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: Half of EU states have designated long lists of drugs that cannot be exported during the coronavirus emergency. The lists include medication used to treat COVID-19 patients such as muscle relaxants, painkillers and hydroxychloroquine. "We ask that national governments lift any export ban on medicines. Such restrictions can lead to shortages elsewhere in the EU," von der Leyen said in a statement. She also called on governments to avoid stockpiling. Bans are usually justified with the need to fulfil national needs, but Europe has so far faced only limited supply problems from the coronavirus crisis. Temporary shortages have been recorded mostly for drugs used to treat critically ill COVID-19 patients, such as anaesthetics, antibiotics and muscle relaxants that allow people to receive breathing support from ventilators. But national lists comprise many more drugs, including some that have wider uses such as the painkiller paracetamol and insulin, used by diabetics. The European Commission on Wednesday adopted new guidance on drugs supplies, which calls on governments to refrain from export bans and from requisitioning medicines. "Whilst it is understandable that countries wish to ensure the availability of essential medicines nationally, export bans are detrimental to the availability of medicines for European patients even when they are legally justifiable," the non-binding document says. France, Poland, Belgium and the Czech Republic are among the EU countries with the longest lists of drugs which are temporarily banned from export. The bans apply mostly to distributors, which cover a large part of the EU market and provide the biggest share of supplies to pharmacies. The new guidelines also called on states to stop excessive stockpiling, which the Commission said could contribute to supply shortages. It warned the worst effects on supplies from stockpiling emerge when countries compete among themselves. The Commission is setting up an EU reserve of critical medicines and medical gear to address future needs. Claim: EU urges states to lift drug export bans to prevent shortages.

A: The head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, on Wednesday urged European Union states to lift export bans on medicines to avoid causing shortages in the bloc as it tackles the coronavirus crisis.
****
Q: 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

A: 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.
****
Q: Paragraph: The story states that a $25 blood test can identify someone with a thyroid disorder. The costs associated with daily hormone therapy are not discussed. The article does an excellent job explaining the importance of thyroid hormones during pregnancy for fetal brain development, especially during the first trimester. It also points out the role in preventing miscarriage and premature birth. Furthermore, the story thoroughly details the risks that come with an overactive or an underactive thyroid gland for the average person. The article mentions that, for mild cases of hypothyroidism, scientists are unsure whether diagnoses and subsequent treatment sufficiently help pregnant patients or, instead, waste money on blood testing and thyroid medication. This is appropriately stated high up (in the first third) in the report. The article briefly mentions that the Quest Diagnostics study looked at records and surveys from half a million pregnant women, but apart from this fact, the story does not outline any more research methods or protocol. We could interpret the findings better if we knew, for example: There is no disease mongering in this story. The article gives appropriate and sufficient background information on various thyroid disorders and how they could affect pregnant women. The comment from Dr. Dena Goffman of New York's Montefiore Medical Center offers an outside perspective on the research and the "long-running controversy" regarding thyroid testing for pregnant women. However, researchers at Quest Diagnostics one of the world's biggest companies for diagnostic services conducted this study, which found a "higher-than-expected" number of pregnant women with underactive thyroids. Whether Quest Diagnostics funded the study, or whether Dr. Elizabeth Pearce had ties to the company, were not explicitly discussed. The story offers different perspectives and guidelines on thyroid screening from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Thyroid Association. The story makes it clear that "nearly a quarter of pregnant women are getting the simple thyroid blood test regardless of whether they have symptoms." Thyroid function screening via a blood test is not a new concept. The question is whether milder cases of hypothyroidism in pregnant women should be treated with daily hormone therapy. In general, the article does an excellent job laying out both sides of the issue. There was no evidence that the story relied solely on a press release. Claim: Debate over who needs a thyroid check in pregnancy

A:
The article gives extensive context to the recent Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism study and refers to other research done in the field. The article effectively breaks down and explains a complex debate in the physician community whether all pregnant women should be screened for thyroid function and whether women with milder cases of hypothyroidism should be diagnosed and treated. The story says this will "add pressure" for science to settle this issue, but that pressure already exists from endocrinologists and obstetricians with, as the study shows, about 1 in 5 pregnant women being tested from 2005-8.
****