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.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Irish-born William Campbell and Japan’s Satoshi Omura won half of the prize for discovering avermectin, a derivative of which has been used to treat hundreds of millions of people with river blindness and lymphatic filariasis, or elephantiasis. China’s Tu Youyou was awarded the other half of the prize for discovering artemisinin, a drug that has slashed malaria deaths and has become the mainstay of fighting the mosquito-borne disease. She is China’s first Nobel laureate in medicine. Some 3.4 billion people, most of them living in poor countries, are at risk of contracting the three parasitic diseases. “These two discoveries have provided humankind with powerful new means to combat these debilitating diseases that affect hundreds of millions of people annually,” the Nobel Assembly at Sweden’s Karolinska Institute said. “The consequences in terms of improved human health and reduced suffering are immeasurable.”  Today, the medicine ivermectin, a derivative of avermectin made by Merck & Co, is used worldwide to fight roundworm parasites, while artemisinin-based drugs from firms including Novartis and Sanofi are the main weapons against malaria. Omura and Campbell made their breakthrough in fighting parasitic worms, or helminths, after studying compounds from soil bacteria. That led to the discovery of avermectin, which was then further modified into ivermectin. The treatment is so successful that river blindness and lymphatic filariasis are now on the verge of being eradicated. Omura, 80, said the real credit for the achievement should go to the ingenuity of the Streptomyces bacteria, whose naturally occurring chemicals were so effective at killing off parasites. “I really wonder if I deserve this,” he said after learning he had won the prize. “I have done all my work depending on microbes and learning from them, so I think the microbes might almost deserve it more than I do.”  Omura is professor emeritus at Kitasato University in Japan, while Campbell is research fellow emeritus at Drew University in Madison, New Jersey. “This was the work of a team of researchers so it is by no means my work, it’s our work,” said Campbell, 85, who learned of his prize in a pre-dawn phone call from Reuters that woke him at his home in North Andover, Massachusetts. “In the first decade, there were 70 authors that I co-authored papers with. That gives you some idea of the number of people involved,” he said. Tu, meanwhile, turned to a traditional Chinese herbal medicine in her hunt for a better malaria treatment, following the declining success of the older drugs chloroquine and quinine. She found that an extract from the plant Artemisia annua was sometimes effective but the results were inconsistent, so she went back to ancient literature, including a recipe from AD 350, in the search for clues. This eventually led to the isolation of artemisinin, a new class of anti-malaria drug, which was available in China before it reached the West. Tu, 84, has worked at the China Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine since 1965. World Health Organization spokesman Gregory Hartl said the award of a Nobel prize for the discovery was a great tribute to the contribution of Chinese science in fighting malaria. “We now have drugs that kill these parasites very early in their life-cycle,” said Juleen Zierath, chair of the Nobel Committee. “They not only kill these parasites but they stop these infections from spreading.”     Death rates from malaria have plunged 60 percent in the past 15 years, although the disease still kills around half a million people a year, the vast majority of them babies and young children in the poorest parts of Africa. The 8 million Swedish crowns ($960,000) medicine prize is the first of the Nobel prizes awarded each year. Prizes for achievements in science, literature and peace were first awarded in 1901 in accordance with the will of dynamite inventor and businessman Alfred Nobel. Last year, the medicine prize went to three scientists who discovered the brain’s inner navigation system. Claim: Beating parasites wins three scientists Nobel prize for medicine.

Output: Three scientists from Japan, China and Ireland whose discoveries led to the development of potent new drugs against parasitic diseases including malaria and elephantiasis won the Nobel Prize for Medicine on Monday.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "Campaigning for president in the liberal oasis of Madison, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont rose to the defense of marijuana. Critical of the nation’s war on drugs, Sanders said the lives of millions of Americans have been ""ruined"" because they got a police record for possessing marijuana. ""Today, under the federal Controlled Substance Act, marijuana is listed in the same Schedule I as heroin. That is nuts,"" Sanders declared March 26, 2016, 10 days before he defeated Hillary Clinton in Wisconsin’s Democratic primary. ""Now people can argue -- although I suspect in this audience there may not be much of an argument -- about the pluses and minuses of marijuana,"" he said, drawing cheers from some of the thousands in attendance at the Alliant Energy Center. ""But everybody knows marijuana is not a killer drug like heroin."" Sanders then noted he had introduced legislation to remove marijuana from the Controlled Substance Act because possession of it ""should not be a federal crime."" We found that Sanders wasn’t smoking anything funny in claiming that both marijuana and heroin are Schedule I drugs, which he has continued to say while campaigning in New York and Pennsylvania. But his claim is somewhat misleading: That classification is based on a drug’s acceptable medical use and the drug’s abuse or dependency potential, not on criminal statutes. The law The Controlled Substance Act, adopted in 1970, uses five schedules to classify drugs and narcotics by medical use and potential to incite substance abuse. On the low end is Schedule V, which includes substances such as cough medicines with small amounts of the narcotic codeine. At the high end is Schedule I, which lists the ""most dangerous"" drugs -- those that have ""no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse."" Marijuana is stronger than when the Controlled Substance Act was adopted (as ex-GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina correctly stated). Nevertheless Schedule II includes some drugs often considered more dangerous than marijuana. Here’s a look at some of the drugs in the two schedules: Schedule I Schedule II Marijuana Cocaine Heroin Methamphetamine LSD Methadone Ecstasy OxyContin Peyote Fentanyl The Huffington Post in April 2016, citing figures from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said the nation recorded no marijuana overdose deaths in 2015. Likewise, there were zero in 2014. It’s possible marijuana might soon be moved off of Schedule I. A week after Sanders’ speech, the Washington Post reported that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration said it hopes to decide by July 2016 whether to change the federal status of marijuana. Now let’s get to Sanders’ implication that the schedule relates to criminal law enforcement. Marijuana treated differently Distribution, manufacturing or possession of a Schedule I substance is indeed a federal offense. Additionally, marijuana being on Schedule I, drug policy experts told us, makes it more difficult for licensed dealers in states that have legalized marijuana or medical marijuana to get bank accounts and to deduct business expenses on their taxes. And the classification makes it more difficult for researchers to study marijuana in clinical trials. But judges come down harder on heroin possession than marijuana possession. And when it comes to enforcement of criminal statutes, the federal government to some extent has looked the other way when it comes to marijuana. As PolitiFact National stated in a related fact check: Schedule I substances cannot legally be used for medical purposes, however, 20 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws legalizing medical marijuana. In 2009, the administration of President Barack Obama, a Democrat, told federal law enforcement agencies to stop targeting medical marijuana dispensaries, signaling a change from the approach of Obama’s predecessor, Republican President George W. Bush. Similarly, in 2013, the Department of Justice said it would not target new laws in Colorado and Washington legalizing recreational marijuana. While Sanders equates the handling or marijuana and heroin, it’s difficult to imagine the federal government not enforcing the law if states started legalizing heroin. Our rating Criticizing the nation’s war on drugs, Sanders says that under the federal Controlled Substance Act, ""marijuana is listed in the same Schedule I as heroin,"" even though ""marijuana is not a killer drug like heroin."" Like heroin, marijuana is indeed listed as a Schedule I drug, the federal designation given to drugs considered the most dangerous. But at least under the Obama administration, the federal government doesn’t treat it as one under the law. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification, our rating is . Claim: "Under the federal Controlled Substance Act, marijuana is listed in the same Schedule I as heroin,"" even though ""marijuana is not a killer drug like heroin."

Output: "Criticizing the nation’s war on drugs, Sanders says that under the federal Controlled Substance Act, ""marijuana is listed in the same Schedule I as heroin,"" even though ""marijuana is not a killer drug like heroin."" Like heroin, marijuana is indeed listed as a Schedule I drug, the federal designation given to drugs considered the most dangerous. But at least under the Obama administration, the federal government doesn’t treat it as one under the law. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification. 


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Exposure to essential oils can be fatal for cats and small animals. But there’s not much scientific evidence about how risky essential oils are for cats, and what levels are safe. First, we’ll take a look at what essential oils are. They’re high concentrations of oils that occur naturally in plants. When mixed with solvents, essential oils can be diluted and defused throughout a room. They’re used for aromatherapy and for medicinal purposes. Warnings that essential oils are harmful to cats have been circulating for years. And for good reason. One version that we found on social media warns that “all citrus” varieties of essential oils are toxic to cats. Among those listed is tea tree essential oil. Studies indicate that the warning is valid, but only when cats are exposed to the oils in large doses. The Science Behind Claims That Essential Oils Are Harmful to Cats The Oklahoma Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory published a study in 1998 that described how three purebred cats were poisoned by Australian tea tree oil. The cats’ owner applied a topical ointment containing the oil directly to the cats to treat fleas. All three became sick within hours. Ultimately, two of the cats survived and one died. Tea tree oil is toxic to cats because of how they metabolize terpenes, the organic compounds that give essential oils their scents. And other essential oils, like eucalyptus oil, are very similar in composition . They can be toxic to cats for the same reason. Most cases of poisoning result from misuse (like applying the oil directly to the cat’s fur). But cats can also be especially susceptible to high concentrations of defused tea tree essential oil because of cats’ grooming habits, the study found: The terpenes in tea tree oil are rapidly absorbed through the skin and digestive tract because of their highly lipophilic nature. Toxicity from dermal exposure has not been produced in rabbits but may be possible. Cats may be more susceptible to tea tree oil toxicosis after topical application than are other species because of their grooming behavior. In this case, the cats had been shaved, so that tea tree oil was applied directly to the skin, enhancing dermal absorption. The flea bite lesions may have also increased dermal absorption somewhat. Further, grooming efficiency was probably augmented due to shaving, allowing cats to ingest a large amount of the oil applied To summarize essential oils like tea tree oil can be toxic to cats if they lick it from their fur, or even if it’s absorbed through their skin. Some argue that highly defused, high-quality essential oil in a well-ventilated room is perfectly safe for pets. However, we weren’t able to find any studies indicating that that’s true, or at what levels essential oils are safe for cats. For those reasons, we’re calling claims that some essential oils are toxic for cats “true.” Comments Claim:  Essential oils can kill cats and mall animals.  Social media posts warn those with cats to avoid certain essential oils. 


Output: Essential Oils Are Harmful to Cats and Small Animals .