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: Dock Phillip Ellis, best remembered as the winningest pitcher on the champion 1971 Pittsburgh Pirates baseball club, was also one of his sport’s more colorful personalities, although his exploits were generally overshadowed by those of players (Curt Flood, Richie Allen, Reggie Jackson) more talented and more controversial. Ellis’ intolerance for slights which he perceived to be related to the color of his skin was well-established long before he reached the major leagues (he declined to play on his high school’s baseball team because it was coached by a “racist,” and while in the minor leagues he once took a bat into the stands in pursuit of a racially-motivated heckler), and he was the subject of several headline-grabbing altercations during his prime years in the big leagues:    “I know the orders came from [baseball commissioner] Bowie Kuhn, and I don’t like it. Look around, there are fellows who wear white shoes in practice. Some wear jackets. Others don’t wear hats. I wasn’t going to say anything, but since they seem to be aiming in my direction, I’m going to say things. They didn’t put out any orders about Joe Pepitone when he wore a hairpiece down to his shoulders.”    But, oddly enough, the most notorious aspect of Dock Ellis’ playing days wasn’t disclosed until several years after he had retired, and it involved an accomplishment that is usually the highlight of any pitcher’s career. On 12 June 1970, Ellis hurled the first no-hitter of the 1970 season as he blanked the Padres 2-0 in the opening game of a double-header in San Diego. Ellis’ feat was a bit unusual in that he seemed particularly wild that day, walking eight batters and hitting one, but many pitchers have achieved stellar results despite laboring with obvious control problems. (Yankee hurler Bill Bevens came within one out of throwing a no-hitter against Brooklyn in the fourth game of the 1947 World Series despite issuing the Dodgers an astounding ten bases on balls.) In post-game interviews Ellis said he had been thinking about a no-hitter from the fourth inning onward and attributed his wildness to his efforts to keep the ball away from hitters: “I know guys who don’t want to talk about it, but if you’re going to throw [a no-hitter], you’re going to throw it. The ball I was throwing was moving. I was keeping the ball away from the hitters. That’s why I walked so many.” Fourteen years later, however, Dock Ellis revealed an alternative explanation for his lack of control that day: he was under the influence of LSD at the time. According to accounts he gave the press in April 1984, Ellis had spent the morning of 12 June 1970 relaxing in his home town of Los Angeles, under the mistaken belief that the Pirates had the day off. Ellis said he ingested LSD around noon, but at about 1:00 PM his girlfriend picked up a newspaper and discovered that not only were the Pirates scheduled to play a double-header in San Diego that evening, but Ellis was slated to start the first game for Pittsburgh. Ellis’ companion hustled him off to the airport by 3:30 PM and got him on a flight to San Diego, where arrived at 4:30 PM, in time for the double-header’s 6:05 PM start. Ellis told reporters he remembered little of what took place during the game itself:  “I can only remember bits and pieces of the game. I was psyched. I had a feeling of euphoria. I was zeroed in on the [catcher’s] glove, but I didn’t hit the glove too much. I remember hitting a couple of batters and the bases were loaded two or three times. The ball was small sometimes, the ball was large sometimes, sometimes I saw the catcher, sometimes I didn’t. Sometimes I tried to stare the hitter down and throw while I was looking at him. I chewed my gum until it turned to powder. They say I had about three to four fielding chances. I remember diving out of the way of a ball I thought was a line drive. I jumped, but the ball wasn’t hit hard and never reached me.”  Any assignment of a “True” status to this story must be a guarded one: only Dock Ellis knows whether or not he actually took LSD the day he pitched his no-hitter, and even if he did ingest LSD that day, judging the extent to which the drug (which can affect different people in different ways) was affecting him by the time he took part in that evening’s game is problematic. Baseball is a difficult game to play at the major league level, even for skilled professionals free from the effects of mind-altering substances, yet Ellis managed to pitch a complete game that evening, apparently did not act so unusually that his teammates or manager took notice, and was quite lucid while conducting post-game interviews with the press. (Of course, since it’s a long-standing baseball superstition that players should avoid speaking to a teammate who is in the midst of pitching a no-hitter, the other Pirates likely had little or no interaction with Ellis in the dugout during the latter half of the game.) Although Ellis might correctly be described as having been “under the influence of LSD” during his no-hitter, quite possibly the drug’s primary effects had peaked and were wearing off by game time. Dock Ellis’ recollections are also somewhat questionable. Donald Hall’s 1976 biography, Dock Ellis in the Country of Baseball, initially stated that Ellis had been drinking (vodka) before his no-hitter. Ellis maintained that he never pitched again while under the influence of LSD after his 1970 no-hitter, but he later said he had also taken the drug before the 1974 Cincinnati game in which he intentionally threw at the first several batters. And that admission came after he had previously stated that he took “pep pills,” not LSD, before that 1974 game. Then he said in 1985 that he “never pitched a game in the major leagues I wasn’t high.” Claim: Pittsburgh Pirates pitcher Dock Ellis hurled a no-hitter while under the influence of LSD.

A: An unfortunate aspect of Dock Ellis’ admission is that he is now remembered by many people (especially those too young to have seen him play during his heyday with the Pirates) as “the guy who pitched a no-hitter on drugs,” a characterization which not only slights a baseball career that included some very fine moments, but also obscures the many acts of charity and conscience in which Ellis engaged both during and after his playing days: he worked with the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections to rehabilitate black prisoners, helped start the Black Athletes Foundation for Sickle Cell Research, and served as the coordinator of an anti-drug program in Los Angeles before passing away from liver disease in 2008.
****
Q: Paragraph: The lawsuit marks the first multi-plaintiff trial in the litigation over whether glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient, is carcinogenic, and is the first trial outside of California. It is being held in St. Louis, where Monsanto was headquartered before Bayer bought the company in a $63 billion deal in 2018. Three consecutive juries found the company liable for causing cancer with damages of tens of millions of dollars awarded to each plaintiff. Bayer is appealing those verdicts. Court-appointed mediator Ken Feinberg has put the number of Roundup cancer claimants at more than 75,000 while Bayer said the claims it has been served with in court were below 50,000. Bayer’s share price has tumbled since the first verdict in August 2018 but the stock rose 3% on Friday after Bloomberg reported a possible out-of-court settlement with some plaintiffs that could lead to a total payout of about $10 billion. While traders said the market likes the idea of Bayer settling the litigation, some cautioned that the prospect of a comprehensive deal remained uncertain. Analysts have estimated the size of any such settlement at $8-$12 billion. While most plaintiffs’ lawyers have agreed to postpone trials pending negotiations, some have decided to pursue their clients’ day in court. The case in Missouri’s Circuit Court for the 22nd Judicial Circuit of the City of St. Louis is scheduled to last several weeks, with both sides presenting extensive scientific evidence through expert witnesses. Bayer denies all allegations that Roundup or glyphosate causes cancer, saying decades of independent studies have shown the world’s most widely used weed killer to be safe for human use and noting that regulators around the world have approved the product. “At the end of the day, this trial should come down to the weight of the science, and we remain confident in the extensive scientific record and regulatory assessments that support the safety of our glyphosate-based herbicides and that they do not cause cancer,” the company said in a statement. Several court cases have been postponed by both parties in the past to expedite settlement talks. By pursuing the St. Louis trail The Miller Firm LLC, a key player in the litigation, is seeking to increase pressure on Bayer. The case involves the claims of Bryce Batiste from Louisiana, Ann Meeks from Florida, Glen Ashelman from Pennsylvania and Christopher Wade, a St. Louis resident. All four have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a blood cell cancer that plaintiffs in the litigation allege is caused by Roundup. Some legal experts said Bayer could benefit from a home advantage in the St. Louis trial, where Monsanto has century-old roots. But juries in the city are also known to dole out massive damages awards against large corporations. Claim: Bayer faces fourth U.S. Roundup cancer trial in Monsanto's hometown.

A: Bayer AG is set to face a fourth U.S. jury trial over allegations that its Roundup weed killer causes cancer, with four cancer patients in the hometown of its agricultural subsidiary Monsanto scheduled to begin making their case on Friday.
****
Q: Paragraph: "The Oregon House recently passed a bill that would remove concealed handgun applications from the public record. Proponents of the bill say that there’s too much personal information on individual citizens tied up in the documents. Public records should focus on the government, not private citizens, they say. Here’s Rep. Kim Thatcher’s full-throated defense of the move from the House debate on the day they passed the bill:  ""As the law stands now, the information in these applications includes things like, home phone numbers, home address, Social Security numbers, what kinds of guns you have in the house -- that's what's on the application -- whether you were dishonorably discharged from the military, what controlled substances you are taking and were you ever accused of -- accused, mind you -- of stalking,"" Thatcher, R-Keizer, said. ""And right now all of that would be subject to public records disclosure."" That’s an awful lot of information, indeed. But being our usual suspicious selves, we wondered whether all of that was truly included in the application. So, we did a quick check -- well, we thought it would be a quick check. We’d just pull down the Multnomah County Sheriff’s online license application and take a look, right? Well, it turns out that each of Oregon’s 36 counties has a slightly different application -- some considerably more stringent, some considerably less. After a few days of web searching and phone calling, we got our hands on 34 of the applications. Here’s what we found:  -""Home phone numbers"": Yes. This is one of the first things every application we reviewed asks for. -""Home address"": Yes, again. You also have to include a mailing address if that’s different. -""Social Security numbers"": Sort of. Every application we reviewed asks for a Social Security number, but all, save two, expressly note that ""disclosure of your Social Security account number is voluntary."" -""What kinds of guns you have in the house"": Not usually. On 24 of the applications we looked through, there was no question asking applicants about current ownership. Of the remaining eight, six asked whether you ""currently own or possess a firearm,"" but only if you have ever been dishonorably discharged from the armed forces, renounced your U.S. citizenship, been ordered to register as a sex offender in any state or use controlled substances. Everybody else can skip the question. The remaining four from Baker, Grant, Gilliam and Klamath counties ask all applicants for this information. -""Whether you were dishonorably discharged from the military"": Yes, this is on most applications. If you have been, you also have to say when it happened. -""What controlled substances you are taking"": Yep, this is there. Such controlled substances, for those who are curious, include but are not ""limited to, marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, methadone, LSD, or ecstasy."" (That quote is from the Multnomah County application.) -""Were you ever accused of ... stalking"": Nope. Eleven applications don’t touch on this subject at all. The other 23 ask only if the applicant is ""currently subject to any type of restraining or stalking order by the court."" They also have to include some specifics about that situation if that question applies to them. That said, if the order has been lifted, the question doesn’t apply -- note the word ""currently."" For what it’s worth, those last two questions (the one on controlled substances and the one about stalking) are pretty important given that federal law, according to the application, prohibits folks who say yes to those questions from possessing firearms at all, much less handguns of the concealed variety. Thatcher is spot on when it comes to four of her assertions (the phone numbers, home addresses, military discharge and controlled substances), but she’s less accurate on the other three  (social security, current gun ownership and stalking). When we called her office, Rep. Thatcher -- and later her spokeswoman Dawn Phillips -- told us she wasn’t making sweeping proclamations about all of the applications. What matters, they said, is that her comments apply to some of the state’s 36 applications. On that point, she’s pretty close to right. That is, except for the stalking claim. Thatcher makes it sound as though anybody accused of stalking at any point in their lives would have to say so on the application. But that’s just no true. On certain applications, you have to noted whether you are currently under a court order. That’s considerably different, in our view. Still, we’ll give her the benefit of the doubt that some of the necessary nuance was left out because her comments were spoken -- not written." Claim: "Oregon concealed gun applications include ""home phone numbers, home address, Social Security numbers, what kinds of guns you have in the house … whether you were dishonorably discharged from the military, what controlled substances you are taking and  were you ever accused of -- accused, mind you -- of stalking."

A:
Kim Thatcher says concealed handgun applications require great deal of personal information
****