TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Paragraph: Homebred beef cattle are seen at a local cattle market in Hongseong, about 170 km (106 miles) south of Seoul July 29, 2008. A rare genetic mutation may underlie some cases of mad cow disease in cattle and its discovery may help shed light on where the epidemic started, U.S. researchers reported on Friday. REUTERS/Lee Jae-Won The mutation, in an Alabama cow that tested positive in 2006 for bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, is identical to one that causes a related brain-wasting disease in humans. This suggests BSE may sometimes arise spontaneously in cattle. Jurgen Richt of Kansas State University said cattle producers must never let down their guard against BSE because cattle anywhere, at any time, can develop the disease. The finding may support a 2005 theory that the BSE epidemic in cattle could be traced to feed contaminated with cattle remains from India, the researchers report in the Public Library of Science journal PLoS Pathogens. BSE or mad cow disease swept through British dairy herds in the 1980s, forcing the destruction of millions of animals. No one ever found where it came from but most experts thought at the time it came from cattle feed that contained the remains of sheep infected with a similar disease called scrapie. Cattle were never known to develop BSE before the epidemic, but some experts have argued they may have. This report lends credence to that idea. BSE, scrapie and a human version called Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, or CJD, are brain-destroying illnesses called transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. In some cases, animals or people that eat brain and nervous system material from victims of these diseases can develop them, too. They are passed along by misfolded infectious protein fragments called prions. A very rare disease called variant CJD has been found in people who ate infected beef products. Fatal and incurable, it has affected just 167 people so far. Most countries now ban the use of meat and other parts from mammals in food for cattle. They also ban the use of potentially infectious tissues such as brain and spinal cord in human food. "There are tendencies around the world, now that the feed-borne epidemic has gone down, to relax these rules and regulations," Richt said in a telephone interview. "So if we have these genetic cases popping up here and there and we don't have our mitigations in place, we will have another epidemic somewhere." He suggested breeding the gene out of cattle. "We can clean the world cattle herd of that mutation," Richt said. CJD is also known to pop up spontaneously in the human population. A genetic mutation causes the disease in one in a million people globally. Richt and colleagues tested the brain of the Alabama cow and found a mutation identical to the prion gene mutation that causes some cases of CJD. It is probably rare in cattle, found in fewer than one in 2,000, they said in the report, published here But the animal passed along its mutation to its heifer, which suggests it is inherited. Claim: Gene mutation underlies some mad cow disease: study.

SOLUTION: A rare genetic mutation may underlie some cases of mad cow disease in cattle and its discovery may help shed light on where the epidemic started, U.S. researchers reported on Friday.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: Although the release doesn't give actual costs of warfarin versus some of the newer drugs, or factor in the cost of the usual monthly blood testing required of those taking the drug, it does note the cost of the gene testing used for the study, and that the $200 price tag is now less than a month's prescription of one of the newer anti-coagulants on the market. The release gives results in both actual numbers of patients and the percentage of reduction of adverse events in those given the genetic test and a comparison group. Although it does so in general terms, the release covers the essentials: the risk of using blood thinners like warfarin and the risks of not using them. The release offers a good description of the design of the study. It was randomized and enrolled more than 1,600 older patients at high risk of blood clots following surgeries. The release explains that one group received warfarin dosing based on standard factors (age, height and weight) and the second group was dosed using these clinical factors plus their genetic variants. The release also offers a detailed breakdown on how many fewer side effects occurred among patients had genetic testing completed compared to those who didn't. No mongering here. Nicely done and quite complete. Although the release briefly mentions the availability of a "newer anticoagulant," it should have included a sentence or two about these newer injectable drugs and their overall risks and benefits in comparison to warfarin. It would also have been helpful to tell readers whether the genetic testing that appears to play a role in safer warfarin dosing would have clinical relevance for informing the use of the new blood thinners as well. The fact is that genetic testing is irrelevant for the newer anti-coagulants because they operate in a completely different manner. But all the blood thinners old and new carry the same risk of bleeding. The problem with warfarin is the variability in blood levels which requires frequent monitoring, hence the genetic tests to guide dosing. The careful reader will get it: testing for these genetic variants is still an experimental practice for the most part, and further testing of how the mutations affect warfarin is needed. But the release could have been more explicit in saying that no one is yet recommending genetic testing for millions of warfarin users. While the genetic tests are "available" in the sense that anyone can order them for the most part, they are not routinely used clinically and probably wouldn't be covered by insurance so in that sense they are not widely available to most people. The release describes how the genetic test used in the new study differs from previous similar studies. Overall the language is careful and contextual. The headline should have been toned back a bit to note that this is early research and more study is needed before concluding that "Genetic testing helps set safe dose of common blood thinner," as the headline now states. Claim: Genetic testing helps set safe dose of common blood thinner

SOLUTION: This news release describes results of a study designed to learn whether testing for the presence of three gene variants could make dosing with the blood thinner warfarin safer for patients given the drug to prevent blood clots after joint replacement surgery. The study found a modest reduction in the risk of bleeding or clots (from over- or under-dosing) in those whose regimens were developed in part by genetic testing for the variants, compared to those whose doses were calculated without the genetic testing. The release does an overall good job in describing the study, its purpose and design; and in quantifying the results. It could have been even stronger if it had included more information about newer alternatives to warfarin that are growing in use and an explicit statement that no one is yet recommending routine genetic testing for the variants based on this study. And although the headline somewhat over promises clinical benefit at this point in time, thoughtful readers will come away with a decent understanding of the context of the research and its potential impact. Some estimates put the number of Americans regularly taking the clot-preventing blood thinner warfarin and several newer anticoagulants at more than six million. Warfarin (sold under the brand name Coumadin) requires frequent blood testing to address risks of overdoses (and potentially lethal bleeding) and under-dosing (ineffective prevention of strokes and other blood clots). Because warfarin is cheap, and its effects are reversible with vitamin K, research designed to make it easier and safer for patients to take is likely to be highly newsworthy for them and their caregivers.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: His two attempts to craft legislation replacing Obama's law have collapsed for lack of GOP support. Republican opposition seems likely to doom a vote next week on his Plan C, a bill simply repealing much of Obama's statute. Along the way, conservative Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., accused McConnell of a "serious breach of trust" by telling moderates that proposed Medicaid cuts would not occur. His fellow Kentucky Republican, Sen. Rand Paul, was a constant thorn and the most vociferous opponent of McConnell's effort. And Utah Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, gave party leaders little advance word when he and Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kansas, deserted the bill late Monday, effectively killing it in the dark of night. "This has been a very, very challenging experience for all of us," McConnell told reporters Tuesday. McConnell faced a difficult environment. Polls have consistently shown Obama's statute was far more popular than the GOP effort to repeal it, making his bill a tough sell to colleagues. President Donald Trump's dismal approval ratings and zigzagging engagement haven't helped. And facing unbroken Democratic opposition, McConnell needed to win over at least 50 of the 52 GOP senators, a .962 batting average he's been unable to achieve. "Mitch has a tough, tough job and frankly I cut him a lot of slack on this. He can only do so much," said Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. Democrats, who often grudgingly marvel at McConnell's moves, kept waiting for him to pull a rabbit from what turned out to be an empty hat. They said he overreached by turning a bill reshaping Obama's law into one that also cut nearly $1 trillion in taxes over a decade and sliced almost $800 billion from Medicaid, the health care program for the poor, disabled and nursing home patients. They say he boxed himself in by rushing to deliver on his party's seven-year-old overpromise to repeal Obama's law. That proved an arduous task that angered tens of millions who've benefited from the statute, especially with much of McConnell's work performed behind closed office doors. "I don't have any sympathy for him," said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., his party's No. 2 Senate leader. "I assume he felt duty-bound as the Republican leader" to pursue repeal of Obama's law. But he said McConnell should have known that "rewriting the health care system of America on the fly and in secret was not going to work." McConnell seemed to be trying to turn lemons into lemonade with next week's likely rejection of a simple repeal of much of Obama's law. By losing, GOP leaders would send a message to conservative voters that they tried to obliterate the law, while signaling to Republican senators that the votes aren't there and it is time to move on. A senator for 33 years, the 75-year-old McConnell has a reputation for weaving compromises that avert onrushing political disasters. He cut several such deals during Obama's years in the White House, including major budget pacts in 2011 and 2013. But once Donald Trump won the presidency and Republicans took House and Senate control this year, it became McConnell's job to play offense. In particular, he is quarterback of the Senate GOP drive to repeal Obama's law. But dismantling the law is not going to happen, at least in the immediate future. Assessing Democrats as unwilling to help them scrap Obama's law which they were McConnell ignored them from the start. That tactic ignored his own advice from his 2016 memoir, "The Long Game," in which he criticized Democrats for passing Obama's 2010 statute "without regard for the views of the other side." "Once you only have 52 votes and you try to do a bill just with Republicans, you set yourself up for a nearly impossible task," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. McConnell's latest bill would cut Medicaid, letting insurers sell policies with negligible coverage and rolling back Obama taxes on the health care industry. Getting GOP votes for it is a Rubik's cube-like problem because conservatives and moderates have mutually exclusive demands, like whether to slash Medicaid or erase Obama regulations protecting consumers. "You have first- and second-term twerps that think they know the solution to everything," said former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., who retired in 2007. "This was always going to be a difficult process and I'm not sure how we would have handled it differently," said No. 2 Senate GOP leader John Cornyn of Texas. Movement conservatives who have often accused McConnell of not being an aggressive enough champion of their causes do fault him. "Mitchcare collapses," read a statement by Ken Cuccinelli, who heads the Senate Conservatives Fund, which has clashed with McConnell. Cuccinelli called the bill's demise "an embarrassing defeat for someone who portrays himself as a strategic genius." Claim: Crumbling health bill dents McConnell image as top tactician.

SOLUTION:
When the banner Republican effort to scuttle and rewrite President Barack Obama's health care law crumbled this week, the falling debris popped a hefty dent into Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's image as a dauntless legislative tactician three chess moves ahead of everyone else.