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.

Paragraph: "Independents need to know they can invest their vote in the Democratic Party," Carter said Tuesday during his annual report at his post-presidential center and library in Atlanta, where he offered caution about the political consequences should Democrats "move to a very liberal program, like universal health care." That's delicate and, Carter acknowledged, even contradictory advice coming from the 93-year-old former president, and it underscores the complicated political calculations for Democrats as they prepare for the November midterms and look ahead to the 2020 presidential election. "Rosie and I voted for Bernie Sanders in the past," Carter noted. He was referring to his wife, Rosalynn, and their support for the Vermont senator, an independent who identifies as a democratic socialist, over establishment favorite Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary. At another point, he pointed to California's environmental policies limits on carbon emissions, stiffer fuel-efficiency standards as the model for combating climate change. Still, Carter stressed, Democrats nationally must "appeal to independents" who are souring on the current administration. Trump's job approval rating, according to Gallup, has dipped to 40 percent, mostly because of declining support among independents. Carter alluded to arguments from self-identified progressives that Democrats will sacrifice votes on the left if they don't embrace the liberal base: "I don't think any Democrat is going to vote against a Democratic nominee," and he insisted that he's not asking the left to sacrifice its goals, only to see that winning elections is necessary to accomplish any of them. There is some historical irony in Carter's analysis. He came to the White House in 1976 from the moderate wing of the Democratic Party, and he clashed with party liberals, drawing a spirited primary challenge in 1980 from Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy. Carter prevailed, but he was wounded, abandoned by Kennedy's most liberal supporters and unable to win over independents who helped deliver a landslide for Republican Ronald Reagan. Carter's latest handicapping comes near the conclusion of a midterm primary season that has seen Democratic primary voters move the party to the left. In some states and districts, that means nominating full-throated advocates of single-payer health care, a $15 minimum wage and abolishing or at least overhauling the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. In other races, it means nominees who back more cautious moves to the left, such as background checks before certain gun purchases, a "public option" health insurance plan to compete alongside private insurance policies, step raises for the minimum wage and an immigration overhaul that offers legal status to some immigrants in the country illegally. Carter did not delve into those distinctions, instead offering a sweeping condemnation of his latest successor to remind Democrats of the stakes. He denounced the administration's latest environmental policy proposal to make it easier for energy companies to release methane gas that contributes to climate change. He singled out Trump's policy of separating immigrant families at the border, including those seeking asylum. "America is inherently committed to human rights, and I think in the future we will let that prevail," Carter said, "but for the next two years, I can't predict the imprisoned children are going to be any better off unfortunately." Carter has previously criticized Trump for his repeated falsehoods, and he's chided Trump for his hardline support for Israel over Palestinians. Yet Carter has found common ground with Trump on other foreign policy fronts, and did so again Tuesday. While avoiding any mention of the special counsel's investigation into whether Trump's presidential campaign coordinated with Russia in the 2016 U.S. election, Carter said he has engaged for years with Russian President Vladimir Putin concerning the ongoing Syrian civil war. "I have his email address," Carter said, adding that he and Putin share the same Russian river as their favorite spot for salmon fishing. That friendship, Carter said, means when Russia and other nations hold multilateral talks about the Syrian conflict, "Quite often they invite the Carter Center. ... They do not invite the U.S. government." Carter also praised Trump for meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Carter repeated his frustrations with the last Democratic president, Barack Obama, for not engaging more directly with the insular Asian nation. Carter said he's not sure Trump has made real progress yet with North Korea, but he endorsed calls for the U.S. to formally declare an end to the Korean War and normalize relations with Pyongyang. "Let them be part of the community of nations," he said. "I think that would be enough in itself to bring an end to the nuclear program in North Korea." ___ Follow Barrow on Twitter at https://twitter.com/BillBarrowAP Claim: Jimmy Carter cautions Democrats not to scare off moderates.
Former President Jimmy Carter sees little hope for the U.S. to change its human rights and environmental policies as long as Donald Trump is in the White House, but he has a warning for his fellow Democrats looking to oust the current administration: Don't go too far to the left.

Paragraph: A Berne court found the man guilty of causing bodily harm and spreading the virus which can cause Aids, court secretary Rene Graf told Reuters. He did not give any further details. Prosecutors had sought a sentence of 15 years in jail, according to media reports. "The accused and nobody else is responsible for infecting the 16 people," Swiss news agency SDA quoted court president Urs Herren as saying, adding the man's motive could have been to seek attention, exact revenge, or prove his omnipotence. The 54-year-old from the Swiss capital Berne had consistently denied the charges, blaming the victims for contracting HIV through unprotected sex and intravenous drug use, Swiss media reported. They did not reveal the man's identity or nationality, in accordance with rules on Swiss criminal proceedings. The case came to the attention of the authorities after an HIV-positive patient told a hospital he suspected his infection was linked to acupuncture treatments he received from the man. The majority of the infected individuals were students of a music school run by the man, who also had an acupuncture practice. Some of the victims told the court he stabbed them with a needle from behind during treatment, SDA reported. Police stormed the man's home a week ago after he stopped coming to the trial. The man, who was free on bail, had barricaded himself inside and was armed with a knife, issuing threats to police, according to media reports. Claim: "Swiss court jails ""healer"" for infecting 16 with HIV."
A self-styled healer was sentenced to 12 years and nine months in jail on Friday after a Swiss court found the acupuncturist guilty of infecting 16 people with HIV.

Paragraph: The story notes that the extensively hydrolyzed formula is more expensive than standard formula; however, the authors should have indicated how much more expensive hydrolyzed formula is compared to regular formula. Monthly cost comparison of two formulas would have been appropriate as this may be a deciding factor for many families who choose not to breastfeed, or who are weaning. We've already penalized the story in "evidence"above for not giving the absolute risk reduction, so we won't do it again here. The story reports on a study which showed about 50% fewer diabetes antibodies in at-risk children who were fed special hydrogized infant formula. But 50% of what? This may or may not translate into fewer cases of childhood diabetes. If there are other side effects or harms associated with using hydrolyzed versus standard formula, they are not described. There are no real "harms" with using formula, either cow's milk formula or extensively hydrolyzed formula. It appears the latter may be a better choice because there are fewer proteins broken down for digestion. What is missing here for the reader is a clear estimate of the absolute increase in risk of developing these antibodies. For example, if the risk for infants exposed to hydrolyzed is 1% and the risk for standard formula is 2% this may not be worth the cost. Whereas if the risk for those exposed to hydrolyzed is 5% and for those exposed to standard formula is 10% this may be worth it. Both of these represent a 50% increase in risk, but the absolute differences would have substantially different clinical implications The story does not engage in disease mongering. The story carefully explains the results of the study and is conservative about the role a formula may play in the prevention of Type 1 diabetes in susceptible children. it would have been helpful to indicate the prevalence of type 1 diabetes and how much the risk is increased if you have a first degree relative with type 1, which would have provided some perspective on the meaning of the relative increased risk for developing these auto-antibodies if an infant is exposed to standard formula. The story quotes several clinical experts who provide explanation of the results and put these into context with current formula recommendations. Study authors are cited as well as clinical experts who feel the research is noteworthy, but should not change recommendations for a hydrolyzed formula to prevent Type 1 diabetes. Affliations of all sources are listed in the story postscript. There are many options when weaning an infant from breast milk. The story discusses the NEJM study which compared extensively hydrolyzed formula with regular infant formula. While the more expensive hydrolyzed forumula was associated with fewer cases of Type 1 diabetes antibodies in at-risk children, the story notes that there is not definitive evidence that cow's milk formula will increase the risk of Type 1 Diabetes compared to other types of formular or breast feeding. Various infant formulas are available when weaning infants from breast milk, or when breastfeeding is not an option. The story discusses research that compared regular infant formula with a type of extensively hydrolyzed formula that helps break down proteins during digestion. This formula may not be available to some parents due to greater expense. It is known that breast feeding is preferable to formula, and that it may offer some protection against the development of Type 1 diabetes. Formula is an option, particularly when breast milk is not available, and using formula will not harm an infant. However, formula may somehow trigger the development of autoantibodies as these proteins are broken down for digestion. More research is needed, but this new information from a well-designed double-blinded RCT trial may guide recommendations and parents decisions in choosing a specialized infant formula that does not require breakdown of so many proteins during digestion. There is some thoughtful independent reporting and the story does not appear to rely on a news release. Claim: Special Infant Formula Might Help Shield Babies from Type 1 Diabetes
There are many options when weaning an infant from breast milk. The story discusses a recently published NEJM study which compared extensively hydrolyzed formula with regular infant formula in infants from 6-8 months, and followed these children for 10 years. The more expensive hydrolyzed forumula was associated with fewer cases of Type 1 diabetes antibodies in children who were at risk of developing the autoimmune disease. However, the story notes that there is not definitive evidence that choosing regular cow's milk infant formula will increase the risk of developing Type 1 diabetes, compared to other types of formula. Particularly important is the statement from the co-director of the Diabetes Center of Excellence at the University of Massachusetts, that there are quite a few steps between preventing one of two diabetes-causing antibodies in at-risk children via a special formula, and how Type 1 diabetes manifests as an autoimmune disease. Recommendations for infant formula have not changed as a result of this study and more evidence is needed to change clinical practice.