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.
--------
Question: Paragraph: The release makes no mention of the cost of the drug in question, Tenofovir. A web search found that the cost for a month's supply of the antiviral drug averages just over $1,000. For some patients, that cost may be prohibitive. The cost is an issue of particular concern for developing countries, but it is also true that the price may be much lower for them than in the United States. Many pharmaceutical companies offer their drugs at steeply discounted rates in poorer countries to expand access to life-saving medicines. The release clearly says that 68 percent of women receiving the drug reduced their viral load while only 2 percent of the women in the control group had that success. It also says that the transmission of hepatitis B from mother to newborn dropped from 18 percent to 5 percent, an important clinical outcome. The release includes a discussion of harms. It states that "tenofovir was well tolerated; only one participant treated with tenofovir voluntarily withdrew from the study due to nausea." It also says that researchers "found no significant differences between the tenofovir-treated group and the control group with regard to fetal development and infant growth." Lastly, it calls for longer term, observational studies to confirm the safety of fetal exposure to tenofovir treatment. The release provides a good overview of the randomized, placebo-controlled trial which was undertaken to gauge the efficacy of the drug in both reducing the viral load of hepatitis-B-positive mothers and reducing the rate of transmission of the disease from mother to newborn. It offers solid, numerical evidence of both outcomes. It describes the number of patients (200 pregnant women), defined what constituted a "high" viral load, and described the approximate length of treatment. It did omit a mention of whether the trial was blinded. This release does not commit disease mongering. The release notes that the research is funded by Gilead Sciences. It should also have mentioned that a corresponding author disclosed speaking and advising fees from Gilead, according to the published study. The release is comparing the use of an antiviral drug given to pregnant women versus the normal procedure of giving both a vaccine and immune globulin. The release doesn't mention that tenofovir (marketed as Viread), the drug being tested, is already an FDA approved drug so many readers may not know that it's available. It was approved by the FDA in 2001 for HIV and in 2008 for chronic hepatitis B. The release just barely implies novelty with this statement which suggests a change in treating infected women who are pregnant: "Based on the findings, the investigators recommend that women be tested for HBV viral load at week 28 of pregnancy. Those with a high viral load should receive tenofovir treatment starting at gestational week 30 until delivery to reduce the risk of transmission to their infants." While the drug itself isn't novel, positive outcomes from a controlled trial on pregnant women carrying the virus does seem to introduce a new treatment approach. This release does not use any unjustifiable language. Claim: Antiviral Treatment During Pregnancy Reduces Mother-to-Child Transmission of Hepatitis B

Answer: This news release describes a clinical trial testing whether an antiviral drug given to pregnant women in their third trimester reduces their hepatitis B viral load. The study also examined whether the drug limits the transmission of the virus from mother to baby. The answers to both questions are yes, suggesting a new strategy for dealing with the spread of this disease. The release does a good job describing harms, quantifying benefits and describing the study protocol. Because the cost of hepatitis drugs has been widely debated for the past few years, a mention of the drug's cost would have made the release stronger. Almost 240 million people are infected with hepatitis B virus and about 780,000 die each year from the disease, according to the World Health Organization. The hepatitis B virus infects the liver and while many recover with treatment, it can become a chronic infection. Babies and young children infected with the virus are more likely to develop chronic hepatitis B. If administering a drug to infected mothers reduces the proportion of newborns getting the disease, it would be a considerable improvement in public health.

Question: Paragraph: "The story includes the cost of this test $1,625 and mentions that insurance companies currently don't cover the cost of the new genetic test for breast cancer. The test manufacturer CEO's speculation that insurance companies will eventually cover the test because it's easy to perform and ""any doctor can order the test"" is an inappropriate rationale for any screening, especially when such screening may place a woman at risk for unnecessary surgery or other treatments. It is not clear how this test improves on these current practice as there was no evidence presented about it. The story appropriately expresses caution when presenting the value of this new test to predict a woman's lifetime risk of developing cancer. There is a wide range of experts interviewed, all of whom express concern about the current available evidence for the predictive value of this test. Most experts advise against women taking this test, and the American Cancer Society does not promote the test. The story provides appropriate caveats for women who are considering this test. Namely, a lower than average score might suggest a woman could forgo screening. Women with a higher than average risk score could experience unnecessary anxiety and possibly choose treatments they do not need (such as prophylactic mastectomy). The story does not provide any evidence about the test itself (despite alluding to it). The story does mention that this test has not been validated in an external review, so any evidence would be from company-sponsored studies. Additionally, peer-reviewed studies need to be done to determine the best course of prevention if a woman chooses to take the test and discovers she is at higher risk of developing breast cancer. Because the story raised appropriate questions about the quality of the evidence, we give this a satisfactory score. The story lists the annual incidence of new breast cancers and mortality rate. The story is tempered in reporting about a new genetic test which may or may not be another option for women looking to assess their risk. The story mentions that knowing individual risk may inform a woman's decision whether to increase surveillance and/or take chemoprevention medication, such as tamoxifen. Several leading breast cancer researchers, a member of the American Cancer Society and a spokesperson for the FDA are interviewed for this story. These interviewees do not have a vested interest in this testunlike Decode's chief executive, who is also interviewed, mainly promoting his company's product. Researchers help educate the reader about a new test may have many more cons than pros. The story does note, via a patient advocate, that some women may still go ahead with the test if they feel it may help guide them in future breast cancer prevention efforts. The story mentions current prevention guidelines for women who are considered at higher than average risk of developing breast cancer. This includes additional surveillance with MRI and mammography, chemoprevention and adopting a healthier lifestyle, namely reducing alcohol consumption and lowering body fat. However, the evidence of survival benefit for lifestyle and screening is fairly limited. Most of recent decrease in breast cancer mortality is attributed to advances in treatment not necessarily screening. Currently, breast cancer risk for women who do not carry the BRAC1/2 genes is determined via population-based calculators such as the Gail Risk Model. This tool provides an estimated 5-year risk and is only validated for Caucasian women, so a well-validated, individualized predictive test would, in theory, be useful for some women. The test discussed in this story has not been studied long enough, nor have results of company studies been subjected to an external review. The focus of the story is a new, widely available genetic test. The story says that any doctor can order this test to assess a woman's risk of developing of developing one of the more common forms of breast cancer. The story notes that the FDA does not regulate this or similar types of predictive genetic tests, and there are questions about the validity of tests that have not been subjected to external review. The story notes that there are other genetic tests, but this is one of the first for breast cancer for women who do not carry the BRCA1/2 gene. The story does not mention that there are several other risk calculators to estimate a women's risk. The story does not rely on the Decode Genetics press release. There is independent reporting and a balanced review of this new genetic test." Claim: Firm says test judges risk for common breast cancers

Answer: "The focus of the story is a newly available genetic test to assess a woman's risk of developing of developing one of the more common forms of breast cancer. The story does not provide any evidence about the test itself (despite alluding to it). The story does mention that this test has not been validated in an external review, so any evidence would be from company-sponsored studies. The story notes that the FDA does not regulate this or similar types of predictive genetic tests, and there is concern about the validity of such tests that have not been subjected to external review. The test manufacturer CEO's speculation that insurance companies will eventually cover the test because it's easy to perform and ""any doctor can order the test"" is an inappropriate rationale for any screening, especially when such screening may place a woman at risk for unnecessary surgery or other treatments. The story mentions current prevention guidelines for women who are considered higher than average risk of developing breast cancer. This includes additional surveillance with MRI and mammography, chemoprevention and adopting a healthier lifestyle, namely reducing alcohol consumption and lowering body fat. However,the evidence of survival benefit for lifestyle and screening is fairly limited. Most of recent decrease in breast cancer mortality is attributed to advances in treatment not necessarily screening. Currently, breast cancer risk for women who do not carry the BRAC1/2 genes is determined via population-based calculators such as the Gail Risk Model. This tool provides an estimated 5-year risk and is only validated for Caucasian women, so a well-validated, individualized predictive test would, in theory, be useful for some women. It is not clear how the new genetic test improves on this current practice, as there was no evidence presented. Researchers and clinicians interviewed help educate the reader about a new test may have many more cons than pros. The story does note, via a patient advocate, that some women may still go ahead with the test if they feel it may help guide them in future breast cancer prevention efforts."

Question: Paragraph: Doctors in India have been successful in treating coronavirus with a combination of drugs (Lopinavir, Retonovir, Oseltamivir along with Chlorphenamine) and are going to suggest the same medicine globally. India's ministry of health has advised that the anti-HIV drugs, Lopinavir and Retonovir, are used in some groups of Covid-19 patients. But it is unclear how successful this treatment has been. The other two drugs from the claim are not mentioned in their guidance. Researchers at the Erasmus Medical Center claim to have found an antibody against coronavirus. Researchers in the Netherlands have released research, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, on an antibody against the new coronavirus. A 103 year-old Chinese grandmother has made a full recovery from Covid-19 after being treated for 6 days in Wuhan, China This has been widely reported in the media. Apple has reopened all 42 China stores. Correct. On 13 March 2020, Apple announced that it had reopened all 42 stores in mainland China after a closure of almost six weeks. Cleveland Clinic developed a Covid-19 test that gives results in hours, not days. The number of new cases in South Korea is declining. Italy is hit hard, experts say, only because they have the oldest population in Europe. Whilst it is true that an older population has contributed to a high number of deaths in Italy, it may not be the sole reason. Scientists in Israel are likely to announce the development of a coronavirus vaccine. Scientists in Israel and elsewhere are working on developing a vaccination to prevent the spread of the new coronavirus, but it won't be ready for the public for over a year. Three Maryland coronavirus patients fully recovered and are able to return to everyday life. Correct. On 13 March 2020, Montgomery County, Maryland confirmed that three residents who previously had the virus no longer tested positive. A network of Canadian scientists are making excellent progress in Covid-19 research. At least one group of Canadian scientists has recently announced some progress in understanding Covid-19. A San Diego biotech company is developing a Covid-19 vaccine in collaboration with Duke University and National University of Singapore. Tulsa County's first positive Covid-19 case has recovered. This individual has had two negative tests, which is the indicator of recovery. Correct, this patient has recovered according to official Tulsa County sources. Two negative tests is one of three official indicators of recovery among people with Covid-19 (who showed symptoms). All seven patients who were getting treated for Covid-19 at Safdarjung hospital in New Delhi have recovered. There is a news story reporting that seven patients in this hospital in New Delhi had recovered. However, these were not the only Covid-19 patients in the city. Plasma from newly recovered patients from Covid -19 can treat others infected by Covid-19. This is being used as a treatment in some countries, but clinical trials have not yet proved that this is effective. Claim 1 of 15 Claim: A 103 year-old Chinese grandmother has made a full recovery from Covid-19 after being treated for 6 days in Wuhan, China

Answer:
This has been widely reported in the media.