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: Mentions cost for one year of Herceptin as $40,000-$50,000. Mentions quantitative benefit of 9 weeks of Herceptin vs. no Herceptin with certain chemotherapy. Also, while no women in the Herceptin group had cardiac failure at 3 years, the follow-up period may not be long-enough to determine the effects of chemotherapy and Herceptin on the heart. Mentions potential harms of Herceptin on the heart, especially when given after certain chemotherapy. The story does not mention that there were side effects with certain chemotherapy drugs and doses needed to be decreased during the course of the trial. One aspect of this trial focused on randomization of women with Her2/neu overexpression to 9 weeks of Herceptin or no Herceptin immediately following breast cancer surgery. The drug was given in conjunction with certain types of chemotherapy, but before radiation and chemotherapy regimens known to damage the heart. The journalist states the Herceptin was given "prior to chemotherapy", which is not completely accurate. There is an adequate mention of the study design and discussion of disease-free survival at 3 years follow-up. Good job putting the results into context of other trials, and into context of how this may or may not change providers' practice. The story could have better stated the limitations of analysis for such a small subgroup 116 in each arm. Appropriately discusses the percentage of women who are eligible for Herceptin due to overexpression of HER2/neu. The story would have been helped by some context for the risk these women face. As Herceptin is used earlier and earlier these women have less to gain because they have less risk to begin with. Relative risk reductions may be very high but the absolute is not as big. Sources in addition to study authors are cited. No mention that this trial was funded in part by pharmaceutical companies. Some study investigators also receive research funding drug companies. Other doctors cited express caution about the early results of Herceptin studies, so there is some balance to the piece. The women in this trial had undergone breast cancer surgery and those with ER+ tumors were taking Tamoxifen. This is not explicitly mentioned, only that treatment took place following surgery. Still OK. Herceptin is only FDA approved to treat advanced breast cancer, but is used in clinical trials in early-stage breast cancer. This is not mentioned in the story. Novel use of Herceptin for short-term treatment prior to anthracycline chemotherapy. No evidence that this story relies on a press release. Claim: Short stint of Herceptin holds promise for breast cancer
[A]: This story discusses the results of a recent study involving women with high-risk early breast cancer (node positive or >2cm, age younger than 66 there were 25 year olds on the trial). One aspect of this trial focused on the short-term use of Herceptin with chemotherapy. Women with overexpression of the HER2/neu gene, as measured by the CISH immunohistochemistry, were randomly assigned 9 weeks of Herceptin or no Herceptin immediately following breast cancer surgery and in conjunction with certain types of chemotherapy. This regimen of treatment differed from other trials in which Herceptin was given for 12 months following chemotherapy. In this study, the drug was given in conjunction with certain types of chemotherapy, but before radiation and chemotherapy regimens known to damage the heart. The journalist states the Herceptin was given "prior to chemotherapy," which is not completely accurate. Herceptin is only FDA approved to treat advanced breast cancer, but it is used in clinical trials in early-stage breast cancer. However, this is not mentioned in the story. There is adequate discussion of the study design and reporting of disease-free survival at 3 years follow-up. There was little discussion in the piece of the side effects of chemotherapy as reported in the trial, but the addition of Herceptin was the main focus of the story. While the journalist provides quantitative benefit of 9 weeks of Herceptin vs. no Herceptin, and notes no cardiac failure in the Herceptin group, the follow-up period of 3 years may not be long-enough to determine the effects of chemotherapy and Herceptin on the heart. Overall, the journalist did a good job describing the randomization, as well as putting the results into context of other trials, and into context of how this may or may not change providers' practice. The story could have better stated the limitations of analysis for such a small subgroup (116 in each arm). The small sample randomized to Herceptin certainly warrants more study, and although the relative benefits were large, these women still had fairly good recurrence free survival 80% w/o and 90% with so although it looks like that will translate to overall survival. The question for women with overexpression of the HER/neu gene is: How much do you want to do to avoid recurrence? Sources in addition to the study investigators are cited, which provides some balance to the piece, however, there is no mention that the trial was funded in part by pharmaceutical companies. Some study investigators also receive research funding from drug companies.

[Q]: Paragraph: An early barrage of illness in the South has begun to spread more broadly, and there's a decent chance flu season could peak much earlier than normal, health officials say. The last flu season to rev up this early was in 2003-2004 a bad one. Some experts think the early start may mean a lot of suffering is in store, but others say it's too early to tell. "It really depends on what viruses are circulating. There's not a predictable trend as far as if it's early it's going to be more severe, or later, less severe," said Scott Epperson, who tracks flu-like illnesses for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. There are different types of flu viruses, and the one causing illnesses in most parts of the country is a surprise. It's a version that normally doesn't abound until March or April. That virus generally isn't as dangerous to older people good news, since most flu hospitalizations and deaths each winter occur in the elderly. However, such viruses can be hard on children and people younger than 50. Louisiana was the first state to really get hit hard, with doctors there saying they began seeing large numbers of flu-like illnesses in October. Children's Hospital New Orleans has already seen more flu cases this fall than it saw all of last winter, said Dr. Toni Gross, the hospital's chief of emergency medicine. Last month was the busiest ever at the hospital's emergency department. Officials had to set up a triage system and add extra shifts, Gross said. "It is definitely causing symptoms that will put you in bed for a week," including fever, vomiting and diarrhea. But the hospital has not had any deaths and is not seeing many serious complications, she said. Health officials tend to consider a flu season to be officially underway when for at least three weeks in a row a significant percentage of U.S. doctor's office visits are due to flu-like illnesses. That's now happened, CDC officials said this week. The agency on Friday estimated that there have already been 1.7 million flu illnesses, 16,000 hospitalizations, and 900 flu-related deaths nationally. The most intense patient traffic had been occurring in a six states stretching from Texas to Georgia. But in new numbers released Friday, CDC officials said the number of states with intense activity rose last week to 12. Flu is widespread in 16 states, though not necessarily at intense levels in each, the CDC said. Last flu season started off as a mild one but turned out to be the longest in 10 years. It ended with around 49,000 flu-related deaths and 590,000 hospitalizations, according to preliminary estimates. It was bad, but not as bad as the one before it, when flu caused an estimated 61,000 deaths and 810,000 hospitalizations. Those 2017-2018 estimates are new: The CDC last month revised them down from previous estimates as more data including actual death certificates came in. In both of the previous two flu seasons, the flu vaccine performed poorly against the nasty predominant virus. It's too early to say how well the vaccine is performing right now, Epperson said. Epperson said there's a chance the flu season will peak this month, which would be unusually early. Flu season usually doesn't hit fever pitch until around February. The early start suggests a lot Americans may be sick at the same time, said Dave Osthus, a statistician who does flu forecasting at Los Alamos National Laboratory. "This could be a precursor to something pretty bad. But we don't know," he said. Gross is pessimistic. "I, personally, am preparing for the worst," she said. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Claim: US flu season arrives early, driven by an unexpected virus.
[A]: The U.S. winter flu season is off to its earliest start in more than 15 years.

[Q]: Paragraph: Late Thursday, a St. Louis jury awarded $70.1 million to Deborah Giannecchini of Modesto, California, who was diagnosed with advanced ovarian cancer in 2012. Giannecchini, then 59, said she had used Johnson's Baby Powder for more than 40 years to keep her genital area dry, as many women do. She blamed it for her cancer and accused J&J of negligence. Two other jury trials in St. Louis reached similar outcomes earlier this year, awarding the plaintiffs $72 million and $55 million. But in J&J's home state of New Jersey a judge recently threw out two other cases, ruling there wasn't reliable evidence talc causes ovarian cancer, a relatively rare disease. Johnson & Johnson says its product is safe, and it is appealing all three losses. And investors don't seem worried that J&J is in financial trouble, even though the company faces an estimated 2,000 similar lawsuits. J&J shares fell 0.3 percent Friday, about the same as the broader stock market, to close at $115.33. The next trial is set to start in January, also in St. Louis. Here's what experts say about talc and cancer. WHAT IS TALC? Talc is a mineral that is mined from deposits around the world, including the U.S. The softest of minerals, it's crushed into a white powder. It's been widely used in cosmetics and other personal care products to absorb moisture since at least 1894, when Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder was launched. But it's mainly used in a variety of other products, including paint and plastics. DOES IT CAUSE OVARIAN CANCER? Like many questions in science, there's no definitive answer. Finding the cause of cancer is difficult. It would be unethical to do the best kind of study, asking a group of women to use talcum powder on their genitals and wait to see if it causes cancer, while comparing them to a group who didn't use it. While ovarian cancer is often fatal, it's relatively rare. It accounts for only about 22,000 of the 1.7 million new cases of cancer expected to be diagnosed in the United States this year. Factors that are known to increase a women's risk of ovarian cancer include age, obesity, use of estrogen therapy after menopause, not having any children, certain genetic mutations and personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer. WHAT RESEARCH SHOWS The biggest studies have found no link between talcum powder applied to the genitals and ovarian cancer. But about two dozen smaller studies over three decades have mostly found a modest connection a 20 percent to 40 percent increased risk among talc users. However, that doesn't mean talc causes cancer. Several factors make that unlikely, and there's no proof talc, which doesn't interact with chemicals or cells, can travel up the reproductive tract, enter the ovaries and then trigger cancer. One large study published in June that followed 51,000 sisters of breast cancer patients found genital talc users had a reduced risk of ovarian cancer, 27 percent lower than in nonusers. An analysis of two huge, long-running U.S. studies, the Women's Health Initiative and the Nurses' Health Study, showed no increased risk of ovarian cancer in talc users. WHAT EXPERTS SAY If there were a true link, Dr. Hal C. Lawrence III says large studies that tracked women's health for years would have verified results of the smaller ones. "Lord knows, with the amount of powder that's been applied to babies' bottoms, we would've seen something," if talc caused cancer, said Lawrence, vice president of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. The National Cancer Institute's Dr. Nicolas Wentzensen says the federal agency's position is that there's not a clear connection. "It is very hard to establish causal relationships," he said, adding, "A lot of ovarian cancers occur in women who have never used talc, and many women have used talc and not gotten ovarian cancer." Research director Elizabeth Ward of the American Cancer Society says it is unusual to have so much discrepancy between studies. "The risk for any individual woman, if there is one, is probably very small," Ward said. ___ Follow Linda A. Johnson on Twitter at https://twitter.com/lindaj_onpharma . Claim: Does baby powder cause cancer? Another jury says yes.
[A]:
For the third time, Johnson & Johnson has been hit with a multimillion-dollar jury verdict over whether the talc in its iconic baby powder causes ovarian cancer when applied regularly for feminine hygiene.