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.

Example Input: Paragraph: On July 14 2019, a Facebook user shared a photograph purportedly illustrating the risks posed by grill brushes and the metal they can leave behind attaching to food that is consumed. In an attached status update, the poster warned:I would suggest to anyone that has a metal brush to clean your grill get rid of it. This is the result of eating a bristle off of one. I am looking at a long recovery. — at Pelham Medical Center.In the attached image, an exposed abdomen bears a long and painful-looking scar with more than twenty staples. No other details about the image were included with the post, but the obvious inference was that this was the result of surgery that was required after inadvertently ingesting metal fragments left on a grill by a cleaning brush.No information was included about how the injury manifested or which symptoms people already exposed to grilled foods might exhibit. However, news stories from previous years indicated that even if rare, summer grilling has occasionally led to people accidentally consuming food with grill brush debris attached.In May 2015, CBS reported that a Connecticut woman had been treated for the same injury. Her symptoms were described as a “sharp” and “unusual” pain:[In May 2015], a woman in Connecticut needed emergency surgery to remove a wire barbecue brush bristle from her digestive tract — and doctors say she’s not the first. Cheryl Harrison of Wallingford, Connecticut, was rushed to the hospital by her husband after feeling a sharp and unusual pain in her stomach.That pain was caused by a single stray bristle that had fallen off the metal grill cleaning brush and found its way into the hamburger she ate. She came into the emergency room within a day because of severe abdominal pain. After a CT scan showed the wire, doctors were able to remove it from her stomach through laparoscopic surgery.The article went on to describe a similar case in which the patient was not made aware of the injury as quickly. One doctor stated the injury was difficult to identify because the small size of the bristles meant they were difficult to find:Dr. Aziz Benbrahim, her general surgeon at MidState Medical Center, told CBS News she was lucky because she came in right away. A previous patient of his who had a grill brush wire stuck in his system waited for a couple of weeks. It had punctured his intestine.“I had to open him up completely, ” said Benbrahim. “Then we remove this wire and we found out also why he had chest pain — because he also had pulmonary embolism, which is a blood clot in his lungs.”“He was just lucky he was still alive,” he added. “All from this wire.”[…]“Nobody knows the statistics, that’s the problem. The only paper published talks about 6 or 7 cases and I believe it’s a much, much more common,” Benbrahim said. “When I was talking to my colleagues at the hospital, I was surprised that all of them had at least one or two patients like this. I didn’t think it was that common. And this isn’t a very big hospital, so I assume that in a bigger hospital they would have more.”The story further noted that in one hospital, at least six patients had similar injuries from ingesting grill brush wire over an 18-month period. One year later, WTSP reported that a man in Florida was injured the same way:A warning if you plan to fire up the grill this holiday weekend. A Lakeland man discovered a hidden health hazard the hard way, and it could be on your grill right now.“This is my little parting gift,” says Clif Hennecy. It’s a souvenir from the doctor’s office that Hennecy never imagined his doctor would find stuck in his stomach during a routine checkup.“It’s just a tiny, little bristle, but it’s stainless steel,” says Hennecy.The Lakeland man says the metal bristle came from the brush he used to use to clean his grill.“It’s a scary proposition having one of those lodged inside your stomach. It can cause abscesses, and cause infections, and it can cause people to die,” Hennecy says.And in July 2017, a boy in Canada was hurt when he swallowed wire fragments:Jenna Kuchik was kicking back after a July 4 [2017] barbecue with her fiance and three children when her 4-year-old son, Oliver Schenn, began to scream in pain.Terrified, Kuchik ran for the EpiPen. Oliver, whom Kuchik and her fiance, Matt Schenn, affectionately call Ollie, has a severe nut allergy. But the boy was not exhibiting any of symptoms of a reaction — only choking, screaming and crying.Twenty-four hours and two hospitals later, Ollie would emerge from surgery after doctors removed two tiny metal fibers from his esophagus. The culprit: the family’s wire barbecue brush.That outlet included some statistics about frequency, noting it was low but acute, and possibly underreported:Barbecue brushes have caused an estimated 1,698 emergency room visits from 2002 to 2014, according to a study published in 2016 in the journal Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. The rate of injuries is low when compared to similar emergencies, like children ingesting batteries, but the study’s lead, Dr. David Chang, associate professor at the University of Missouri’s department of otolaryngology, believes the data underrepresents the total volume of injuries. Urgent care clinics and primary care doctors likely see many similar cases that aren’t covered by the data in Chang’s study.A 2018 Consumer Reports article provided alternative methods of cleaning a grill without the ubiquitous wire brush:Consider alternative cleaning tools. Depending on what type of grill you have, you might try cleaning warm grill grates with a tool such as a pumice stone or a coil-shaped bristle-free brush. Check your owner’s manual for recommendations … You can also brush loose food particles off a warm grate with a wad of crumpled-up aluminum foil. Make sure grill grates are not hot enough to burn you.The claim about ingesting grill brush wires and requiring hospitalization represents a known but rare risk. Experts advise anyone who experiences symptoms like stomach pain after consuming grilled food to seek medical attention. Instead of using a wire grill brush, consumer safety advocates advise alternative grill cleaning methods, such as aluminum foil. Claim: People sometimes ingest metal fragments from grill brushes and become seriously injured.
Example Output: Can Grill Brushes Cause You to Ingest Metal and Become Ill?

Example Input: Paragraph: Costs are mentioned reasonably early in the story, and with specificity. This was good to see. Benefits of these tests are touted, but not quantified. An officer of the National Ovarian Cancer Research Fund Alliance, an advocacy group, testifies that the outcomes of women who have surgery from a gynecologic oncologist “are much better.” But we don’t know what that means. Is it longer survival? Later the story explains that combining the two blood tests with assessment by a clinician “better determined the patients who should be referred to a [gynecological oncologist], identifying well over 90 percent of the women who actually had cancer.”  (Note that this statistic reflects only referral to a gyn-onc, not patient survival.) But how does that compare to the standard assessment tools? A 2016 study described as publication “of the first clinical utility data” demonstrating that use of OVA1 resulted in referral of ovarian patients to gynecologic oncologists offers similar outcomes but is not mentioned in the story. We’re told that experts fear that these tests could lead to unnecessary surgery or delayed diagnosis, and that’s sufficient for a Satisfactory rating. The story could have delved into a bit more of the specifics: What is the evidence for these concerns? What are the false positive and false negative rates? These details are useful because the point of the story is that clinicians are not using these tests to try to improve outcomes of ovarian cancer patients. Are the possible debits–or uncertainties driven by lack of clinical data–contributing to these decisions? There isn’t sufficient information on the evidence behind these tests. The FDA has approved ROMA and OVA1 for use, but the studies that led to that decision are not discussed. Nor is there sufficient discussion of why the physician groups that write guidelines haven’t endorsed the tests. Their concerns are raised, but the evidence is not presented or analyzed. A late diagnosis of ovarian cancer is way too common, and the outcome is grim. At the same time, the anecdotes seem to highlight the sad aspect of the disease without necessarily providing a relevant case in which the tests described would have helped (any more than a basic blood test would have). The companies responsible for developing and marketing these two tests are front and center in this story, with scientists affiliated with the companies clearly identified. At least two sources in the story—one of them a scientist affiliated with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network—appear to be independent of the companies. The story makes it clear that no effective early detection screening test exists. Existing strategies—the CA125 blood test and vaginal ultrasound—are mentioned and then discounted, in part via a personal narrative of a young woman who received a late diagnosis of cancer. While data-driven specifics aren’t included on why standard methods aren’t sufficient, this is enough to rate Satisfactory. A direct comparison of survival stemming from existing diagnostic tests relative to survival stemming from ROMA and OVA1 would have strengthened the story. If those numbers aren’t available, that should have been pointed out. The story makes it clear that the two blood tests have been available since 2009. The story mentions that the tests are combinations of existing tests with a “proprietary” formula (essentially a risk prediction tool) to translate the results to likelihood of cancer. But, the article should have talked about whether the tests, other than CA-125, have been used before. This appears to be an enterprise story, and does not rely on a news release. Claim: Ovarian cancer blood tests: Available, not widely used
Example Output: This is a story about the apparent underuse of two blood tests—ROMA and OVA1—that are FDA approved to help clinicians decide whether surgery to investigate abnormal growths should be performed by a gynecologic oncologist (“gyn-onc”) trained to remove malignant ovarian cancer, rather than an obstetrician-gynecologist or a general surgeon. The gist of the story is that the tests have not been widely adopted in the ensuing years, “largely because they haven’t been recommended by the physician groups that write the care guidelines.” The story hit on a lot of important notes–it told readers the cost of these tests, and it included comments from independent sources. What is not clear is the extent to which clinical evidence supports the increased use of the two tests. We’re told they accurately picked up about 90 percent of cancer cases. But we’re not told how that compares to standard methods of detection. As the story notes, surviving ovarian cancer is an uphill battle–it is often a deadly disease caught too late. Any procedure that increases the probability of survival is worth careful consideration.

Example Input: Paragraph: The Democratic Senate Majority plans to pass a ban on the sale of flavored e-cigarettes and also smokeless flavored tobacco products as soon as next week, a Democratic Senate spokesman said Monday. Senate Democrats also plan to move ahead on seven other bills including a study on the long-term health effects of e-cigarette use and laws preventing tobacco ads and new tobacco stores from popping up near schools. It’s less clear how lawmakers will act on Democratic Sen. Brad Hoylman’s bill to ban all flavored tobacco products — including menthol cigarettes. The exclusion of menthol flavorings from tobacco restrictions at the state and federal levels has long drawn criticism from public health and civil rights groups who say the tobacco industry has marketed menthol cigarettes to African Americans for decades. “It always seemed very normal and accessible so I never really questioned it,” Albany high school senior Hassani Hamilton, 17, said. “What I’ve come to realize is these products are deadly and their rampant use in my community is no accident.” New York state health officials issued a ban on most flavored e-cigarettes last fall in response to worries that vaping may cause illnesses and that its use is growing among teenagers who say they’re attracted by flavorings. But the ban’s exclusion of menthol and tobacco flavorings drew scrutiny from a state judge in her decision to continue to block it Friday. The ban was initially blocked last fall after the vaping industry sued to stop New York from enforcing emergency regulations banning the sale of most flavored e-cigarettes. Acting Supreme Court Justice Catherine Cholakis said state health regulators went beyond their authority when they passed the ban, which she said touched on policy issues that lawmakers should decide. Judge Cholakis said it’s a “natural question” why the regulations excluded tobacco and menthol e-liquid flavors when she hasn’t seen evidence that supports continued use of those flavors. Hamilton and representatives of public health and civil rights groups urged lawmakers Monday to ban all flavored cigarette products, and not just e-cigarettes. Cigarette smoking causes about one of every five deaths in the United States each year and 93% of adult African American smokers began smoking by using menthol cigarettes, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “It is the direct result of a targeted and well-funded effort by the tobacco companies over the last several decades to addict communities like mine to nicotine and tobacco,” Hamilton said. But it’s unclear whether there’s broad support to ban all flavored cigarettes in New York. Republican Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker last year signed a bill to allow the nation’s first ban of menthol cigarettes starting in June. New York’s governor has said he’ll propose legislation this year to prohibit the sale of “all” flavored e-cigarettes and ban vaping ads targeted to youth. It’s unclear whether Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s legislation would include menthol and tobacco flavorings, which the state’s health commissioner has recommended. Cuomo has expressed concern that a New York ban on menthol cigarettes could run into legal issues because they’re allowed on the federal level. A proposed federal ban on menthol cigarettes has stalled. And President Donald Trump’s vaping ban excludes menthol flavoring. The vaping industry praised the judge’s Friday decision and said bans don’t work. “With this important ruling, the court has prevented the state from creating a huge new black market and ushering in a new public health crisis along with it — something that may still come to pass if the New York Legislature bans flavors,” Vapor Technology Association Executive Director Tony Abboud said. Claim: New York called to include menthol in flavored tobacco ban.
Example Output:
New York lawmakers could ban flavored tobacco products amid growing concern over the tobacco and vaping industry’s use of flavorings to attract young people and African Americans, though it’s unclear whether a push to ban menthol cigarettes will succeed.