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: The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) said it was investigating 14 fake or unlicensed products to treat COVID-19, the respiratory disease caused by the coronavirus. So far 3,605 Britons have died from the coronavirus, the latest data show, and experts have said deaths will continue to rise until the effect of recent lockdown measures filter through and slow the spread of the disease in the coming weeks. MHRA said it was investigating fake self-testing kits, miracle cures and so-called "antiviral misting sprays". "Don't be fooled by online offers for medical products to help prevent or treat COVID-19," Lynda Scammell, MHRA enforcement official said. "There is no medicine licensed specifically to treat or prevent COVID-19, therefore any claiming to do so are not authorised and have not undergone regulatory approvals required for sale on the UK market." Scammell added that MHRA was working alongside law enforcement agencies to combat the spread of fake and unlicensed medical products. Claim: Miracle cures? UK investigators go after fake coronavirus medicines.

SOLUTION: British authorities said on Saturday they were clamping down on bogus cures for the coronavirus, which currently has no specific licensed treatment.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: An asthma sufferer wears a paper face mask as she is attended by nurses in this undated file image. REUTERS/Jason Reed The findings were published in the journal Lancet together with two other studies, which found that runny noses and wheezing early on in life may be strong predictors of asthma. In the first study, researchers pored through data provided by parents of more than 205,000 children and found paracetamol use in the first year of life was associated with a 46 percent higher risk of asthma by the time the children were 6 or 7 compared to those never exposed to the drug. Known as acetaminophen in the United States, where it is widely sold under the brand Tylenol, it is used to relieve fever, minor aches and pain, and is used in a liquid suspension for children. Medium use of paracetamol in the past 12 months increased asthma risk by 61 percent, while high dosages of once a month or more in the past year raised the risk by over three times. Medium use was defined as once per year or more, but less than once a month. Suspicions of a possible link between paracetamol and asthma emerged in recent years when experts observed an increased use of the drug to a simultaneous rise in asthma prevalence worldwide. One theory is that paracetamol reduces antioxidants in the body. Some experts think antioxidants, which stop unstable molecules known as free radicals from doing too much damage, can lower the risk of cancer, heart disease and other ailments. "Paracetamol can reduce antioxidant levels and ... that can give oxidative stress in the lungs and cause asthma," one of the researchers, Richard Beasley at the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, told Reuters in a telephone interview. As with asthma, monthly use of paracetamol doubled the risk of eczema and trebled that of rhinoconjunctivitis repetitive sneezing, rhinorrhea, nasal congestion and hay fever by the time children were 6 or 7, the study found. However, the researchers stressed paracetamol should remain the preferred drug to relieve pain and fever in children because its alternative, aspirin, was linked to the risk of Reye's syndrome, a rare but serious complication in children. "The findings do lend support to the current guidelines of the World Health Organization, which recommend that paracetamol should not be used routinely, but should be reserved for children with a high fever (38.5 Celsius or above)," they wrote. Another study in The Lancet found that rhinitis, or hay fever and other allergic reactions causing a runny nose, was a strong predictor of asthma that develops in adulthood. Researchers monitored 6,461 people in 14 countries who were free of asthma at the start of study for more than 8 years. Those who suffered rhinitis and were allergic to an assortment of agents like house dust mites, cat, grass and birch were 3.5 times more likely to develop asthma later on compared to those who suffered no allergies nor rhinitis. The third study in Arizona in the United States found wheezing early in life may be an ominous sign of asthma developing in adulthood. Researchers pored through data on 849 people going back 22 years to the time they were babies. Of 181 cases of active asthma, 49 were newly diagnosed, of which 35 were women. "In over 70 percent of people with current asthma and 63 percent of those with newly diagnosed asthma at age 22 years, episodes of wheezing had happened in the first three years of life or were reported by parents at age six years," wrote the researchers at the Arizona Respiratory Center. In an accompanying comment, Suzanne Lau of Charite University Medicine in Germany, wrote: "These findings identify a population at risk of chronic obstructive airway disease in early adulthood, and they already showed a predisposition during preschool years." Lau was not involved in the study. Claim: Paracetamol use may raise asthma risk in children.

SOLUTION: Infants who have been given the common pain reliever paracetamol may have a higher risk of developing asthma and eczema by the time they are 6 or 7, a large study covering children in 31 countries has found.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: Breastfeeding is not an option for all mothers, whether because of medical/physical limitations or because of socioeconomic ones. However, breastfeeding is also not a medical intervention that one can easily place a price tag on. This is a tough one to call. The release clearly lays out the research findings that breastfeeding is associated with reductions in stroke risk, even breaking it down by subgroups. That's good. However, the release only tells readers about relative reductions in risk, as opposed to absolute reductions in risk. What does that mean? Well, let's say that the women in a study have a 0.25% risk of getting Disease X. If the study reports that a specific behavior doubles the risk of Disease X, that sounds like a big deal a 100% increase in risk! But that's a 100%relative increase in risk. The absolute risk would go from 0.25% to 0.5%. The difference between relative and absolute risk is something HealthNewsReview.org has written about, and it is a key distinction that we feel is important. So, when the release tells us that breastfeeding was associated with a 23% decrease in stroke risk, readers still don't know what that means in terms of absolute risk. And because the baseline absolute risk numbers aren't mentioned, savvy readers can't even do the calculation for themselves. Breastfeeding may be "natural," but it's not effortless. Breastfeeding can be time-consuming and exhausting, and carries risks of dehydration and breast pain. That said, these are not necessarily medical issues that rise to the level of discussion in a news release about an observational study like this one. As such, we'll rate this criterion as not applicable. The release does a pretty solid job here, describing the study fairly well and acknowledging its limitations. But there are a couple of things that could have been slightly better. For example, the release describes the study in the fifth paragraph. It is not until the 10th paragraph that the release explicitly tells readers that "Because the study was observational, it couldn't establish a cause-and-effect relationship between breastfeeding and lower stroke risk, meaning that it is possible some other characteristic that distinguishes between women who breastfeed and those who don't is the factor changing the stroke risk." For example, it's possible that women who did not breastfeed had higher levels of stress than women who did breastfeed, which may be a contributing factor to stroke. And it is not until the 12th paragraph that the release tells readers that "The study was also limited by the relatively small number of strokes that occurred during the follow-up period (just 3.4 percent of the women experienced a stroke during the study period and 1.6 percent reported having had a stroke prior to the study) and by the Women's Health Initiative's exclusion of women who had already had severe strokes at the time of recruitment." To be clear, we are very glad that the release includes these valuable qualifiers. However, we think the release would have been stronger if they had not been buried at the bottom of the piece. No disease mongering here. The release offers context on the incidence of U.S. stroke mortality rates. The release clearly discloses the source of research funding. The release also notes that "author disclosures [regarding potential conflicts of interest] are on the manuscript." It would have been much better to simply disclose the conflicts on the release itself by saying: "The authors report no potential conflicts of interest." The release does a nice job here, stating: "Breastfeeding is only one of many factors that could potentially protect against stroke. Others include getting adequate exercise, choosing healthy foods, not smoking and seeking treatment if needed to keep your blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar in the normal range." Not all of the alternatives have been proven to protect against stroke but listing them is a worthwhile reminder that lifestyle changes might reduce their risk. The release requests that pregnant women make breastfeeding part of their "birthing plan" and to breastfeed for at least six months to receive the most benefits. It's assumed readers know that breastfeeding is an available option unless there are medical or lifestyle barriers. The release notes that "This is among the first studies to examine breastfeeding and a possible relationship to stroke risk for mothers." It would have been helpful to briefly note what the other studies found and whether the results were different or had similar conclusions. The release uses responsible, cautious language. The recommendation to breastfeed to prevent stroke based on observational research may be an overreach, however. Claim: Breastfeeding may help protect mothers against stroke

SOLUTION:
The release focuses on a prospective cohort study, one of the strongest types of observational studies,that identified a correlation between breastfeeding and stroke. Specifically, the study reported that women who nursed at least one child were less likely to have a stroke later in life. The release notes that this was an observational study and, therefore, could not establish a cause-and-effect relationship between breastfeeding and stroke risk. Although the incidence and mortality from stroke has been in decline, stroke remains a significant health problem in the United States, affecting hundreds of thousands of men and women every year. Therefore, new information that could help people make lifestyle choices that affect their long-term risk of stroke has the potential to significantly affect the health and quality of life for millions of people. That said, it is important for news release to highlight the limitations of new research something that this release takes pains to do.