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: The story does not give any estimate of the cost of Doppler ultrasound examinations. The story clearly states the reduction in fetal death rates the review authors calculated by combining the results of the studies ithey looked at. It reports the absolute risk calculation of fetal or newborn deaths (1.7 percent among women who did not receive ultrasound monitoring vs. 1.2 percent among those who did). This reporting of absolute (as opposed to relative) risk reduction is a strong point of the story since it conveys to readers that while the intervention did improve outcomes, the underlying risk is small. We only wish, however, that the story had cited the Number Needed to Test that was included in the study 203 would need to be tested in order to find one case of fetal distress that would otherwise not have been seen using other routine exams. The story notes that there has been concern that the use of Doppler ultrasound might increase unnecessary interventions, including cesarean section deliveries in cases where it is not actually needed. It says the studies indicated that Doppler ultrasound appeared to lead to better decisions about cesarean sections and inductions of labor. The story explains that this report is a review of other studies. It also points out some shortcomings in the underlying studies. The story also includes a comment from one of the study authors that since the technique is established in current practice it is unlikely that there will be future studies of the use of the technology in high-risk pregnancies. The story clearly states that the evidence on the use of Doppler ultrasound applies only to high-risk pregnancies and that there is no evidence the examinations should be done in low-risk pregnancies. There is no information in the story that appears to come from an independent source. Comments from experts in the field would have helped put the authors' comments into perspective. The story says other types of testing, including electronic fetal-heart monitoring, may also be done during high-risk pregnancies. The story notes that Doppler is an established technique used to monitor high-risk pregnancies. The story notes that Doppler ultrasound is an established technology and that most of the studies reviewed were done in the 1990s. The story does not appear to rely solely on a news release. It says the lead researcher was interviewed. Claim: Ultrasound may cut deaths in high-risk pregnancies
[A]: This story clearly explains that a new review of the available evidence from published trials backs the use of Doppler ultrasound to monitor high-risk pregnancies. Notably, the story reports the absolute risk calculation of fetal or newborn deaths (1.7 percent among women who did not receive ultrasound monitoring vs. 1.2 percent among those who did), rather than trumpeting a large reduction in relative risk. By including the absolute risk numbers, the story helps readers understand both that the test appears to reduce the death rate and, importantly, that the overall risk of fetal or newborn death in developed nations is very small, thus putting the results in perspective. This story also pointed out that there is some uncertainty about the findings because of concerns about the quality of the underlying studies including in the review. What's more, it highlights the point that the studies included only women who had high-risk pregnancies and that there is no evidence to suggest the use of Doppler ultrasound to monitor low-risk pregnancies. The story would have been ranked as satisfactory on all criteria if it had reported the typical cost of Doppler ultrasound monitoring and included an independent source in addition to the lead author of the review. When there is concern about potential problems with a pregnancy, Doppler ultrasound is a commonly recommended test used to help make decisions about cesarean section, induced labor or other interventions; thus misuse of the test could lead to inappropriate interventions.

[Q]: Paragraph: "The story mentions that 30 capsules ofOSR#1 cost $60. It would have been nice had the story also includedinformation about the amount of active ingredient per capsuleand the manufacturer's recommendeddosage. This wouldhave allowed readers to make a better calculation as to the financial impact oftreatment. This is critical information consideringthese costs will be borne out of pocket by anyone usingOSR #1. The storyjuxtaposes a light-hearted""success story""with information about the industrial uses of OSR #1 for removing toxic heavy metals from contaminated soil. This is a clever way ofway of emphasizingthat the use of this product is based entirely on anecdote. The storyclearly states that there is no credible evidence supporting the efficacy of the product. The harms of this product are impossible to quantify, given that it doesn't seem to have been studied in humans or in animals. The story notes that otherchelating drugs carry ""significant risks""and ""can strip the body of metals necessary for health."" It would have been nice to see more specifics about what chelators can do, but the story satisfies the critierion. The story states that medical searches turned up no papers about OSR#1, and that the companywhich makesthe productprovided nopublished studies about its use. The story rightly suggests that this total lack of evidenceshould be deeply troubling. The story doesn't exaggerate the prevalence or severity of autism, or of the potentially toxic compounds sometimes used to treat it. The story quotes multiple experts on pharmacology and an FDA spokesperson. It also quotes from an interview with Boyd Haley, president of the company which makes OSR#1. It attempted to get a reaction from Kim Stagliano, an OSR #1 proponent, but this effort was not successful. While the story mentions that there other are chelation drugs out there, it could have mentioned that there areeducational strategies which can be helpful for children with autism and which have betterevidence to support their use. The story states that OSR#1 is, according to the manufacturer'swebsite, available onlythrough dentists' or doctors' offices. Itnotes, however,that theTribune was able to buy 30 capsules of the productdirectly from a compounding pharmacy listed on the site. We areimpressed that the Tribune went to these lengths toestablish the product's availability. The story provides a fairly detailedpedigree for OSR #1and discusses itssimilarity to other chelation therapiesused in the treatment of autism. It also gives credit to blogger Kathleen Seidel for being the first to raiseconcerns aboutOSR #1 in her blog, Neurodiversity.com The story is well sourced and is not based on a press release." Claim: Industrial chemical OSR#1 used as autism treatment
[A]: "The product known as OSR #1 contains a chemical originally intended for clean-up of toxic waste at industrial sites. This story by the Chicago Tribune (which was republished by the Los Angeles Times) examineshow,despite a total lack of any researchon the product in humans,OSR#1 ended up being marketedas a ""dietary supplement"" for childrenwith autism. The story does an especially good job of pointing out the regulatory gaps whichcan allowrisky, poorly researchedproductsto be sold as ""cures"" to desperate parents and caregivers. It's an example of health journalism doing what it'ssupposed to do, and doing it well. Autism is a serious disorder which affects a growing number of children and their families and for which there are few goodtreatment options. Thisis asituation ripe for abuse by overzealous advocates andunscrupulous marketersof uNPRoven therapies. AsBoyd Haley, president of the company thatmake thethe OSR#1 supplement, puts it:""There are so many snake oil salesmen out there, it's just incredible."""

[Q]: Paragraph: Early in the session, Democratic state Rep. Tonya Pfaff, a high school math teacher from Terre Haute, introduced an amendment to a school safety bill that would have allowed school corporations to use safety or security subsidies to provide students with school-based mental health services. A bipartisan group of lawmakers said substantial language involving mental health services was later removed because of criticisms from conservative organizations and parent groups, the Tribune-Star reported. "I'm disappointed that we didn't put any real money into dealing with mental health issues this session," Pfaff said. "We continue to talk about school safety, but we can't talk about it without talking about mental health and social-emotional wellness." Jennifer McCormick, the Republican state superintendent of public instruction, said financial backing for mental health services didn't receive the attention it warranted. "We were disappointed to see how the legislation ended up," McCormick said. "However, I have faith in our local schools that they are going to do what is right for kids" and provide access to needed services. The apprehension of conservative groups related to the mental health legislation "had to do with parental consent," said state Rep. Bruce Borders, a Republican from Jasonville. He said parents deserve to know what is being asked of their kids. "That's where most of the battles came in, over parental consent on some of these evaluations," Borders said. Terry Spradlin, executive director of the Indiana School Boards Association, said most of the school safety legislation prioritizes revamping building security and addressing threats, instead of prevention. "They really didn't do an adequate job on the prevention side, addressing the social-emotional learning and mental health needs of students," Spradlin said. "We've got more work to do in that area. ISBA will continue to be an advocate and bring forth some new ideas in future sessions to address those critical needs." ___ Information from: Tribune-Star, http://www.tribstar.com Claim: Indiana educators disappointed about mental health funding.
[A]:
The failure of Indiana lawmakers to approve proposals during this year's legislative session that would have made mental health services eligible for school safety funding is a huge disappointment, education officials said.