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: Three of the other five patients are in either a serious or a critical condition in hospital, while the remaining two have mild symptoms, the United Nations health agency said in a disease outbreak update. H7N9 bird flu emerged last year in China and has infected around 150 people so far there and in Taiwan and Hong Kong, killing at least 46 of them. The latest death was a 38-year-old man from China’s Fujian Province who became ill with H7N9 on January 3, was admitted to hospital on January 8 but died 2 days later. He had underlying illnesses, including tuberculosis and pneumoconiosis. China’s state news agency Xinhua reported another death from H7N9 in the southwestern Guizhou province on Monday, but this has yet to be confirmed by the WHO. A 65-year-old man infected with H7N9 also died in Hong Kong, the government said on Monday. The WHO reiterated there is no evidence as yet of any easy or sustained person-to-person transmission of the strain, and that the source of the human infections is still under investigation. Researchers in the United States said last month that while it is not impossible that H7N9 could become easily transmissible between people, it would need to undergo multiple mutations to do that. Scientists around the world are keeping a watchful eye, on alert for any sign the virus might develop that potential and start to spread rapidly. Claim: Death toll from new China bird flu rises: WHO.
[A]: Six more people in China have been confirmed as infected with the new H7N9 strain of bird flu and one of them has died, the World Health Organisation (WHO) said on Monday.


[Q]: 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
[A]: 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.


[Q]: Paragraph: The vineyards have so far escaped the direct ravages of the worst bushfires for 30 years but winemakers fear their grapes may have fallen victim to “smoke taint”, which results in wines that taste like an ashtray and can ruin an entire vintage. As fears grow that climate change is lengthening the time and severity of Australia’s bushfire season, government funding to find a solution to the phenomenon is drying up. “It’s a nightmare of a problem,” said Mark Krstic, a specialist in smoke taint at the Australian Wine Research Institute who is liaising with worried growers in the Adelaide Hills in South Australia state. “Smoke taint is one of the symptoms of climate change for the wine industry and it’s only getting worse.”  Smoke taint first caught the industry’s attention when Victoria state’s severe bushfires in 2003 cost grape growers more than A$7.5 million  ($6.05 million) in lost vintages. Since then, it has recurred in vintages around the country in four other years. The contamination occurs when smoke compounds enter vines through the stomata - the minute pores in the epidermis of the leaf - and are transported into grape skins. Those compounds are then released into the wine when the crushed grapes come into contact with the skins during fermentation. Tasters commonly liken the resulting wine to an ashtray, burnt rubber and hospital disinfectant. Grape growers with tainted crops have two options - abandon the vintage or continue the costly harvesting and fermentation process to make a significantly devalued product. “It’s a no-win,” said Chris Pfieffer of Pfieffer Wines in the Rutherglen wine region, who lost his 2003 crop to smoke taint. “It’s a risk that’s at the top of climate change concerns in the industry.”  Australia’s main wine growing regions are growing ever hotter and drier, with temperatures projected to increase by between 0.3 and 1.7 degrees celsius by 2030, according to the CSIRO, Australia’s national science agency. That has prompted many major growers such as Treasury Wine Estates Ltd to look for cooler climate vineyards in places like the southernmost island state of Tasmania. There are also mitigation measures in place to deal with some of the warming effects, such as new irrigation methods and specially developed sunscreen for grapes. But attempts to find a way to extract the smoke taint compound have so far failed and the industry is concerned about a lack of public money for research into the problem. There are no funds from Australia’s current Conservative-led coalition government, which has played down the role of climate change on agriculture. A A$4 million project over four years run by the Victoria government, the only assistance at state level, ends in the middle of 2015. A complicating factor for growers is that smoke taint is not immediately detectable. Samples of suspected contaminated grapes cannot be taken for clinical testing and a mini-fermentation to determine taste until a couple of weeks before normal harvest time. That can mean an agonizing wait of weeks or months for growers who think they may have affected vines. Worse, as young wines mature the smoke taint can develop further as the guilty compounds continue to break down. That risk means many wine makers like Treasury and Australian Vintage Ltd have in recent years inserted blanket clauses in their contracts with growers saying they reserve the right to reject the grapes if there is any sign of smoke taint, no matter how mild. Chris Pfieffer chose to harvest his 2003 crop “to the ground” and forgo the cost of fermenting. Pfieffer’s grapes were infected again to differing degrees in 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2013. While a grape grower can command between A$3 and A$4 a liter for good quality grapes, that falls to just 50 to 60 cents a liter for the bulk sale of partially smoke tainted grapes. If the grapes are so badly affected they can only be distilled to recover the alcohol, the price falls to around 10 cents per liter. Those reduced returns line up against the A$2 per liter average cost to grow grapes. “I chose not to work that out,” Pfieffer said when asked about the accumulated financial toll. “If you do that in the wine industry, you’d end up crying, but it’s certainly significant.”  Concerned growers in the Adelaide Hills, many of whom have been evacuated as the current fires rage, are meeting with the AWRC’s Krstic next week to consider their options. “Wine may ultimately be seen as too much of a luxury,” Pfieffer said. “We might be better off using our water to grow lettuces.” Claim: Australian wildfires threaten to produce ashtray wine vintage.
[A]:
Wildfires sweeping through southeast Australia are carrying with them the specter of a silent killer for grapes growing in the nearby Adelaide Hills wine region.