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: We'll give this story a Satisfactory rating in this category since it does mention the $1,000 cost of a colonoscopy and that one of the two at-home screening tests costs about $25. But readers would benefit more by knowing the average costs of the two alternatives, rather than just the cost of one. This story focuses on theavailable methods of colorectal screening, comparing them based on available data, and points out that the two at-home screening kits are comparably effective to the two invasive procedures: sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. One of the at-home tests the FIT, or fecal immunochemical test when used, is estimated to prevent 20-23 deaths per thousand people screened, while estimates among those using colonoscopy suggest 22-24 deaths are prevented per thousand people screened. The story is clear in saying that there has been no head-to-head comparative study pitting the techniques against each other. The story gets a Satisfactory rating here since it does mention that with colonoscopy, there's "a small but real risk of harm, such as a perforation" from the screening test. But, as with all screening methods, there is the possibility of false positives or false negatives with the at-home tests which could produce either false confidence or needless worry, not insignificant issues. We would have liked the story even better had it mentioned these factors. The story is quite open with the fact that comparative data assessing the various screening methods against each other are not available, but it strengthens its offerings by citing recommendations from both the US Preventive Services Task Force and the Canadian Task Force on Preventive HealthCare. The recommendations of these independent groups are based on a rigorous evaluation of the highest-quality evidence available. Colon cancer is the second-leading form of cancer-related death in the country; the story does not disease monger. The story quotes three independent sources for information and the recommendations of agencies from two different governments. There is no suggestion that in a story offering a selection of screening techniques, with no one preferred above another, that there is any issue with conflicts of interest. Since this story is totally about the available alternatives for colorectal cancer screening, it easily gets a Satisfactory rating. Both colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy have been available for years and the at-home screening tests mentioned in the story are said to be available through a patient's doctor's office. These details establish the methods' availability. It also quotes one source asrecommending againstthe use of over-the-counter home screening tests for this disease. The story notes that what's novel here is that the U.S. Preventive Task Force recently finalized their guidelines on colon cancer screening. There is no indication that this story relied on a news release. Claim: You Could Skip Your Colonoscopy If You're Willing To Collect Your Poop
This story points out that, based on available data, two at-home screening tests appear to be equally effective compared to the more traditional, and more invasive, sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. We have only minor quibbles with the storyoverall, it provided an excellent assessment of the at-home test options, particularly the fecal immunochemical test. However, for any story about screening methods, particularly blood tests, we think it's important to include the risks of false-positive and false-negative results, which carry harm. The story didn't go there. Given that the public has reservations about aspects of the invasive screening methods, information suggesting that they might be adequately replaced by non-invasive approaches is important to the public's health. All too often, colonoscopy is promoted as the "gold standard"and no mention is made of effective alternatives. This news storydoes a good job explaining options, and also explores the reasons why so many Americans think that screening with colonoscopy is the best way to be screened for colon cancer and why that attitude is not supported by the evidence and may (in rare cases) be much worse than non-invasive screening methods.

Paragraph: There's no discussion of cost, even to mention that statins are relatively inexpensive these days and are mostly generically available. To its credit, the article does mention the cost of a calcium scan. We learn that "anywhere from 50 to 200 healthy people need to take a statin daily to prevent a single heart attack for five years." That's helpful information. It also notes that the observed benefit is less for older patients. The story could have added that even those numbers might disputed by some experts who perceive no meaningful benefit. For example, one review found being on a statin does not help people with low risk for heart disease live longer. The story does a service by highlighting the harms of statins. It explains: "The most common side effect of these drugs is muscle pain, which usually goes away if patients stop taking the medicines. People taking statins are also at a higher risk of developing diabetes, which is harder to reverse." It also mentions the potential for overtreatment with the use of coronary calcium scans. However, we wish it had included absolute numbers. The story says harms are "uncommon," but provides no data to back that up. Rates of adverse effects with statins have been measured at 1 to 10%, which makes them "common" in the definition of the European Medicines Agency. Also noteworthy is that some contend that adverse effects of statins have not been reliably reported. The story doesn't explain the quality of the study, or of studies on which current guidelines are based. We don't explicitly learn that this is a modelling study. In other words, this study consisted mostly of reinterpretations of math, not re-evaluations of real-life patients. The researchers said they were unable to obtain enough data on all possible harms and age-specific data on some harm outcomes, "so the risk thresholds we determined may still be too low." There is no disease-mongering here. This story includes sources that weren't involved in the study. The study's authors reported no conflicts of interest. The story could have acknowledged the influence of pharmaceutical companies in creating guidelines for statin use. The alternative of not taking a statin was the key message here, and that's laudable. However, we have a couple of concerns. First, we learn that "some statins were more effective than others, with atorvastatin (the generic name for Lipitor) being the best of the bunch." However, the story doesn't explain on what basis some statins are "more effective." In fact, some statins may be more effective at lower cholesterol, but the study found that no statin rises above others when it comes to the outcomes that counts most to patients reducing cardiovascular deaths. Also, the story doesn't mention lifestyle interventions diet and exercise. The story makes it clear that statins are widely prescribed. The story states this an attempt to better weigh the benefits and harms of statin use. There was a good range of interviewees with no reliance on a news release Claim: Before Starting A Statin, Talk It Over With Your Doctor
The story reports on a study that re-assessed who benefits from taking a statin to prevent heart disease, with different risk thresholds based on sex, age group, and statin type. It reports the view that current guidelines "haven't adequately considered" the harms from taking these widely used drugs. The story laudably focuses attention on potential adverse events and a need for balanced decision-making. It also incorporated a variety of sources. In our view, the story could done a better job in discussing costs, the quality of evidence, and alternative strategies to prevent heart disease. Statins are among the most widely prescribed drugs, with their use encouraged under guidelines such as those of the American Heart Association of the American College of Cardiology. However, data isn't crystal clear on the benefits and harms of statins for people who don't already have heart disease. As a result, there's concern that they are being overused. It's laudable that some news organizations including CNN as well as NPR highlighted research that explores these complexities and points out the need for patients and physicians to weigh benefits and harms. The headline of this story is, in our view, a winner.

Paragraph: Breeder pigs and piglets from counties without outbreaks of the disease will be allowed to be transported to other provinces, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs said in a statement on its website. Breeder pigs and piglets from infected counties will only be allowed to be moved within the infected province, the statement said. China has reported more than 90 cases of the highly contagious disease since early August. Claim: China loosens pig transport ban to ensure supplies amid African swine fever.
China has loosened the rules on the transportation of breeder pigs and piglets in provinces that are affected by the African swine fever, the agriculture ministry said on Thursday.