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.

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.
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.

Paragraph: But COVID-19 is shaking her views. The woman who would identify herself only as Stephanie, citing a fear of reprisals from committed anti-vaxxers, says she is now 50:50 on taking a vaccine should one be discovered for the respiratory disease caused by the new coronavirus. “I’ve definitely thought about it,” she told Reuters by phone from the United States, also expressing frustration at what she considers the anti-vax community’s downplaying of the pandemic’s seriousness. “We’re all being affected by this virus, schools closing, young people in hospital, and they still say it’s a hoax.”  As the world’s scientists and pharmaceutical companies seek a cure for the coronavirus, other anti-vaxxers are gearing up for a fight against any potential new vaccine. “Refuse, demonstrate,” said a Briton on Facebook in response to a post asking people how they would react if a vaccine was made mandatory. But some virologists say the quest for a vaccine is so widely supported that resistance will be eroded. The latest national surveys by pollster ORB International for the Vaccine Confidence Project (VCP), which monitors attitudes to immunisation, appear to support this idea. In France, where a 2018 poll showed one in three people did not view vaccines as safe, just 18% would refuse a coronavirus vaccine now, according to the VCP poll of around 1,000 people on March 18, a day after France locked down. In Australia, the VCP’s figure was also 7%, while Britain, where about 2,000 people were polled, and Austria registered 5% opposition in polls there a week later. “If a vaccine were made available tomorrow, everyone would jump to get it,” said Laurent-Henri Vignaud, who co-authored a history of France’s anti-vax movement. That view was challenged by Mary Holland, vice-chair of American non-profit group Children’s Health Defense, which is critical of vaccination in the United States. “I don’t think this virus fundamentally changes people’s deeply held concerns about vaccines,” she told Reuters. Although the term “anti-vax” is sometimes associated with conspiracy theories, many people are simply concerned about side-effects or industry ethics. Globally, one person in five does not view vaccines as safe or is unsure, according to a 2018 survey by the Wellcome Trust health fund. reut.rs/2JTb27q  In China, where the COVID-19 disease caused by the novel coronavirus originated, surveys by VCP researchers show safety is an important cause of concern. Several scandals eroded trust, including in 2018 when a unit of China’s vaccine maker Changsheng Bio-technology Co Ltd was heavily fined for falsifying data for a rabies vaccine. The company said it was “deeply sorry” for the incident. Online discussions tracked by Reuters - including closed Facebook pages with more than 200,000 members, Twitter feeds such as the Children’s Health Defense and YouTube videos totalling over 700,000 views - showed considerable mistrust that a rushed vaccine would be improperly tested. VCP director Heidi Larson said that was also the main reason for concern around the vaccine against the H1N1 swine flu pandemic in 2009. A quickly produced swine flu vaccine in 1976 led to about one in 100,000 people developing Guillain-Barre syndrome, a paralyzing immune-system disorder, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Some 115 coronavirus vaccine candidates are being developed by institutes and drugmakers, according to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation, a global alliance financing and coordinating the development of vaccines. “I will not be injected with anything, especially a fast-tracked vaccine,” added American Vicki Barneck, 67, who believes a strong immune system is enough to combat the disease. Holland, of the Children’s Health Defense, said: “Some react fine to vaccines, others are paralysed or killed.”   However, a 2015 paper by CDC epidemiologists said “multiple studies and scientific reviews have found no association between vaccination and deaths except in rare cases.”  The VCP is running an 18-month study tracking conversation online about the coronavirus and conducting global polls to measure attitudes towards social distancing, isolation, hand-washing and anticipating a vaccine. From analysing more than 3 million posts a day between January and mid-March 2020, director Dr Heidi Larson said the vast majority were eager for a treatment, fast. “People are hungry for a vaccine,” she said. In Italy, which has been hit badly by COVID-19, the anti-vax movement has “virtually disappeared” in the discussion on the coronavirus, according to virologist Dr Roberto Burioni. For a coronavirus vaccine to be effective, wide uptake and annual vaccination is likely to be required, said George Kassianos, immunisation lead at the Royal College of General Practitioners in London. There is also the question of how to distribute fast enough to people lining up for the vaccine. “Essential workers will be the priority. Police officers, hospital workers, cleaners. Then at-risk groups,” said Douglas L. Hatch, a physician specialised in pandemic preparedness working on the COVID-19 response in San Francisco. “By the time you get to the anti-vaxxers, they’ll have trouble getting it even if they wanted to.”  (Corrects French poll data in eighth paragraph) Claim: Could the new coronavirus weaken 'anti-vaxxers'?.
An American mother-of-three is a long-time member of “anti-vaxxer” groups online: a small but vocal global community that believes vaccines are a dangerous con and refuse to immunize themselves or their children.

Paragraph: On September 20 2020, two days after the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Facebook user Amber LeBeau shared a post claiming that Ginsburg had intervened on behalf of combat nurse Susan Struck, more broadly addressing the narrative around reproductive choice:LeBeau wrote:It’s disheartening to see the “Pro-life” response to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death. It’s very clear that the folks who think RBG was a vehement “baby killer” have never heard of the name Susan Struck.In the 1960s & 1970s, before Roe vs Wade, abortion was not only legal on US military bases, it was actively ENCOURAGED and basically mandated. Yes, really.Captain Susan Struck was a combat nurse in Vietnam. When she got pregnant in 1970, the Air Force starkly gave her two choices. Get an abortion or be discharged. Struck wanted to keep her baby. So she was kicked out of the service.When she got back to the US, Struck sued the US Government for putting women in such a horrible position that they had to choose between either not being able to serve their country or getting an abortion that they didn’t want.Do you know which ACLU lawyer took her case and got the military to change their policy?Ruth Bader GinsburgGinsburg approached this case with the same tenacity she would later use to help Congress draft the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. In the dark days after Roe in 1973, it was perfectly legal for employers in many states to put women in the same situation that Struck was put in–“deal with your pregnancy” or suffer the consequences of a lost job, responsibilities or pay.Ginsburg fought for the rights of women to choose life. She also fought for the rights of women to be able to work without discrimination, purchase homes, have bank accounts and a myriad of other things that make it easier for women in desperate situations to choose life in the first place.Life is never as black & white or simple as it looks through a myopic lens. It’s never either/or. There’s always “ands” and “buts” to everything.So before you paint Ginsburg as some satanic villain, at least acknowledge the many abortions that likely DIDN’T happen because of her tireless advocacy for women and families. #RBGIn her text-only post, LeBeau said that Ginsburg was often characterized as a “vehement” advocate for abortion rights, but that Ginsburg’s advocacy for reproductive rights in general extended well beyond the singular topic of abortion. She pointed to a case involving a woman, Susan Struck, being forced to choose between her pregnancy and her role in the Air Force in 1970.However, the post did not include any citations for the story. Nevertheless, the post proved popular, and was shared over 20,000 times.RBG and Susan StruckIn October 2014, Elle published a profile of Struck’s case, subtitled “When told to pick her job or her unborn baby, Susan Struck found herself a lawyer: Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”That article noted that “compromises weren’t an option when Struck discovered that she was pregnant in 1970,”; the choices were either “resign” or “get an abortion”:Air Force rules prohibited pregnant women and mothers from serving.Indeed, military bases were one of the few places abortions were legal in the U.S. at the time. But Struck was Catholic and objected to terminating her pregnancy; she was also single and objected to losing her job just as she was expecting a child. With the help of a young ACLU lawyer named Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Struck sued, arguing that she was a victim of gender discrimination, since male soldiers who got women pregnant or became fathers weren’t treated the same way, and that her Constitutional rights to liberty and personal choice were being violated. In 1972, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, at which point the Department of Defense—perhaps realizing they’d lose, or at least lose in the PR arena—retracted Struck’s discharge, effectively changing its policy and eliminating pregnancy as grounds for dismissal.It was definitely a victory, but Ginsburg had hoped Struck’s case would be the one to establish all American women’s right to control their fertility. “I so much wanted the first reproductive-freedom case to be one where the choice [the plaintiff was making] was for birth,” Ginsburg says. “Roe v. Wade was as much about a doctor’s right to practice his profession as about a woman’s right.”The resulting May 1972 case, Struck v. Secretary of Defense, is available here.The same article noted that Struck managed to hide the fact she was pregnant for seven and a half months, but eventually “a supervisor ordered her to leave Vietnam within 48 hours.”In December 2019, The Guardian profiled Struck’s case and reported that she originally planned to go through with an abortion. But then she had a dream which changed her mind and led to Ginsburg’s later involvement:Air force rules then were as clear as they were coercive: face immediate discharge unless the pregnancy was terminated. Keep your job or keep the pregnancy.So Struck went to bed resolute: she would take early R&R to terminate the pregnancy, probably in Japan. “The sooner the better,” she figured.“But that night I had a dream,” recalled Struck, [in December 2019] aged 75, speaking in a joint interview with the Guardian and WNYC in the city of Sierra Vista, Arizona, some 50 years later.She dreamed about the fetus, and being called “Mommy”, and the next morning she says: “I sat up in bed, and I said, ‘No way. No way are they going to do this. Susan Struck is not going to fall for this crap.’”Her defiance against the air force would lead to a legal fight that could have become the signature abortion case taken up by the supreme court rather than 1973’s Roe v Wade – and in fact Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who would become Struck’s lawyer, thought it was a superior case.That story elaborated on Ginsburg’s interest in Struck’s forced discharge during the Vietnam War:[Struck’s] future attorney would become one of the best recognized names in American law – supreme court justice Ginsburg – who was heading the Women’s Rights Project at the time. Ginsberg believed Struck’s case was powerful because it showed reproductive rights are interconnected – if government could compel pregnancy, as many states limiting abortion access do today, it could also compel abortion.“One thing that conspicuously distinguishes women from men is that only women become pregnant,” Ginsburg said at her confirmation hearings in 1993. “And if you subject a woman to disadvantageous treatment on the basis of her pregnant status, which was what was happening to Captain Struck, you would be denying her equal treatment under the law.“It was her right to decide either way, her right to decide whether or not to bear a child,” Ginsburg said. “In this case, it was her case for childbirth. The government was inhibiting that choice. It came at the price of remaining in the service.”A September 21 2020 New York Times piece on Ginsburg and Roe v. Wade included comment by Mary Hartnett, a law professor at Georgetown University and a co-author of Ginsburg’s biography:The way Justice Ginsburg saw it, Roe v. Wade was focused on the wrong argument — that restricting access to abortion violated a woman’s privacy. What she hoped for instead was a protection of the right to abortion on the basis that restricting it impeded gender equality, said Mary Hartnett, a law professor at Georgetown University who will be a co-writer on the only authorized biography of Justice Ginsburg.Hartnett later addressed Struck’s legal battle, and Ginsburg’s overall view of contemporaneous debate on reproductive law:Justice Ginsburg “believed it would have been better to approach it under the equal protection clause” because that would have made Roe v. Wade less vulnerable to attacks in the years after it was decided, Professor Hartnett said. She and her co-author on the biography, Professor Wendy Williams, spent the last 17 years interviewing Justice Ginsburg for the book and, though it initially didn’t have a release date, they are hoping to publish it some time next year, Professor Hartnett said in an interview. […]During the same term that Roe v. Wade was decided, Justice Ginsburg was preparing to appear before the court, on the other side of the bench, as a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union representing Capt. Susan Struck.In that case, Captain Struck, an Air Force nurse who was stationed in Vietnam, had become pregnant. She was given two choices: have an abortion or leave the military (before Roe, though abortion was prohibited in most states, it was allowed on military bases). When the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, the Air Force, realizing it had a very real chance of losing, changed its policy and let Captain Struck have her child and keep her job and the court never heard the case.An undated Military.com article published after Ginsburg’s death (“How Ruth Bader Ginsburg Helped End the Military’s Policy of Forced Abortion”) concluded:Later, as a Supreme Court Justice, Ginsburg would often remark that she wished Struck had been the first reproductive rights case the Supreme Court heard, rather than Roe v. Wade. The Roe case legalized abortion procedures based on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. A decision in Struck would have provided for reproductive rights based on the Air Force officer’s rights to equal protection under the law, her right to privacy and her right to free exercise of religion.SummaryA popular September 20 2020 Facebook post asserted that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in the aftermath of her death, left a legacy associated specifically with the right to abortion codified under Roe v. Wade. As the Facebook post described, Ginsburg was instrumental in Struck v. Secretary of Defense as well, successfully contesting Susan Struck’s automatic discharge and preserving her right to choose.Comments Claim: A young Ruth Bader Ginsburg (RBG) fought for a woman named Susan Struck, who sought to avoid being forced to terminate a pregnancy.

A popular September 20 2020 Facebook post asserted that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in the aftermath of her death, left a legacy associated specifically with the right to abortion codified under Roe v. Wade. As the Facebook post described, Ginsburg was instrumental in Struck v. Secretary of Defense as well, successfully contesting Susan Struck’s automatic discharge and preserving her right to choose.