instruction:
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.
question:
Paragraph: The overall number of religious exemptions in the state climbed by 25%, from the 2017-18 school year to the 2018-19 school year, according to the state’s Department of Public Health. The agency said the increase from 2% of students to 2.5% represents the largest single year upturn in religious exemptions for vaccinations since it began tracking statewide data 10 years ago. While the immunization rate for kindergarten students remains high in Connecticut, the new information shows it has declined from 96.5% to 95.9%. “It does raise concern,” said Public Health Commissioner Renee D. Coleman-Mitchell, adding how the new numbers warrant releasing more data, including county-by-county and school-by-school. The commissioner originally planned not to release the school-by-school data, but Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont on Wednesday overruled that decision, arguing the public should have the information. A Bristol couple on Thursday asked a court to stop the release of the school-by-school vaccination rates, arguing they’ll suffer “irreparable harm” if the information is released. Their unvaccinated son attends a private school where 18% of the students claimed a religious exemption from vaccinations, according to school-by-school data DPH released in May. The couple has another lawsuit pending. “We believe that out of deference and respect for the authority of the court, no new data should be released during the pendency of this litigation,” the couple said in a written statement. “To do otherwise is to move into the dangerous waters of undermining the separation of powers that is so important to our system of government.” Lamont’s office declined to comment on the pending litigation. Coleman-Mitchell said the resurgence of measles in the U.S. is of great concern and the decline in Connecticut’s vaccination rates, coupled with the increase in religious exemptions, validates the need to release both county-by-county and school-by-school data by Oct. 21. There have been three cases so far in Connecticut this year. ___ This story has been corrected to show that the Festas live in Bristol, not Woodstock. Claim: Data show 25% increase in religious exemptions for vaccines.
answer:
New data released Thursday show more Connecticut students are being exempted from vaccinations for measles, mumps and rubella for religious reasons.


question:
Paragraph: "The story mentions that 30 capsules of OSR#1 cost $60. It would have been nice had the story also included information about the amount of active ingredient per capsule and the manufacturer’s recommended dosage. This would have allowed readers to make a better calculation as to the financial impact of treatment. This is critical information considering these costs will be borne out of pocket by anyone using OSR #1. The story juxtaposes a light-hearted ""success story"" with information about the industrial uses of OSR #1 for removing toxic heavy metals from contaminated soil. This is a clever way of way of emphasizing that the use of this product is based entirely on anecdote. The story clearly states that there is no credible evidence supporting the efficacy of the product. The harms of this product are impossible to quantify, given that it doesn’t seem to have been studied in humans or in animals. The story notes that other chelating drugs carry ""significant risks"" and ""can strip the body of metals necessary for health."" It would have been nice to see more specifics about what chelators can do, but the story satisfies the critierion. The story states that medical searches turned up no papers about OSR#1, and that the company which makes the product provided no published studies about its use. The story rightly suggests that this total lack of evidence should be deeply troubling. The story doesn’t exaggerate the prevalence or severity of autism, or of the potentially toxic compounds sometimes used to treat it. The story quotes multiple experts on pharmacology and an FDA spokesperson. It also quotes from an interview with Boyd Haley, president of the company which makes OSR #1. It attempted to get a reaction from Kim Stagliano, an OSR #1 proponent, but this effort was not successful. While the story mentions that there other are chelation drugs out there, it could have mentioned that there are educational strategies which can be helpful for children with autism and which have better evidence to support their use. The story states that OSR#1 is, according to the manufacturer’s website, available only through dentists’ or doctors’ offices. It notes, however, that the Tribune was able to buy 30 capsules of the product directly from a compounding pharmacy listed on the site. We are impressed that the Tribune went to these lengths to establish the product’s availability. The story provides a fairly detailed pedigree for OSR #1 and discusses its similarity to other chelation therapies used in the treatment of autism. It also gives credit to blogger Kathleen Seidel for being the first to raise concerns about OSR #1 in her blog, Neurodiversity.com The story is well sourced and is not based on a press release." Claim: Industrial chemical OSR#1 used as autism treatment
answer:
"The product known as OSR #1 contains a chemical originally intended for clean-up of toxic waste at industrial sites. This story by the Chicago Tribune (which was republished by the Los Angeles Times) examines how, despite a total lack of any research on the product in humans, OSR #1 ended up being marketed as a ""dietary supplement"" for children with autism. The story does an especially good job of pointing out the regulatory gaps which can allow risky, poorly researched products to be sold as ""cures"" to desperate parents and caregivers. It’s an example of health journalism doing what it’s supposed to do, and doing it well. Autism is a serious disorder which affects a growing number of children and their families and for which there are few good treatment options. This is a situation ripe for abuse by overzealous advocates and unscrupulous marketers of uNPRoven therapies. As Boyd Haley, president of the company that make the the OSR#1 supplement, puts it: ""There are so many snake oil salesmen out there, it’s just incredible."""


question:
Paragraph: The story mentioned the cost of the test, but the competing Bloomberg story gave a more detailed breakdown of costs. There was no mention of insurance coverage, or of total costs of work ups of positive tests and the need for continual testing. The story cites a company figure stating that the test “is more than 99 percent accurate in detecting mutations in blood samples that contain at least nine copies of a tested mutation.” It then knocks down that figure with a quote from a researcher who says the statistic represents the test’s “technical ability to detect DNA in the blood.” It goes on to state that a large clinical trial would be needed to determine the test’s true accuracy, including false positive and false negative results. But such a study hasn’t yet been done. The competing Bloomberg story gave a nod to false positives and false negatives, but Reuters really explained why these tests could lead to harms. The story says, for example, “Patients might be attracted to a less-invasive test for colon cancer, but if it is less effective, it might result in more cases of colon cancer, not fewer. Another concern is that the tests may pick up on markers that are never destined to be cancer, something already known to occur in blood tests for prostate cancer”. The story nicely explained the lack of evidence for this particular test. There was no disease mongering in this story. Quite the opposite. It turned a light onto this growing industry and questioned whether tests of biomarkers would actually lead to better clinical outcomes. The story quoted more independent sources than the competing Bloomberg story, and it also did a good job of identifying where people had conflicts. For example, the last expert quoted says that the test should undergo a large clinical trial, a point of agreement among multiple experts quoted in the press. But then the story says that this expert, “is advising two companies developing liquid biopsy tests for cancer screening: Sysmex and Personal Genome Diagnostics.” The true alternative to these tests is routine cancer screening using proven screening methods recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force. In fact, the whole name “liquid biopsies” is wrong. These are not biopsies at all, they are screening tests for healthy people that look for biomarkers of cancer in the blood. But we don’t know what kind of clinical significance they have or if they will lead to better outcomes. Neither story gave a full explanation of the alternative screening approaches, although this story did mention colonoscopies (which are one such screening method) as well as screening tests for prostate cancer. We’ll give the benefit of the doubt. The story says that “The tests must be ordered by a doctor, based on a patient’s risk profile.” However, it’s not clear that this fully describes the process. While the tests can be ordered through the patient’s physician, the Pathway website also suggests that patients can order them autonomously online through Pathway’s “online physician network.” Here’s the text: Patients can also order CancerIntercept™ Detect online through Pathway Genomics’ online physician network. After speaking with a client services representative, the patient must create a personal account with Pathway Genomics Member Site (members.pathway.com) and enter all personal health information into the website for physician review. It will take up to 1-2 business days for physician review, at which time a sample collection kit will be sent to the patient’s provided shipping address if the test is approved. This process seems essentially to be a direct consumer purchase with the involvement of an online physician middleman — something which is not fully conveyed by the text. We’ll give the benefit of the doubt since it’s debatable whether the story is technically wrong on this point or not. But we wish more detail had been provided. The story establishes what’s novel about the test compared with existing tests. The story went beyond any news release that may have been issued. Claim: Pathway launches 'liquid biopsy' to find cancer in healthy people
answer:

This story did a very nice job of examining the premise behind “liquid biopsies” and pointing out the lack of supporting evidence — a slightly more thorough look than was given by a strong competing story from Bloomberg. While the story could have had a fuller explanation of the costs associated with liquid biopsies and how the tests are ordered, it better explained the potential harms and made better use of independent sources to provide context than Bloomberg did. Genomic testing of healthy people is going to cost this country a lot of money, and the proposed benefits of such testing haven’t been proven at all.