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: "Explaining why he couldn't support the Texas Senate's version of the 2012-13 state budget, Sen. John Whitmire said he didn't know how state agencies can cope with further budget cuts, singling out the Texas Board of Nursing as an example. ""I asked them for their backlog of investigations,"" he said. ""They've got 3,000 complaints against nurses, many of them sexual assaults, malfeasance."" Time to crank up the Truth-O-Meter, starting with the board's unresolved complaints. Some background: The board investigates and adjudicates complaints about Texas nurses who could be violating the Nursing Practice Act, which imposes regulations on nursing education, licensing and practices in the state including rules against unnecessarily exposing patients to the risk of harm or failing to adequately care for them. At the nursing board, spokesman Bruce Holter told us the senator's count of 3,000 backlogged complaints is too low, accounting solely for unresolved cases from fiscal years 2009 and 2010. In 2010, the board resolved 14,429 of 16,890 complaints filed against nurses, leaving 2,461 unresolved cases. As of this March, another 511 complaints filed in 2009 remained unresolved, bringing the total backlog to nearly 3,000. There also are several hundred lingering complaints dating back to May 2006, board officials said. As of March, the board had about 11,000 open investigations, including the backlog. What are the complaints about? ""In general,"" Holter said, ""criminal conduct, drug-related conduct and failure to follow the minimum standard of care are the main types of complaints."" That covers malfeasance. But what about Whitmire's other charge that a chunk of the backlogged cases are sexual assault complaints? Lara Wendler, Whitmire's chief of staff, told us the senator based his statement on conversations with administrators at agencies, including the nursing board. She added, though, that Whitmire was referring to all regulatory agencies, not just the nursing board, when he said backlogged cases included ""many"" sexual assaults. That was not clear from Whitmire's floor remarks. Holter said the board checks all nurses licensed in Texas against state and national databases identifying sex offenders. Currently, the board is investigating complaints against four nurses who appear on the Texas Department of Public Safety's sex offender database, and 12 nurses who appear on a national sex offender registry kept by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing. ""Sexual assault complaints against nurses make up a small percentage of the overall number of complaints investigated by the board,"" Holter said. But he added that other than the nurses found on the sexual offender databases, ""it would be difficult for staff to 'pin down' the number of complaints involving sexual assault."" Why? The board doesn't categorize complaints by type, though when disciplinary action has been taken, Holter said, the board can run a data mining program to identify specific rule violations. But because the board doesn't track the number of sexual assault cases, it would have to review each resolved complaint individually. Lastly, why have complaints stacked up? Board employees are barred from discussing the details of individual complaints, but the board's general counsel Dusty Johnston told us that generally, complaints don't get resolved for a variety of reasons. He offered several examples: The investigator may be under-performing; extensive due process is required; the medical records of the patient involved in the complaint are difficult to obtain. So, the board says it has about 3,000 backlogged complaints, as Whitmire said. According to the board, many of the complaints allege malfeasance by nurses, as Whitmire also said, and a smaller number involve sexual assaults. But no one can determine the precise breakout without access to confidential board information." Claim: "John Whitmire Says the Texas Board of Nursing has a backlog of ""3,000 complaints against nurses, many of them sexual assaults, malfeasance."

A: State Sen. John Whitmire says the Texas Board of Nursing has a backlog of 3,000 complaints, including many cases of sexual assault and malfeasance
****
Q: Paragraph: Most people know roughly what a bottle of vitamin D supplements might cost them, so the lack of information on cost is not a significant gap. We appreciate that the story provideddata showing the large and growing amount our society is spending on vitamin Dsupplements ($430 million in 2009), with apparently little health benefit to show for it. The story was mostly concerned with discussing the lack of benefit fromtaking extra vitamin D and calcium. And in this area it excels. While the story does lack precision when itsuggests thatadolescent girls should be getting more calcium (it neverspecifies how much they are getting now, how much more they'd need to meet the recommendations, or what benefits they might expect from this increased intake), it would be difficult for a journalist to come up with any sort of quantifiable benefit or harm estimate from the IOM report. The story captured the overall gist of the problem, which is that the evidence base is complex and still inadequate. The story notes that, contrary to the claims of many advocates for increased supplemental vitamin D, there is evidence thathigh levels of vitamin D mayhave adverseeffects, such as increased risk for fractures and an increasein the overall death rate. The story also explained that too much calcium has been linked to increased risk of kidney stones and, more tentatively, heart disease. The story did a good job of describing how the expert committee conducted its review and what evidence they found. Importantly, it noted that claims of benefit fromextra vitamin D are based onobservational studiesthat most scientists agree "cannot determine cause and effect." We also like that the story solicitedopinions froma variety of expertswith noobvious stake in the controversy. This produced a number of quotes that emphasizedthe need for restraint when interpreting the research on vitamin D. Examples: "I think thisreport will make people more cautious" and "The onus is on thepeople who propose extra calcium and vitamin D to show itis safe before they push it on people." Although we agree with the story's skeptical overall message,we think itmay haveslammed the door just a bit too hard on the possibilityof benefit from supplemental vitamin D. While claims of benefit may not be supported by the currentlyavailable evidence, they have not been conclusively disproved in randomized controlled studies, either. In fact,research isnow underway to determine whether the benefits foundin observational studies of vitamin D can be replicated in more rigorously designed trials. The story probably should have mentioned this research, and left the door to potential benefits open just a crack. No disease-mongering here. The diversity of independent voices included in this story is a real strength. Although it solicits the obligatory comment from a supplement industry spokesman, it didn't go out of its way to find any of the more widely known vitamin D experts,someof whom have been issuing recommendations that are untenable based on current evidence. The enthusiasm of some of these researchersmight beexplained bytheir significant career and financialinterests in promoting vitamin D. Notapplicable for this story. The approaches discussed are not new, and there's notreally any alternative to getting adequate amountsof these essential nutrients. The availability of vitamin D from diet, sunlight and supplements is clear from the story. The novelty of vitamin D and calcium is not really in question, so we'll call this not applicable. This story was not based on a news release. Claim: Report Questions Need for 2 Diet Supplements

A: In one particularly effective passage, the story quoted a representative of a supplement industry group who disagreed with the report, saying that higherlevels of vitamin D could be beneficial. But it then seguedimmediatelyinto an explanation of why claims from supplementation advocates "are not supported by the available evidence."The key problem, as the story points out, isthat these claimsare based almost exclusively on observationalstudies that can't prove cause and effect and are often skewed by factors the researchers haven't accounted for. Proponents of supplementation also have tended to downplay thepossibility that higher doses of vitamin Dand calcium might cause harma stance which the storynotesmay not be justified. We applaudthis story'seffort toshow readers where the weight of the evidence lies on this issue. Vitamin D isthe latest in a longline of "miracle" nutrients that people have turnedto in the hope of improvingtheir health. As we'velearnedfrom copiousprevious experience, these supplements rarely work as advertised andcan sometimes cause harm at the higher doses people often think will be beneficial for them. More isn't necessarilybetter when it comes to vitamin Dor most other health care interventions for that matter.
****
Q: Paragraph: "On March 19 2020, a number of tweets purportedly showed a close-up of United States President Donald Trump's prepared remarks on the progress of a coronavirus pandemic, where he apparently used a marker to cross out the "corona" of "coronavirus" and add "Chinese" in its place:Close up of President @realDonaldTrump notes is seen where he crossed out ""Corona"" and replaced it with ""Chinese"" Virus as he speaks with his coronavirus task force today at the White House. #trump #trumpnotes pic.twitter.com/i2mvBhHCUa Looposhi (@22loops) March 19, 2020In the March 19 2020 tweet above, the user wrote:Close up of President @realDonaldTrump notes is seen where he crossed out "Corona" and replaced it with "Chinese" Virus as he speaks with his coronavirus task force today at the White House. #trump #trumpnotes"Today" in that context was also March 19 2020. At 10:28 AM, @WhiteHouse streamed President Trump's live briefing with its Coronavirus Task Force, resulting in a one-hour, 21-minute-long clip:LIVE: Press Briefing with Coronavirus Task Force https://t.co/uvFZaWbcME The White House (@WhiteHouse) March 19, 2020CNBC reported on the briefing shortly after it aired, describing how Trump described COVID-19 as a "Chinese virus," not a coronavirus:President Donald Trump emphatically blamed China for the coronavirus pandemic [on March 19 2020], and again made a point of using the term "Chinese virus.""The world is paying a very big price for that they did," Trump said, referring to his claim that Chinese officials did not fully share information sooner about the coronavirus outbreak after it began in China."It could have been stopped right where it came from, China," Trump said at a White House news conference.He argued that American officials would have been able to act faster if China's government had fully shared information about the outbreak, which began around the city of Wuhan."It would have been much better if we had known about this a number of months earlier," the president said in [then] recent days, Trump [had] repeatedly called the coronavirus the "Chinese virus," and did so again at the beginning of his news conference.PBS also highlighted Trump's rhetoric:"It's a war," he said. "I view it as a, in a sense, a wartime president. It's a very tough situation."No longer able to run for reelection on a healthy economy, he was taking on the mantle of a wartime leader after played down the severity of the crisis for weeks. The president also employed more nativist, us-vs-them rhetoric at the briefing, continuing his recent habit of referring to the coronavirus as the "Chinese virus," which has been sharply criticized as racist. "It's not racist at all," Trump said. "It comes from China, that's all."Although the images frequently circulated without links or with creative additions, they originated from a legitimate source:Washington Post staff reporter Jabin Botsford. Botsford shared the photographs shortly after 2PM on March 19 2020, zooming in on the portion of prepared remarks where "Corona Virus" could be seen.On the fourth of six visible lines, "Corona" was marked through with a black line; "CHINESE" was handwritten in in its place:Close up of President @realDonaldTrump notes is seen where he crossed out ""Corona"" and replaced it with ""Chinese"" Virus as he speaks with his coronavirus task force today at the White House. #trump #trumpnotes pic.twitter.com/kVw9yrPPeJ Jabin Botsford (@jabinbotsford) March 19, 2020Clips of the President of the United States saying "Chinese virus" in place of "coronavirus" were commonplace, and the photograph circulated without context in many iterations. However, the image was originally shared by photojournalist Botsford a few hours after the coronavirus briefing on March 19 2020 ended, and the image was authentic, not manipulated, and reflected in the rhetoric." Claim: "Close-up of U.S. President Donald Trump's coronavirus prepared remarks show he crossed out ""corona"" in ""coronavirus,"" writing ""Chinese"" in its place."

A:
Trump Crosses out 'Corona' on Virus Prepared Remarks, Writes 'Chinese'
****