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.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: The airline had earlier said only cabin crew operating mainland China flights could wear masks, in response to the airline's flight attendants calling for permission to wear masks on all flights globally as cases have also been confirmed in the United States, Thailand, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. "Due to the evolving information from health authorities, we will allow crew members and frontline airport employees to wear surgical face masks when on duty at their discretion," Cathay said in a statement. The coronavirus outbreak, which began in the central Chinese city of Wuhan, struck as millions of Chinese prepared to travel for the Lunar New Year, heightening contagion risks. Wuhan's local government said it would close all urban transport networks and suspend outgoing flights from the city as of 10 a.m. on Thursday (0200 GMT), state media reported, adding that the government said citizens should not leave the city unless there were special circumstances. The Cathay Pacific Airways Flight Attendants Union said on Tuesday it had received a "tremendous" amount of emails and messages from members concerned over catching the virus given they are exposed to over 300 passengers from numerous places on a single flight. On Wednesday evening, Cathay said on its website that rebooking, rerouting and refund charges would be waived for all tickets booked on or before Jan. 21, arriving to or departing from Wuhan through March 31, an extension from the Feb. 15 date listed the prior evening. Deaths from China's new flu-like virus rose to 17 on Wednesday, with more than 540 cases confirmed. The virus has already spread beyond Wuhan to population centers including Beijing, Shanghai, Macau and Hong Kong. Cathay said that as required by the Hong Kong health authorities, it was distributing health declaration forms and will be making face masks and antiseptic wipes available at the boarding gate to passengers traveling from Wuhan to Hong Kong. "Our frontline staff are reminded to maintain good personal and environmental hygiene, and to remain alert and vigilant while being on the lookout for passengers presenting with infectious disease symptoms," the airline said. Cathay has already been hit by plummeting demand as a result of anti-government protests in Hong Kong, leading it to cut capacity and defer the delivery of four planes. Shares in Cathay have fallen by 10% since the start of January as the virus spread. Jefferies analysts said shares in Cathay and mainland Chinese carriers could remain under pressure for some time if the coronavirus situation paralleled the 2003 SARS outbreak and cases continued to increase. That coronavirus outbreak killed nearly 800 people. Claim: Cathay to let crew wear masks on all flights due to new coronavirus.

Ex Output:
Hong Kong's Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd (0293.HK) will allow all crew members and frontline employees to wear surgical masks due to concerns over a new coronavirus, and said passengers to and from Wuhan, China, could change or cancel flights for free through March 31.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: The story does not say how much this new procedure costs or compare it with existing treatments for patients who don't respond to medication. Deep brain stimulation, the current treatment standard, can run anywhere from $30,000 to $70,000, according to various online cost estimates. There also may be additional costs incurred by those patients who have adverse effects. The story is long on description but short on numbers. Saying the treatment "has had an immense impact on patients' lives," the story devotes quite a bit of print along with video footage to show rapid functional and quality-of-life improvements experienced by patients, focusing on one women who said her tremor "has almost disappeared" since she had the procedure in June. Video showing this patient before and after treatmentincluding her attempts to write her name, trace a spiral and pour water from one cup to anotherdo a great job of conveying the improvements. This is terrific news for this woman, butwe're not told how representative her experienceis of overall outcomes. Is she a best-case scenario? Middle of the road? There are also inspiring quotes from a researcher, including a description of the "remarkable moment" patients experience when they realized the tremor has subsided. "They can write their names again, they can feed themselves, they are not embarrassed about being in public. So it really is extraordinarily helpful for people," he says. In terms of study data, the story says researchers "found that the severity of essential tremor reduced significantly" in patients who underwent the treatment as well as reported improvements in quality of life. But there are no figures. In fact, according to the study, patients experienced a 47 percent improvement in tremor scores, dropping from 18.1 points on a 32-point scale at baseline to 9.6 points three months after the procedure. That data should have been included. Also, the story should have spelled out that 56 patients received the treatment, versus 20 who experienced a fake procedure. Also worth pointing out: We don't know the meaning or clinical significance of a reduction of this magnitude in the total score. The story addresses adverse effects, and that's sufficient for a Satisfactory rating. We do wish the story had quantified the harms that were measured in the study. The fourth paragraph says the procedure "brings lasting side effects in some patients" and later the story quotes a physician who is not involved in the research as saying, "It's a pretty high incidence of side effects." But nowhere do exact numbers appear. Rather than citing data from the study, the story quotes the physician as saying that "over a third of patients actually experienced either gait disturbance or paresthesia," or numbness. This information isn't very useful because the story does not explain when these rates were measured. According to the study, three months after the procedure 36% of patients had gait disturbance and 38% had numbness. After 12 months, the numbers dropped, to 9 percent and 14 percent respectively. Also worth mentioning is that one patient was reported to have permanent diminished sensation of the dominant thumb and index figure, which was categorized as a serious adverse event. That did not appear in the story. The story clearly spells out that there isn't data on the long-term efficacy of this procedure, and that more study is needed, so we'll give this a barely passing Satisfactory. Several importantstudy limitations were not included in the story, such as the fact that the treatment did not provide significant improvement for some types of tremors, and the treatment is not appropriate for people who are unwilling or unable to undergo an MRI. We're also not told that the sham group was only followed for 3 months, while the experimental group was followed for a year. This is not usually recommended in clinical trials and both groups should be followed for the same length of time. The story cites a figure from the International Essential Tremor Foundation, an advocacy group, that an estimated 10 million people in the United States suffer from the condition. However, a 2014 analysis of existing research put the number of cases at around 7 million as of 2012, or about 2.2% of the U.S. population. While this may not qualify as disease mongering, the story could have pointed out that the exact number of cases isn't clear. Also, the story should have noted that not all people with essential tremor have symptoms severe enough to require treatment. The story only fulfills part of our criteria. It does use one independent source, a physician who was not involved in the study. It also accurately reports the trial's funding sources: InSightec, which developed the device; along with Focused Ultrasound Foundation, which is funded by device makers and philanthropic organizations; and the Binational Industrial Research and Development Foundation, an Israel-U.S. government partnership that receives corporate support. However, the story falls short because it does not report the fact that nine of the study authors reported conflicts of interest, with most receiving financial compensation of some sort from device makers in the field. Lead researcher G. Rees Cosgrove, M.D. who is quoted in the story, reported receiving consulting fees from InSightec. The story states, "Doctors usually treat essential tremor with medication, but the drugs don't work well for all patients." That's true, and so we'll give this a Satisfactory rating for at least mentioning alternatives. But it should be noted that other procedural treatment options were not compared or even mentioned in the story and received only a brief mention in one of the videos. The current standard for tremor patients who don't respond to medication is deep-brain stimulation, in which a probe connected to a pacemaker is implanted in the thalamus to suppress the tremors. Gamma Knife thalamotomy, which delivers precise doses of radiation to the thalamus, is also considered to be a safe and effective therapy for patients who don't respond to medication. Also, some patients have mild symptoms that can be treated with relaxation techniques and the avoidance of triggers such as caffeine. The story states that the device was approved by the FDA in July. The story could have done readers a service by giving a sense of how many medical centers around the country are geared up to perform the procedure, or will be soon. This is indeed a new treatment option for essential tremor, though the story may leave readers with the false impression that the concept of killing off neurons in the thalamus is new. Rather, it's the use of focused ultrasound to destroy brain tissue, rather than a probe inserted in the brain, that constitutes an advance. The story does not appear to rely solely on the news release, which we also reviewed. Claim: New treatment offers some hope for an unshakable tremor

Ex Output:
Thisstorydescribes a recently FDA-approved device to treat essential tremor in patients who have not responded to medication. The ExAblate Neuro, made by Dallas-based InSightec, uses magnetic resonance images taken during the procedure to deliver focused ultrasound that destroys tissue in the thalamus, the part of the brain where tremors are believed to originate. Results of a randomized clinical trial on the device's safety and efficacy were published this month in the New England Journal of Medicine. The story and accompanying video (seen at right) vividlyillustrate rapid symptom improvements, highlighting a 72-year-old woman who says the procedure changed her life by allowing her to "eat like a normal person" and easily perform basic tasks such as signing her name and folding a scarf. This powerfulpatient anecdote throws the balance off: Imagine how different thestorywould seem if the video instead showed a patient who had improved, but also was affected by one of the serious adverse effects caused by the treatment. Also, the storyneededspecific numberson the measured benefits and harms, along with a discussion of costs and alternative treatment options. Note: We also reviewed the news release that was issued to journalists about this study. While not life threatening, essential tremor can be debilitating, especially affecting people in their advanced years. The ExAblate Neuro, which the FDA calls the first focused ultrasound device to treat essential tremor in patients who have not responded to medication, offers a somewhat less invasive treatment option than traditional surgical approaches. It's certainly newsworthy. But all of the facts, including long-term efficacy data, are not in. Stories that feature glowing patient anecdotes and positive physician commentary need to be balanced with plenty of data that can help patients and their families decide whether this treatment might be worth seeking out.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: The researcher, He Jiankui of Shenzhen, revealed the pregnancy Wednesday while making his first public comments about his controversial work at an international conference in Hong Kong. He claims to have altered the DNA of twin girls born earlier this month to try to make them resistant to infection with the AIDS virus. Mainstream scientists have condemned the experiment, and universities and government groups are investigating. The second pregnancy is in a very early stage and needs more time to be monitored to see if it will last, He said. Leading scientists said there are now even more reasons to worry, and more questions than answers, after He's talk. The leader of the conference called the experiment "irresponsible" and evidence that the scientific community had failed to regulate itself to prevent premature efforts to alter DNA. Altering DNA before or at the time of conception is highly controversial because the changes can be inherited and might harm other genes. It's banned in some countries including the United States except for lab research. He defended his choice of HIV, rather than a fatal inherited disease, as a test case for gene editing, and insisted the girls could benefit from it. "They need this protection since a vaccine is not available," He said. Scientists weren't buying it. "This is a truly unacceptable development," said Jennifer Doudna, a University of California-Berkeley scientist and one of the inventors of the CRISPR gene-editing tool that He said he used. "I'm grateful that he appeared today, but I don't think that we heard answers. We still need to understand the motivation for this." "I feel more disturbed now," said David Liu of Harvard and MIT's Broad Institute, and inventor of a variation of the gene-editing tool. "It's an appalling example of what not to do about a promising technology that has great potential to benefit society. I hope it never happens again." There is no independent confirmation of He's claim and he has not yet published in any scientific journal where it would be vetted by experts. At the conference, He failed or refused to answer many questions including who paid for his work, how he ensured that participants understood potential risks and benefits, and why he kept his work secret until after it was done. After He spoke, David Baltimore, a Nobel laureate from the California Institute of Technology and a leader of the conference, said He's work "would still be considered irresponsible" because it did not meet criteria many scientists agreed on several years ago before gene editing could be considered. "I personally don't think that it was medically necessary. The choice of the diseases that we heard discussions about earlier today are much more pressing" than trying to prevent HIV infection this way, he said. If gene editing is ever allowed, many scientists have said it should be reserved to treat and prevent serious inherited disorders with no good alternatives, such as sickle cell anemia and Huntington's disease. HIV is not an appropriate candidate because there are already safe ways to prevent transmission, and if contracted it can be kept under control with medications, researchers said. The case shows "there has been a failure of self-regulation by the scientific community" and said the conference committee would meet and issue a statement on Thursday about the future of the field, Baltimore said. Before He's talk, Dr. George Daley, Harvard Medical School's dean and one of the conference organizers, warned against a backlash to gene editing because of He's experiment. Just because the first case may have been a misstep "should in no way, I think, lead us to stick our heads in the sand and not consider the very, very positive aspects that could come forth by a more responsible pathway," Daley said. "Scientists who go rogue ... it carries a deep, deep cost to the scientific community," Daley said. Shortly after his talk, He canceled a planned appearance in a Thursday session on embryo gene editing, according to the Royal Society, one of the conference organizers. Regulators have been swift to condemn the experiment as unethical and unscientific. The National Health Commission has ordered local officials in Guangdong province to investigate He's actions, and his employer, Southern University of Science and Technology of China, is investigating as well. On Tuesday, Qiu Renzong of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences criticized the decision to let He speak at the conference, saying the claim "should not be on our agenda" until it has been reviewed by independent experts. Whether He violated reproductive medicine laws in China has been unclear; Qui contends that it did, but said, "the problem is, there's no penalty." The U.S. National Institutes of Health said Wednesday there should be international intervention. "Without such limits, the world will face the serious risk of a deluge of similarly ill-considered and unethical projects," the agency said in a statement. Meanwhile, more American scientists said they had contact with He and were aware of or suspected what he was doing. Dr. Matthew Porteus, a genetics researcher at Stanford University, where He did postdoctoral research, said He told him in February that he intended to try human gene editing. Porteus said he discouraged He and told him "that it was irresponsible, that he could risk the entire field of gene editing by doing this in a cavalier fashion." Dr. William Hurlbut, a Stanford ethicist, said he has "spent many hours" talking with He over the last two years about situations where gene editing might be appropriate. "I knew his early work. I knew where he was heading," Hurlbut said. When he saw He four or five weeks ago, He did not say he had tried or achieved pregnancy with edited embryos but "I strongly suspected" it, Hurlbut said. "I disagree with the notion of stepping out of the general consensus of the scientific community," Hurlbut said. If the science is not considered ready or safe enough, "it's going to create misunderstanding, discordance and distrust." Jennifer Doudna and David Liu are paid by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, which also supports AP's Health & Science Department. ___ Marilynn Marchione can be followed on Twitter: @MMarchioneAP ___ This Associated Press series was produced in partnership with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Claim: Another gene-edited baby may be on the way, scientist says.

Ex Output:
A Chinese researcher who claims to have helped make the world's first genetically edited babies says a second pregnancy may be underway.