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: Tuesday is the final day of Sexually Transmitted Disease Awareness Month, and the state CDC says it’s recommending prevention, screening and treatment. The agency says Maine has seen “dramatic increases” in gonorrhea and syphilis in the last five years. Gonorrhea cases increased nearly 200 percent, to 686, from 2014 to 2018. Syphilis cases have risen by almost 600 percent, to 104, in that same timeframe. Acting Maine CDC Director Nancy Beardsley says the health consequences of sexually transmitted infections are serious enough that residents “know the facts about STDs and get tested if they believe they are at risk.” Claim: Maine stresses test as sexually transmitted infections surge.

Answer: The Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention is calling on residents to get tested for sexually transmitted infections amid a spike in cases of gonorrhea and syphilis in the state.


Question: Paragraph: The idea that the domestic dog descended from the grey wolf was originally established in 1993 using comparisons of wolf and dog mitochondrial DNA. This investigation showed that no other living animal was more closely related to the domestic dog than the grey wolf: “The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the grey wolf, differing from it by at most 0.2% of [mitochondrial DNA].” Mitochondrial DNA is passed down by the mother (without any genetic contribution from the father) and changes only through random mutations that occur from generation to generation. Scientists use this much smaller and separate DNA sequence to estimate when populations of animals first diverged and to estimate the evolutionary relationships between organisms. By the mid-2000s, new technology allowed scientists to map the much longer DNA sequence found on the chromosomes of wolves and dogs — the genes that actually code for physical traits and behaviors. These studies demonstrated a 99.9% similarity (technically 99.96%) between dog and grey wolf, as covered in a 2007 review paper on the topic: In general, the domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the grey wolf, from which it differs by only ~0.04% in nuclear coding-DNA sequence, and no dog [mitochondrial DNA] sequences have been found that show closer kinship to other canid species. This similarity is so profound that hybridization often occurs between dogs and wolves. By the biological definition of species, this would mean that the domestic dog is a subspecies of the grey wolf (canis lupus familiaris). There remains some debate, however, as to what the appropriate classification for the domestic dog would be, with some arguing that the domestic dog should be its own distinct species (canis familiaris). Claim: Dogs and wolves are genetically 99.9% identical.

Answer: These advances in genetic analysis have allowed scientists as well to pin down the probable timing of the split between these two canid lineages. A study published in 2015, which compared the whole genome sequence of dogs to a 35,000 year old Siberian wolf specimen, suggested the split likely occurred between 27,000 and 40,000 years ago, and that domestic dogs are likely themselves the descendants of a now extinct descendant of grey wolves.


Question: Paragraph: The story states that the therapy could cost “thousands of dollars,” so we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt. However, that’s a broad range and we wish the story had told readers whether that means two or three thousand or ten or twenty. We know itâ€™s an early idea and cost projections are somewhat speculative. The story discussed benefits of the vaccine in relative terms only. It quotes a researcher saying “The magnitude of the effects are really impressive,” but never really quantified the magnitude of the effects. The story accurately describes what is known about the harms of the vaccine at this time. The story should have mentioned that more research is needed to determine how safe the vaccine is. The story adequately describes the design of the current study, rightly pointing out that it was small and preliminary and did not demonstrate effectiveness of the vaccine in an important outcome. The story does not appear to engage in disease mongering. The story quotes two experts – the author of the current study and an allergy expert at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The latter is not exactly an impartial source since NIAID helped fund the study, but he did caution about the signficance of the study, “limited by its small size and the vaccine’s failure to affect the primary immune system response it was designed to look for.” The story does mention alternatives, such as medications, nasal sprays and allergen immunotherapy. The story did state that “a commercial product is still years away.” The story also states that further studies could “eventually lead to drug approval by the FDA.” That’s true, but they could also lead to FDA rejection. It’s almost a meaningless line and could have been deleted without losing anything from the story. The story clearly states that vaccination is a new approach for treating hay fever. There is no way to know if the story relied on a press release as the sole source of information, although much of the information apparently came from the principal investigator at Johns Hopkins and from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which was one of the funders of the study. Claim: DNA allergy vaccine shows promise

Answer:
Hay fever, or allergic rhinitis, is an allergic reaction to pollen-producing plants, most commonly ragweed. It’s a common condition, inducing such symptoms as coughing, sneezing, runny nose and eyes, and wheezing. Treatments include avoiding exposure to allergens, over the counter and prescription medications, nasal sprays, and standard immunotherapy or “allergy desensitization”. This story reports on the results of a new study published in the New Enland Journal of Medicine on a new approach to treating hay fever – a ragweed vaccine. The story adequately describes the design of the current study, rightly pointing out that it was small and preliminary and that the study did not demonstrate effectiveness in an important outcome. The story accurately describes what is known about the harms of the vaccine at this time. However, the story should have mentioned that more research is needed to determine how safe the vaccine is. The story quotes two experts – the author of the current study and an allergy expert with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The story does mention alternatives, such as medications, nasal sprays and standard immunotherapy. The story did state that “a commercial product is still years away.” The story also states that further studies could “eventually lead to drug approval by the FDA.” That’s true, but they could also lead to FDA rejection. It’s almost a meaningless line and could have been deleted without losing anything from the story. The story states that the therapy could cost “thousands of dollars.” However, that’s a broad range and we wish the story had told readers whether that means two or three thousand or ten or twenty. We know itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s an early idea and cost projections are somewhat speculative. Overall, a well-balanced story.