of previous vitamin D research and the conflicting and confusing messages that research has generated. Without that context, the typical reader might wrongly jump to the conclusion, based on the wording of the lede and other parts of the release, that this study of vitamin D supplementation — because it was a controlled clinical trial — has somehow settled the important questions about the role of vitamin D and inflammation in cancer risk. The debate remains alive and well. None detected. Claim: Weight loss plus vitamin D reduces inflammation linked to cancer, chronic disease

SOLUTION: This news release describes a randomized, controlled clinical trial designed to learn whether adding vitamin D supplements to substantial weight loss regimens would have a synergistic effect in reducing inflammatory chemicals in the bodies of overweight, older women with levels of vitamin D considered too low. The study, published in Cancer Prevention Research, has potential relevance for cancer prevention because inflammatory cytokines have been implicated in the genesis and progression of some cancers, as well as heart disease and other disorders. The release offers substantial details about the design, metrics and outcomes of the clinical trial and does a pretty good job of defining the possible reasons for the effects of chronic inflammation and weight loss on cancer development. It goes to some lengths to narrowly define the results and avoid overstatement. That said, the release ends on a sour note by encouraging readers to talk to their doctors about vitamin D testing — a recommendation not consistent with U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines and which is not supported by this research. Readers might also have been better informed if the release had offered more context regarding the many conflicting and sometimes confusing studies that have previously looked for links among vitamin D, inflammatory responses, diet, overweight, sun exposure and cancer. News releases that include the words “diet,” “overweight,” “vitamin,” and “cancer” are almost narrative nuclear events, often guaranteeing an explosion of coverage, souped up vitamin sales pitches, and lots of negative fallout whose half-life seems forever. Cancer remains the second biggest killer disease overall of Americans, and some experts believe that it will soon push heart disease and stroke out of first place. Thus cancer prevention is a deservedly hot topic, and it is no surprise that Americans are eager for information about ways to limit their risk. News releases that describe research on these topics have enormous power to inform and misinform.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: The three have been speaking out this week as part of a high-profile “Heads Together” campaign, which aims to break stigmas around mental health issues and encourage people to speak openly about their emotions. In a six-minute film recorded at Kensington Palace in central London on Wednesday, the trio discussed the stress of becoming new parents, dealing with trauma at work, and the death of the princes’ mother, Princess Diana, in a Paris car crash in 1997. “When you have children, it really does put your own emotions and your own life into perspective and it has been very, very interesting understanding why I get so upset about some things, why some things effect me,” William said in the clip released by his office on Friday. “I thought I was fairly straight down the line, but I feel quite a lot more than I used to.”  William, Queen Elizabeth’s grandson and second in line to the throne, said he had taken home some of the cases he had encountered when working as an air ambulance helicopter pilot. He and Kate also spoke of the pressure of parenthood following the birth of son George in 2013. “... You have no idea what you’re doing no matter how many books you read - nothing can prepare you for it,” Kate said. The first few weeks after they returned to their former home in Wales, she said, “were a steep learning curve, massively”. Earlier this week, William talked about how the shock of losing his mother still lingered 20 years after her death. Harry said he had sought counseling to help deal with the grief. William warned the British virtue of the stiff upper lip could damage mental health - a departure from the royal family’s traditional stoic attitude amid crises ranging from the 1936 abdication of King Edward VIII to the death of Princess Diana. “We have been brought closer because of the circumstances. You are uniquely bonded because of what we’ve been through. But even Harry and I over the years have not talked enough about our mother,” William said. Harry added: “Never enough”. “I always thought to myself, ‘what’s the point in bringing up the past?’,” Harry said. “What’s the point in bringing up something that’s only going to make you sad, it ain’t going to change it, it ain’t going to bring her back. When you start thinking like that, it can be really damaging.”  A Kensington Palace spokesman said the royals had been overwhelmed by the response to their campaign. “Having asked others to start conversations on mental health with their friends and families, they wanted to show that they are taking part as well,” the spokesman said. Claim: UK's William, Harry and Kate open up about emotional struggles.

SOLUTION: Britain’s Prince William, his wife Kate and brother Harry have given their most public comments on their emotional struggles and how the siblings’ closeness helped them cope with their mother’s death.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: On March 24 2020, journalist Judd Legum published a tweet claiming that as the COVID-19 pandemic began ramping up in the United States, Amazon.com (owned by Jeff Bezos) requested public donations in order to pay for employees’ sick leave:1. Amazon, owned by the richest man in the world, is soliciting PUBLIC DONATIONS to pay sick leave for contract drivers who contract COVID-19This is not a jokehttps://t.co/YAYeLo5Jak— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) March 24, 2020Alongside a screenshot and a link to a longer claim, Legum began a thread:1. Amazon, owned by the richest man in the world, is soliciting PUBLIC DONATIONS to pay sick leave for contract drivers who contract COVID-19This is not a joke2. Amazon has one of the worst policies for workers who contract COVID-19. Requires a positive test or a formal quarantine order to get paid.But contractors have it even worse. They have to apply for a “grant” from the Amazon Relief Fund.3. Amazon gave $25 million to the Amazon Relief Fund and then solicited donations for more.Apparently someone realized this looked bad so later they added language saying the “aren’t expecting” anyone to donate.4. There is a lot of talk about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY during this crisis. That’s important.But equally important is CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY.That’s the mission of my newsletter, Popular Information.… 5. A broader point: If you are delivering packages for Amazon and contract COVID-19 you should not be forced to APPLY FOR A GRANT to get paid while you recover.It’s ghoulish.6. As a result of the pandemic, Amazon’s business is booming. It is likely to permanently benefit from this crisis. The absolute least it can do is take care of the workers that make its service possible.7. UPDATE: Amazon has responded and they say that it is COMPLETELY NORMAL for a company with $281 billion of revenue last year to require workers who contract a potentially-deadly virus to APPLY FOR A GRANT to get paid while they are quarantined.8. Amazon also claims it has “not asked for donations” despite the fact that it created a public website for this grant fund that solicited donations. The initial version had a way to donate via text!Amazon thinks this is normalThis is not normalLegum’s tweets linked to his website, Popular.info, a newsletter-based news service described by Wired as a “a one-man political newsletter ‘for people who are feeling overwhelmed'” in a 2018 profile on the effort. His commentary stretched across those eight initial tweets:In his seventh tweet, Legum added that Amazon had confirmed the policy he described and added a screenshot with a statement attributed to an Amazon.com spokesperson:That quote contained an assertion that Amazon was effectively not actively soliciting donations to the Amazon Relief Fund — but that the innate, third-party structured platform “required” that it be “open to public contributions”:We are not and have not asked for donations and the Amazon Relief Fund has been funded by Amazon with an initial donation of $25 million. The structure to operate a fund like this, which hundreds of companies do through the same third-party, requires the program to be open to public contributions but we are not soliciting those contributions in any way.The linked Popular.info page was a March 24 2020 article by Legum headlined, “Amazon soliciting public donations to pay workers’ sick leave.” It reported in part:Amazon’s large contract workforce, which delivers packages and performs other critical tasks, is in even worse shape. Amazon is not providing any sick leave at all for these workers, even if they test positive for COVID-19. Instead, these workers must apply to the “Amazon Relief Fund” and apply for a grant to cover their sick leave. The fund is “focused on supporting our U.S.-based Delivery Associates employed by Delivery Service Providers, our Amazon Flex Delivery Partners, and Associates working for Integrity Staffing, Adecco Staffing, and RES Staffing, and drivers and support team members of line haul partners under financial distress due to a COVID-19 diagnosis or quarantine.”Amazon donated $25 million to the fund and is soliciting individual donations to add to the pot. It initially included an option to donate by text.Popular.info had previously reported that the retail giant requested diagnostic criteria (a positive test or being “placed into quarantine”) which made it difficult to employees of the company to use paid sick time during the pandemic. Legum said that Amazon offered “unlimited unpaid leave” for its hourly employees, adding that Amazon’s fleet of contractors were required to apply for a “grant” from the “Amazon Relief Fund” in the event they contracted COVID-19 while on the job or off:Amazon announced that it would offer “unlimited unpaid time off for all hourly employees through the end of March [2020].” This is of little use for most hourly employees, who in most cases can’t afford to take unpaid leave.The company also says, “all Amazon employees diagnosed with COVID-19 or placed into quarantine will receive up to two-weeks of pay.” This is similar to Kroger’s [since changed] policy. But testing is still extremely limited, and most employees will not be able to evaluated and be “placed into quarantine.”For contractors, like [an interviewed] driver in Illinois, things are bleaker. Amazon will not guarantee paid leave even for contractors that are diagnosed with COVID-19. Instead, “our independent delivery service partners and their drivers, Amazon Flex participants, and seasonal employees under financial distress” can “apply for grants approximately equal to up to two-weeks of pay if diagnosed with COVID-19 or placed into quarantine by the government or Amazon.” The company has made an initial contribution of $25 million for this grant program. That’s how much revenue Amazon brought in every 47 minutes in 2019. Contractors are supposed to apply for grants through a website that does not appear to be online yet.A link in the March 17 2020 article went to blog.aboutamazon.com, an official Amazon.com corporate site, and an entry titled, “Amazon’s COVID-19 blog: How we are supporting our employees, customers, and communities.” (A version of the page archived on March 15 2020 is available here.) A March 11 2020 sub-entry on that post read:March 11: Establishing the $25 million Amazon Relief FundThe Amazon Relief Fund is focused on supporting our independent delivery service partners and their drivers, Amazon Flex participants, and seasonal employees under financial distress during this challenging time. We will be offering all of these groups the ability to apply for grants approximately equal to up to two weeks of pay if diagnosed with COVID-19 or placed into quarantine. Going forward, this fund will support our employees and contractors around the world who face financial hardships. Applicants may apply and receive a personal grant from the fund ranging from $400 to $5,000 per person. Read more.“Read more” linked to a March 11 2020 entry titled “COVID-19 update: More ways Amazon is supporting employees and contractors,” which as of March 25 2020 included the referenced policies (emphasis ours):Effective immediately, all Amazon employees diagnosed with COVID-19 or placed into quarantine will receive up to two-weeks of pay. This additional pay while away from work is to ensure employees have the time they need to return to good health without the worry of lost pay. This is in addition to unlimited unpaid time off for all hourly employees through the end of March, which we shared with employees last week.Amazon Relief Fund We are establishing the Amazon Relief Fund with a $25 million initial contribution focused on supporting our independent delivery service partners and their drivers, Amazon Flex participants, and seasonal employees under financial distress during this challenging time. We will be offering all of these groups the ability to apply for grants approximately equal to up to two-weeks of pay if diagnosed with COVID-19 or placed into quarantine by the government or Amazon.Additionally, this fund will support our employees and contractors around the world who face financial hardships from other qualifying events, such as a natural disaster, federally declared emergency, or unforeseen personal hardship. Applicants can apply and receive a personal grant from the fund ranging from $400 to $5,000 USD per person.We will be publishing a website in the coming days where employees and contractors can apply for grants from the fund.Neither the reporting nor Amazon’s various statement pages made it easy to locate the page. As Amazon stated, the “Amazon Relief Fund” was hosted on a third-party website. When we accessed the page on March 25 2020, it read:The Amazon Relief Fund was created to help individuals who are facing financial hardship immediately after a natural disaster or an unforeseen personal hardship. The Amazon Relief Fund relies primarily on individual donations from individuals and support from Amazon Relief Fund to fund this program. Every contribution helps and when combined with the donations of others, can provide the help a fellow individual needs when they are facing the unexpected.Clarifying their dueling claims based on available information was not straightforward, in part because links weren’t archived and the initiatives described in various stories (such as the Amazon Relief Fund) were difficult to find and hosted on a third-party site.As Amazon said, the Amazon Relief Fund was administrated through an outside party — the Emergency Assistance Foundation (EAF), an organization enabling “corporations make emergency hardship grants for their employees when they face unexpected and unavoidable financial hardships or disasters.”However, Legum quoted Amazon’s spokesperson as explicitly stating that the “structure to operate a fund like this, which hundreds of companies do through the same third-party, requires the program to be open to public contributions but we are not soliciting those contributions in any way.” A screenshot of the Amazon Relief Fund taken on March 25 2020 shows that the fund was indeed soliciting donations via credit card, debit card, or PayPal, with options for people inside and outside the United States:We were unable to determine if any barrier existed for Amazon directly funding sick leave for its range of workers. It did not seem likely using the EAF platform was anything other than optional, and “What We Do” text at the bottom of the page emphasized that the program was primarily for coworkers to donate to one another:The Emergency Assistance Foundation, Inc. is a 501c(3) charity created to design and operate multiple employer-sponsored disaster relief and employee hardship funds. These funds allow domestic and international employers and employees to help their coworkers in times of crises.EAF’s FAQ explained that part of EAF’s purpose was to outsource vetting and verifying claims made by employees of any company for financial relief due to hardship:How does an Employee Relief Fund Work? There are a number of distinct processes or steps to establishing and operating an effective Employer-Sponsored Employee Hardship and Disaster Relief Fund Program. Here are the basics:a. An employer creates and names a custom fund within the Emergency Assistance Foundation, Inc. Establishing a fund is offered at no cost to the employer and is as simple as signing a simple Field-of-Interest agreement.b. Donations are made by employee contributions (through payroll deduction, credit or debit card, check), by the employer (usually through a donation-matching program or direct contribution), by the employer’s foundation, and sometimes through fundraising events.c. Employees complete applications for assistance, which EAF staff review.d. Each application undergoes a preliminary review to ensure a qualifying emergency or hardship exists and that all required documentation has been received. The applicant will be contacted if additional information is needed.e. Trained EAF personnel conduct final application reviews to determine if they meet the criteria established specifically for the company’s Employee Relief Fund. After the review, the grant requests are either accepted or denied based on the objective criteria. For approvals, the amount of the grant is determined.f. Grants are paid directly to vendors and service providers on behalf of the employee applicant or directly to the employee applicant in accordance with the employer’s guidelines.Per EAF, the burden was placed on employees to provide documentation that “a qualifying emergency” actually existed:A Qualified Disaster is defined as:• Results from terrorist or military actions • Results from an accident involving a common carrier • A presidentially-declared disaster • An event that the secretary of the treasury determines is catastrophic • An Employee Emergency Hardship is defined as:Any other permissible hardship other than a Qualified Disaster, which can range from house fire, serious injury or illness, death or a number of other events[. ]A sixth question addressed how employees feel about being asked to donate to their employers’ various funds. EAF’s response seemed geared more to charity and altruism than the distribution of benefits, such as — for example — paid sick leave during a pandemic:When a company gives employees a chance to donate to a worthy cause it increases their connection to the organization. This may seem counterintuitive, but research shows it’s true. It’s called prosocial motivation, which is the desire to protect and promote the well-being of others, and is distinct from altruism and independent of self-interested motivations. Interestingly, this is also true with Employee Relief Funds where the donor is more connected than the receiver.The Amazon Relief Fund was also accessible at amazonrelieffund.org. As of March 25 2020, text on that page explicitly solicited donations from anyone visiting the page:This fund has an initial donation of $25 million from Amazon. The company will continue to make additional contributions to the fund as it’s needed. While we aren’t expecting anyone to do so, you can make a voluntary donation to the fund if you desire to do so.To make a US Donation using your Credit Card, Debit Card or PayPal click here.All donations to the fund at the Emergency Assistance Foundation, Inc. are tax deductible in the U.S. The EIN# for the Emergency Assistance Foundation is 45-1813056.As Legum stated in his tweets, Amazon had indeed changed the language on that page. A version archived on March 19 2020 made no reference to Amazon not “expecting” anyone to donate:Make a Donation You can make a voluntary ongoing gift or one-time gift through our secure site using your credit/debit card or directly donate through your payroll.To make a US Donation using your Credit Card, Debit Card or PayPal click here.To make a donation via Text-to-Give, simply text the unique keyword “ARelief” to 71777.All donations to the fund at the Emergency Assistance Foundation, Inc. are tax deductible in the U.S. The EIN# for the Emergency Assistance Foundation is 45-1813056.In addition to the solicitation for visitors to donate money to the Amazon Relief Fund, it appeared a since-deleted line asked for “text-to-give” donations. Users were instructed to text keyword “ARelief” to 71777 to make a donation via text message, which we tested and found it appeared to still be doing as of March 25 2020:We contacted EAF to ask if it requires the program to be open to public contributions as a platform requirement, which was what the Amazon spokesperson was quoted as claiming, and asked:Can you tell us whether it is necessary for companies using EAF to solicit public donations for its respective relief funds? Is there a requirement companies include non-employee donations along with employee donations?We received a response in direct conflict with Amazon’s statement. EAF said that employers and employees were the primary funders of their programs:There is no requirement , most likely the donors will be the company, the company foundation or employees. Sometimes vendors donateBased on Amazon’s own statements, full-time employees were required to have tested positive for COVID-19 or under formal quarantine to access paid time off during the coronavirus pandemic; Amazon established the Amazon Relief Fund to cover sick leave for other classes of employee, such as contract workers and Amazon Flex participants who fell ill due to COVID-19; and Amazon’s contract workers who contracted COVID-19 were required to apply for a grant from a third-party-administered fund, the Amazon Relief Fund. In response to questions about the relief fund as well as their solicitation of public donations to fund it, an Amazon employee stated that the company was both required to solicit public donations and that it was not soliciting those contributions in any way.Archived, earlier versions of the Amazon Relief Fund page not only solicited donations from the public, but also invited donations via texts of “ARelief” sent to 71777. We texted “ARelief” to 71777 the afternoon of March 25 2020, and it appeared donations were still being accepted. (It was unclear how Amazon’s text-to-donate function was set up, but it nevertheless existed and functioned on March 25 2020. )Finally, we asked EAF if it “requires the program to be open to public contributions” in order to operate; a representative indicated that was false, and that the Amazon Relief Fund was neither required to accept public donations, nor was the program innately structured to include such a requirement. Claim: Amazon is soliciting public donations to fund sick leave during the COVID-19 pandemic.

SOLUTION:
Is Amazon Seeking Public Donations to Fund Sick Leave During the COVID-19 Pandemic?