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 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 lawsuit marks the first multi-plaintiff trial in the litigation over whether glyphosate, Roundup's active ingredient, is carcinogenic, and is the first trial outside of California. It is being held in St. Louis, where Monsanto was headquartered before Bayer bought the company in a $63 billion deal in 2018. Three consecutive juries found the company liable for causing cancer with damages of tens of millions of dollars awarded to each plaintiff. Bayer is appealing those verdicts. Court-appointed mediator Ken Feinberg has put the number of Roundup cancer claimants at more than 75,000 while Bayer said the claims it has been served with in court were below 50,000. Bayer's share price has tumbled since the first verdict in August 2018 but the stock rose 3% on Friday after Bloomberg reported a possible out-of-court settlement with some plaintiffs that could lead to a total payout of about $10 billion. While traders said the market likes the idea of Bayer settling the litigation, some cautioned that the prospect of a comprehensive deal remained uncertain. Analysts have estimated the size of any such settlement at $8-$12 billion. While most plaintiffs' lawyers have agreed to postpone trials pending negotiations, some have decided to pursue their clients' day in court. The case in Missouri's Circuit Court for the 22nd Judicial Circuit of the City of St. Louis is scheduled to last several weeks, with both sides presenting extensive scientific evidence through expert witnesses. Bayer denies all allegations that Roundup or glyphosate causes cancer, saying decades of independent studies have shown the world's most widely used weed killer to be safe for human use and noting that regulators around the world have approved the product. "At the end of the day, this trial should come down to the weight of the science, and we remain confident in the extensive scientific record and regulatory assessments that support the safety of our glyphosate-based herbicides and that they do not cause cancer," the company said in a statement. Several court cases have been postponed by both parties in the past to expedite settlement talks. By pursuing the St. Louis trail The Miller Firm LLC, a key player in the litigation, is seeking to increase pressure on Bayer. The case involves the claims of Bryce Batiste from Louisiana, Ann Meeks from Florida, Glen Ashelman from Pennsylvania and Christopher Wade, a St. Louis resident. All four have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a blood cell cancer that plaintiffs in the litigation allege is caused by Roundup. Some legal experts said Bayer could benefit from a home advantage in the St. Louis trial, where Monsanto has century-old roots. But juries in the city are also known to dole out massive damages awards against large corporations. Claim: Bayer faces fourth U.S. Roundup cancer trial in Monsanto's hometown.
[A]: Bayer AG is set to face a fourth U.S. jury trial over allegations that its Roundup weed killer causes cancer, with four cancer patients in the hometown of its agricultural subsidiary Monsanto scheduled to begin making their case on Friday.

[Q]: Paragraph: Their goal: To protect communities such as Redwood Estates, where giant redwoods loom over the houses of tech workers who live in the wooded community just 20 miles from the heart of Silicon Valley. With California's increasingly warm, dry and overgrown landscape, wildfire has become a perpetual danger. Among the most important tools the state has against fires is to mimic their effects: thinning trees and brush by hand to reduce the amount of vegetation that would become fuel in a fire, and using controlled burns to keep undergrowth and shrub lands in check. State lawmakers committed more than $200 million annually to fire prevention efforts and Gov. Gavin Newsom wants to spend even more, motivated by infernos such as one last year that killed 85 people in Paradise, California, some who died in their cars while trying to flee. Yet officials say efforts to make areas such as this road corridor in Northern California more fire safe are undercut by property owners who refuse to let fire crews work on their property. Offered the choice between clearing vegetation-choked areas or retaining greenery that acts as a shield against the din of the nearby highway, a small minority opted for privacy over safety or said they'd do the work themselves. That means patches of low-lying shrubs and some thickets of trees will remain when the job wraps up next year. As a result, future fires will retain potential avenues to spread into residential areas and threaten people and property. "It's a chink in the armor," said Ed Orre, division chief with Cal Fire, the state's firefighting and fire prevention agency. "If that property catches fire, then you get a chain-reaction, domino effect... It compromises the effectiveness of the entire project." Climate change and decades of lax land management practices put the U.S. West on a collision course with out-of-control wildfires, and authorities are now rushing to limit the potential damage from blazes that threaten year-round. Since 1970, the amount of land burned each year in California has increased five-fold. Across the 11 western states, acreage burned annually has doubled since 1984. Over the past three years, fires have killed 149 people and destroyed almost 25,000 homes across the state. California is now nearly 3 degrees (1.67 degrees Celsius) warmer than in 1990 due to climate change, with hotter temperatures during the Golden State's long dry season removing moisture from plants and soils, said Park Williams, a climate scientist at Columbia University. "I see the recent wildfires as a tidal wave it's going to be very hard to stop that," Williams said. Rapid residential development in recent decades boosted populations in high-risk areas. Almost 2 million homes are in flammable areas in western states, said Jennifer Balch, a fire expert at the University of Colorado. Some common but non-native plants including eucalyptus trees, cheatgrass and pernicious shrubs such as French and Scotch broom burn more readily than native species. Although it's not feasible to manually thin all the forests and shrub land in California, targeted efforts to remove flammable vegetation in areas of high human activity can effectively reduce the chance of major fires. "If we're going to do field treatment, we have to do it where it matters most where people live and work," Balch said. The changes in climate and development are on display Redwood Estates, which was conceived in the 1920s as a vacation community, an escape from the city where families could weekend in small cabins in the Santa Cruz Mountains. A promotional film from the community's early days reveals that much of the surroundings were once bare of trees, due to logging and the use of the land for ranching and vineyards. Today those same views are largely blocked by thick stands of redwoods, oak and eucalyptus. Many of the community's original cabins are gone, replaced by larger single-family homes that in some cases push right up to the property line. That leaves little space between houses and the forest, meaning embers could easily leap from house to house in a fire. Much of the surrounding land is also private, and real estate development grew unchecked for much of the past century. The area has a long history of large wildfires, yet the land on which Redwood Estates sits has not burned since the 1800s, said Jeff Bates, a lifelong resident of and manager for the local homeowners association. Route 17, which gets about 80,000 vehicles daily and is flanked by hundreds of homes, is the only direct way into or out of the area. Given the highway's high traffic volume and frequent backups, a quick escape from an approaching fire is unlikely. Bates said a county emergency official told him that in the event of a major fire, "You folks are on your own." "They won't be able to get here and we won't be able to leave," Bates said. While lightning strikes can start wildfires, today more than 95% in California are started by people mostly accidentally. Fires are sparked by downed power lines, campfires, mechanical equipment such as chainsaws, and even hot vehicle exhaust pipes touching dry grass. Managing the risk of wildfires isn't only the job of firefighters, say experts. The most important prevention strategy is education teaching people about what starts accidental fires, and how to minimize them. They recommend avoiding highly flammable materials for roofs and decks, and not planting fire-prone non-native species. Yet these steps won't entirely keep the flames away. "California is in the fire sweet spot," said Williams, the climate scientist. "Some big fires are probably inevitable." ___ Larson reported from Washington, D.C. ___ Follow Matthew Brown on Twitter: @MatthewBrownAP, and Larson on Twitter: @larsonchristina ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Claim: As California thins forests to limit fire risk, some resist.
[A]:
Buzzing chainsaws are interrupted by the frequent crash of breaking branches as crews fell towering trees and clear tangled brush in the densely forested Santa Cruz Mountains south of San Francisco.