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 Texas woman’s name is Cathy Flanders and she has been on a crusade to bring the problem of indoor pollution from candles to the forefront. She has filed a lawsuit against the store that sold her candles which she says resulted in toxic levels of lead in her home and with serious medical consequences on her family. Regardless of the merits of her case, it is true that indoor pollution from certain kinds of candles is becoming a focus of research and is one of the hot topics right now among professionals concerned with health issues in the home. Not all the researchers are focused on lead and there are some who say they feel the danger from lead is reduced by the fact that U.S. candle makers have not used lead in candles for more than 25 years. There is increased focus on what researchers say is a significant contribution of candles to soot residue in buildings, more than has previously been realized, and to what extent that soot can contribute to health problems. While that is being studied, pollution experts recommend choosing candles from U.S. manufacturers that are made of hard wax, have low aromatic properties, burn with a low, even flame and with wicks that burn down evenly with the rest of the candle. They also recommend keeping burning candles out of drafts and not allowing an extinguished candle to continue emitting smoke. For more information: CNN Article about Cathy Flanders Article about Black Soot in the Home from the Environmental Illness Society of Canada  Comments Claim:  An email is making the rounds that talks about a woman in Texas whose family has experienced a variety of health problems which she says are due to the lead content of some candles.  The email warns that burning candles in the home can lead to health problems.      
[A]: Beware of potential pollution from certain candles 


[Q]: Paragraph: As criticism spread against United States President Donald Trump’s administration for its response to the COVID-19 pandemic in mid-March 2020, one graphic disseminated on social media listed his multiple attempts to downplay the disease:In this case, the graphic is completely accurate. The various statements are correctly attributed to Trump, and each has been verified in independent timelines compiled by news outlets.“We’re ordering a lot of supplies. We’re ordering a lot of, uh, elements that frankly we wouldn’t be ordering unless it was something like this. But we’re ordering a lot of different elements of medical.” — Trump on the coronavirus pic.twitter.com/id6YLzbmRE— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 28, 2020A video with similar content, posted by writer Lindsay Holst and featuring audio of several of Trump’s remarks alongside a graph showing the spread of the disease, has been shared thousands of times on Twitter:57 days later. pic.twitter.com/umsfZHyBuo— Lindsay Holst (@LindsayLHolst) March 17, 2020On March 17 2020, journalists asked Trump why his tone had shifted so quickly and dramatically regarding the epidemic. He told reporters, “I’ve always known this is a real — this is a pandemic. I felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic. I’ve always viewed it as very serious.” Claim: United States President Donald Trump made several statements downplaying the nature of the COVID-19 pandemic.
[A]: ‘Timeline of Trump’s COVID-19 Statements’ Meme


[Q]: Paragraph: Even though it’s “early days” for this strategy we’d like to see some mention of costs, if not for the proposed therapy then a related one, or the societal costs of combating MRSA. The release didn’t shy away from forecasting potential treatment benefits based on this early research — so we’d like to see the same approach applied to costs. The news release accurately reports the benefits of the SecA inhibitors over antibiotics. The study considered three traits to be desirable in an antimicrobial. Numerical evidence that SecA inhibitors are preferable over existing antibiotics is reported for two of the traits: potency and inhibiting virulence factor production. However, the news release fails to quantify the advantages of the proposed SecA inhibitors in overcoming the negative effect of efflux pumps on potency. Any new drug developed from this research would have side effects. But whereas the release is optimistic in forecasting that such drugs would be effective treatments for MRSA, it doesn’t also caution that such drugs might cause harm. At the very least, a statement about the fact that potential harms are unknown would have been helpful. The news release makes no attempt to summarize the design of the study nor does it state that the research is based on work in cell cultures and not in patients. In cases where the news value of a release is hinged on the risk the public will perceive of a disease or malady, it is incumbent on the release to point out if this is a cell culture study or a clinical one. And although it is mentioned that the SecA inhibitors are more potent than existing antibiotics on the market, the news release does not seem to grasp that the study is comparing the efficacy in three arenas simultaneously: 1) potency, 2) capability of inhibiting virulence factor production, and 3) overcoming the negative effect of efflux pumps on potency. The release relates to the public’s concern over antibiotic-resistant infections like those caused by MRSA but it doesn’t reach the level of disease-mongering. The release notes the study’s funding sources are the National Institutes of Health and Georgia State’s Center for Biotechnology and Drug Design and Molecular Basis of Diseases Program. No conflicts of interest are disclosed in the release or published study results. The release mentions that there are antibiotics currently used to treat MRSA infections. More detail regarding the effectiveness of these antibiotics and rates of antibiotic resistance would have been welcome. We’ll rate this Satisfactory, since we think most readers will come away understanding that there are no currently available treatments based on this approach. But the release doesn’t explicitly establish the lack of availability of such treatments. Nor does it say how far we might be from having such treatments. Had there been some acknowledgment of the fact that this study was done in cell culture and not people, it would have been clearer that such treatments are not available and won’t be any time soon. The news release does an admirable job framing the context of the study. We are made to understand that the researchers of the study have previously published results on a similar antimicrobial strategy inhibiting SecA for different types of bacteria. The current study examines the efficacy of this strategy for MRSA. The news release concludes with a reference to the most recent study by this same team of researchers, confirming SecA inhibitors are broad-spectrum antimicrobials. We’re rating this Satisfactory for balance and having an objective voice but we think readers would appreciate more explanation of technical terms and concepts. Claim: Promising new antimicrobials could fight drug-resistant MRSA infection, study finds
[A]:
This news release from Georgia State University reports on a study proposing a novel antimicrobial approach for combating methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The news release provides a thorough “big picture” overview of the underlying study and how it fits in with previous work in this area. But while it’s optimistic about the new approach’s potential to fight off MRSA infections in people, the release never establishes that this early-stage research was done in cell culture and not humans. The news release also suffers from an overabundance of technical terms that are left unexplained such as “ATPase,” “efflux pump,” “SecA”, as well as the difference between antibiotic and antimicrobial. Because MRSA is indeed a public health concern, the news release could have included some related statistics. Here’s one from the National Institute of Allergy and Infections Diseases website: “About one-third of people in the world have S. aureus bacteria on their bodies at any given time…The bacteria can be present without causing an active infection. Of the people with S. aureus present, about 1 percent has MRSA, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).”  MRSA is a staph bacteria that’s resistant to many types of antibiotics. In some cases it’s life-threatening. MRSA has garnered a lot of attention over the last decades because of its presence in hospitals and communities. Community-acquired MRSA tends to be less severe and located on the skin but when acquired in a hospital or other care facility, infections tend to be more serious since they enter the bloodstream via incisions, wounds and injections. With stricter hospital protocols, life-threatening MRSA is declining. Still, because of the spread of MRSA (and the emergence of even more virulent strains of drug-resistant bacteria) there’s an on-going need for new strategies for fighting drug-resistant infections. Although this strategy to combat MRSA is still in an early stage of development, the work is certainly newsworthy and if it proves effective, it could be important for society-at-large.