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: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release.". Claim: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Example output: We really don't understand why only a handful of mainstream news organizations reported this story. (At least in what we found.) The most common emergency surgery in the world. Rushing to emergency surgery may not carry any benefit. Waiting a few hours may be safer and less expensive. Why is that not a story? We applaud USA Today for finding time and space and clearly it didn't need to free up much space to do a good job telling the story. The story explains that as many as 300,0 appendectomies are done each year in the US. That figure alone explains why this is an important study to report.
Example explanation: The output is an analysis of the claim while considering the paragraph as a reference. The output highlights the key features presented in the paragraph and explains the claim accordingly.
Q: Paragraph: The company initially recalled nine lots of multi-dose vials of the blood thinner in mid-January after a higher than usual number of reports of adverse patient reactions. Baxter suspended production of multi-dose vials of the drug earlier this month while officials search for the cause of four deaths and hundreds of health problems reported in patients. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has admitted it never inspected a Chinese plant that supplies an active ingredient for Baxter's heparin before approving it because it mixed up the name with that of another company. FDA officials have said it is unclear if the Chinese site is linked to the potential reactions, which include breathing difficulty, vomiting and rapid drops in blood pressure. The agency previously said it planned to start an inspection last week of the plant in Changzhou, China, which is owned by Wisconsin-based Scientific Protein Laboratories LLC (SPL). FDA officials have said it is agency policy to inspect all manufacturing sites before granting a drug approval and that the heparin plant mix-up was an isolated case. "We have assurance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that there is an adequate supply in the market to meet the demand for these critical and lifesaving drugs," Peter Arduini, president of Baxter's medication delivery business, said in a statement. Baxter said its recall does not involve heparin premixed intravenous solutions in bags. Claim: Baxter recalls remaining heparin vial products.
A:
Baxter International Inc said on Thursday it was voluntarily recalling all remaining lots of its heparin injection and flush products now that U.S. regulators have concluded there is sufficient capacity from other suppliers.