instruction:
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 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: There was no discussion of costs. The story included quantitive information about weight loss over time. It did not quantify the impact on blood pressure. The story mentioned specific side effects of this particular medication combination. To be most informative to readers, the story should have mentioned that the potential for long-term harm is not known. And the rate at which people stopped taking the drug due to side effects should have been included. While indicating that several studies had been conducted in more than 4,500 people with various characteristics, the story never mentioned whether the studies are considered definitive or not; it also did not mention that the results of these studies have not yet been published in peer-reviewed journals. And while reporting that weight loss appeared to be dose dependent, there was no discussion of how weight loss compared with those in control groups. Lastly as the focus of the story appeared to be on an effect on blood pressure, it would seem that the story should have included some detail about the magnitude of the change. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. The story mention that the study author and Dr. Aronne received funding from the manufacturer of this drug. It also included a quote from the president of the American Society of Hypertension who does not appear to have a financial tie to this product. There was no information about how well this product works in comparison with other approaches to weight loss. It's pretty clear from the story that the combination of the two drugs is not yet available. The story reported that the drug was a combination of two commercially available medications. It does not appear that the story relied solely or largely on a news release. Claim: Weight Loss Pill Also Lowers Blood Pressure
answer:
Although highlighting the effect of this product on blood pressure, the story did not explain how much blood pressure dropped. The story also didn't say how common the side effects are or how often people have to discontinue the medication due to side effects. It would have been helpful to remind readers of the possible pitfalls that may be ahead and that little is known about the long term use of this product in terms of both weight loss and potential risks that might result. Obesity and high blood pressure are very common conditions. There are few treatment for obesity that have been demonstrated to be enable people to lose weight and maintain that loss.

question:
Paragraph: The blunt assessments show just how much has changed in the weeks since President Donald Trump's predictions that the virus would soon pass, and his suggestions that much of the economy could be up and running by Easter, April 12. But they also point to the suffering and sacrifice ahead until the pandemic begins to abate. The nation's top doctor, Surgeon General Jerome Allen, said Americans should brace for levels of tragedy reminiscent of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The number of people infected in the U.S. has exceeded 300,000, with the death toll climbing past 9,000. Nearly 4,200 of those deaths are in the state of New York, but a glimmer of hope there came on Sunday when Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo said his state registered a small dip in new fatalities over a 24-hour period. Still, Gov. John Bel Edwards, D-La., said his state may run out of ventilators by week's end. Former Vice President Joe Biden suggested his party's presidential nominating convention, already pushed from July into August because of the outbreak, may have to move fully online to avoid packing thousands of people into an arena in Milwaukee. Also, the Defense Department released new requirements that all individuals on its property "will wear cloth face coverings when they cannot maintain six feet of social distance in public areas or work centers." The most dire warning, though, came from Adams, who noted it was Palm Sunday, which starts the Christian holy week that concludes with Easter Sunday. "This is going to be the hardest and the saddest week of most Americans' lives, quite frankly," Adams said. "This is going to be our Pearl Harbor moment, our 9/11 moment, only it's not going to be localized. It's going to be happening all over the country. And I want America to understand that." For most people, the virus causes mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough that clear up in two to three weeks. For some, especially older adults and people with existing health problems, it can cause more severe illness, including pneumonia, and death. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the toll in the coming week is "going to be shocking to some, but that's what is going to happen before it turns around, so just buckle down." He also said the virus probably won't be wiped out entirely this year, and that unless the world gets it under control, it will "assume a seasonal nature." "We need to be prepared that, since it unlikely will be completely eradicated from the planet, that as we get into next season, we may see the beginning of a resurgence," Fauci said. "That's the reason why we're pushing so hard in getting our preparedness much better than it was." Trump has backed away from comments weeks earlier that large swaths of American life would resume by Easter. The president had no public events on his schedule Sunday after a series of two-hour daily briefings on the outbreak. Vice President Mike Pence was scheduled to participate in a task force conference call from his residence in the afternoon. Much of the country is under orders to stay home, and federal officials said they have seen signs that people are listening to the message about social distancing. A few states, however, have declined to issue such orders and Adams was asked whether they should join the rest of the country. "Ninety percent of Americans are doing their part, even in the states where they haven't had a shelter in place," Adams said. "But if you can't give us 30 days, governors, give us, give us a week, give us what you can, so that we don't overwhelm our health care systems over this next week." Gov. Asa Hutchinson, R-Ark., who has not issued a stay-at-home order, said federal officials who have urged them are "just looking at the nation as a whole." "But whenever you look at our state, I think Dr. Fauci would be very pleased with the fact that we are beating some of our other states in reducing the spread and the commitment that we have to working every day to accomplish that," Hutchison said. Gov. J.B. Pritzker, D-Ill., who was among the first in the nation to issue orders that his state's residents stay home, suggested the federal government should step in and make the remaining states follow suit. "This virus knows no borders. And so it was up to the federal government, to begin with, to advise and to ask all the governors to put in stay-at-home orders," Pritzker said. "Those governors, Republican governors, would have done it much earlier if the president had suggested it much earlier." Adams appeared on "Fox News Sunday" and NBC's ''Meet the Press." Fauci was on CBS' "Face the Nation." Biden was interviewed on ABC's "This Week" while Hutchinson was on NBC. Pritzker and Edwards were on CNN's "State of the Union." Claim: Virus raises specter of gravest attacks in modern US times.
answer:
America's surgeon general raised the specter of the gravest attacks against the nation in modern times to steel an anxious country Sunday for the impending and immeasurable sorrow he said would touch untold numbers of families in the age of the coronavirus. The government's top infectious disease expert urged vigilant preparation for a virus that is unlikely to be wiped out entirely in the short term and may emerge again in a new season.