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.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Although the release doesn’t give actual costs of warfarin versus some of the newer drugs, or factor in the cost of the usual monthly blood testing required of those taking the drug, it does note the cost of the gene testing used for the study, and that the $200 price tag is now less than a month’s prescription of one of the newer anti-coagulants on the market. The release gives results in both actual numbers of patients and the percentage of reduction of adverse events in those given the genetic test and a comparison group. Although it does so in general terms, the release covers the essentials: the risk of using blood thinners like warfarin and the risks of not using them. The release offers a good description of the design of the study. It was randomized and enrolled more than 1,600 older patients at high risk of blood clots following surgeries. The release explains that one group received warfarin dosing based on standard factors (age, height and weight) and the second group was dosed using these clinical factors plus their genetic variants. The release also offers a detailed breakdown on how many fewer side effects occurred among patients had genetic testing completed compared to those who didn’t. No mongering here. Nicely done and quite complete. Although the release briefly mentions the availability of a “newer anticoagulant,” it should have included a sentence or two about these newer injectable drugs and their overall risks and benefits in comparison to warfarin. It would also have been helpful to tell readers whether the genetic testing that appears to play a role in safer warfarin dosing would have clinical relevance for informing the use of the new blood thinners as well. The fact is that genetic testing is irrelevant for the newer anti-coagulants because they operate in a completely different manner. But all the blood thinners — old and new — carry the same risk of bleeding. The problem with warfarin is the variability in blood levels which requires frequent monitoring, hence the genetic tests to guide dosing. The careful reader will get it: testing for these genetic variants is still an experimental practice for the most part, and further testing of how the mutations affect warfarin is needed. But the release could have been more explicit in saying that no one is yet recommending genetic testing for millions of warfarin users. While the genetic tests are “available” in the sense that anyone can order them for the most part, they are not routinely used clinically and probably wouldn’t be covered by insurance so in that sense they are not widely available to most people. The release describes how the genetic test used in the new study differs from previous similar studies. Overall the language is careful and contextual. The headline should have been toned back a bit to note that this is early research and more study is needed before concluding that “Genetic testing helps set safe dose of common blood thinner,” as the headline now states. Claim: Genetic testing helps set safe dose of common blood thinner

Output: This news release describes results of a study designed to learn whether testing for the presence of three gene variants could make dosing with the blood thinner warfarin safer for patients given the drug to prevent blood clots after joint replacement surgery. The study found a modest reduction in the risk of bleeding or clots (from over- or under-dosing) in those whose regimens were developed in part by genetic testing for the variants, compared to those whose doses were calculated without the genetic testing. The release does an overall good job in describing the study, its purpose and design; and in quantifying the results. It could have been even stronger if it had included more information about newer alternatives to warfarin that are growing in use and an explicit statement that no one is yet recommending routine genetic testing for the variants based on this study. And although the headline somewhat over promises clinical benefit at this point in time, thoughtful readers will come away with a decent understanding of the context of the research and its potential impact. Some estimates put the number of Americans regularly taking the clot-preventing blood thinner warfarin and several newer anticoagulants at more than six million. Warfarin (sold under the brand name Coumadin) requires frequent blood testing to address risks of overdoses (and potentially lethal bleeding) and under-dosing (ineffective prevention of strokes and other blood clots). Because warfarin is cheap, and its effects are reversible with vitamin K, research designed to make it easier and safer for patients to take is likely to be highly newsworthy for them and their caregivers.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: WisCorps has hired someone with a visual impairment and another person with a physical disability to work on erosion control and planting in neighborhood parks, and building accessible gardens this summer, Wisconsin Public Radio (http://bit.ly/2s8XH2P) reported. WisCorps Executive Director Matthew Brantner said the group is being called the Inclusive Crew. “Whether it’s a physical barrier or just a barrier to entry into the workforce, we want to be able to remove that and get young people into the workforce and have young people of all abilities come in and conserve our state’s natural resources and revitalize our communities,” he said. The goal is to expand the concept to all of the program’s work crews by next summer, he said. More than 40 percent of people with disabilities in the state are unemployed, according to 2016 statistics. Inclusive Crew program coordinator Andrea Frisch says she hopes to make nature available to everyone. “Scientifically, there are studies that say spending time in nature you have better outcomes for stress management,” she said. “Some individuals with different disabilities, for example autism, being outdoors and doing nature activities helps people focus and helps people experience things that they wouldn’t typically experience.” ___ Information from: Wisconsin Public Radio, http://www.wpr.org Claim: Conservation program hopes to help people of all abilities.

Output: An environmental conservation program based in western Wisconsin plans to expand its work opportunities and environmental education program to people of all abilities.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Whether asbestos in the talc supply in Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder caused cancer has been the subject of litigation for years. The lawmakers, Senator Jeff Merkley and Representative Suzanne Bonamici, did not mention Johnson & Johnson by name but expressed “deep concern” about Friday’s Reuters report, according to a copy of their letter dated Dec. 19 and reviewed by Reuters. Read the Reuters investigation reut.rs/2rAz2TO  In their letter, the two lawmakers asked the EPA how it was regulating potentially unsafe asbestos-containing products. J&J has disputed the Reuters report, calling it a “misrepresentation.” The company says its talc is safe and has never contained asbestos, adding that decades of studies and regulatory assessments confirm the safety of its product. Representatives for the EPA did not be respond to an email or a telephone call seeking comment on the congressional letter. Asked about the lawmakers’ letter, J&J spokesman Ernie Knewitz declined to comment but said the Reuters report was “one-sided, false and inflammatory.”  According to the Reuters report, documents as well as deposition and trial testimony showed that from at least 1971 to the early 2000s the company’s raw talc and finished powders sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos. Most internal J&J asbestos test reports Reuters reviewed did not find asbestos. The company has defended its products in recent days with a series of full-page newspaper advertisements and a television interview with its chief executive. Shares of the company have fallen about 12.5 percent since the Reuters report on Friday. Merkley and Bonamici also asked the EPA to detail what steps it was taking to help prevent vulnerable populations such as pregnant women and infants from being exposed to products containing asbestos, including other products with talc, a mineral. Although baby powder is subject to regulation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, other talc products sold to consumers would be within the purview of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and thus the responsibility of the EPA, they wrote in the letter. Democratic U.S. Senator Edward Markey separately called on the FDA to investigate the findings in the Reuters report in a letter on Friday. The FDA could not immediately be reached for comment. “Asbestos is a known carcinogen, and one for which there is no controlled use or safe level of exposure,” Merkley and Bonamici wrote. “Fifty-five countries have already banned asbestos. Unfortunately, the United States still permits the use of asbestos.” Claim: Two lawmakers question EPA on asbestos after Reuters report.


Output: Two Democratic U.S. lawmakers have called on the Environmental Protection Agency to answer questions about asbestos exposure after Reuters reported that documents showed Johnson & Johnson knew for decades of the mineral’s presence in its popular baby powder.