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 article does a good job of noting the cost of the combing salons, as well as cost of the medicinal shampoos and other drug treatments, specifically noting also that insurance may not cover the costs. The article cites data from a recent review article in a medical journal that outlines the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the medicinal treatments. “The medications have been found to be from 68% to 87% effective after one or two applications. Most don’t require combing,” the story says. We do wish they story explained what “67% effective” means for a typical person, however. The careful reader will note that the evidence for the effectiveness of the featured combing salons is mostly anecdotal, and it would have greatly strengthened the article to have been more explicit about this, as well as including more solid proof that standard lice medications are not as effective as they used to be. The article notes that various organizations and experts consider the chemical/medicinal treatments to be highly safe as well as effective. The story needed to be more explicit about the quality of evidence for each of the treatment options mentioned–combing, going to a delousing salon, over-the-counter treatments, prescription treatments. Only the latter are mentioned in the context of research. The story references a review article that compares the different approaches, but it provides no details on what kind of evidence the review is based on. No disease mongering here, and we were glad the story pointed out that there are no adverse physical health effects from lice. The article does a very good job of noting the conflicts of interest of those quoted. The story explored alternatives. Good job on this. It’s clear that businesses that assist with combing are easy to find, and over-the-counter shampoos are even easier. What appears to be “new” is the explosion of combing salons and newer prescription shampoos, as well as the review article published last week that evaluates them. This story doesn’t appear to rely on a news release. Claim: New Ways to Fight Super Lice

Ex Output:
The treatment of childhood cases of head lice infestations is a popular news media perennial at the start of the school year, and this Wall Street Journal story falls into that category. It covers the usual elements — prevalence of the infestations among school age children, over-the-counter and prescription treatments, home remedies (which generally don’t work) and reassurance about the pesky but essentially benign health impact. This story also takes a look at the rise of “lice-combing” salons and newer medications meant to stand in when older medications are ineffective. We were impressed by the depth of the sourcing, along with the details that helped readers assess any potential conflicts of interest among said sources. One thing we wished had been more detailed: How the evidence stacks up for each of the treatments. As the article itself makes clear, head lice infestation is a widespread, unpleasant, and disruptive — albeit relatively benign — condition that costs millions of families money, aggravation and time in efforts to prevent and treat. Adding to the nuisance of ridding scalps, tresses, clothing and home furnishings of the pests, some of the historic over-the-counter medicinal treatments have lost their power owing to drug-resistant mutations in the lice. Newer prescription medicines are effective, but worry an apparently growing number of parents who work hard to avoid what they consider unnecessary chemical exposure. Thus, parents are certain to be looking for the best and latest information about treatments.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: Most people know roughly what a bottle of vitamin D supplements might cost them, so the lack of information on cost is not a significant gap. We appreciate that the story provided data showing the large and growing amount our society is spending on vitamin D supplements ($430 million in 2009), with apparently little health benefit to show for it. The story was mostly concerned with discussing the lack of benefit from taking extra vitamin D and calcium. And in this area it excels. While the story does lack precision when it suggests that adolescent girls should be getting more calcium (it never specifies how much they are getting now, how much more they’d need to meet the recommendations, or what benefits they might expect from this increased intake), it would be difficult for a journalist to come up with any sort of quantifiable benefit or harm estimate from the IOM report. The story captured the overall gist of the problem, which is that the evidence base is complex and still inadequate. The story notes that, contrary to the claims of many advocates for increased supplemental vitamin D, there is evidence that high levels of vitamin D may have adverse effects, such as increased risk for fractures and an increase in the overall death rate. The story also explained that too much calcium has been linked to increased risk of kidney stones and, more tentatively, heart disease. The story did a good job of describing how the expert committee conducted its review and what evidence they found. Importantly, it noted that  claims of benefit from extra vitamin D are based on observational studies that most scientists agree “cannot determine cause and effect.” We also like that the story solicited opinions from a variety of experts with no obvious stake in the controversy. This produced a number of quotes that emphasized the need for restraint when interpreting the research on vitamin D. Examples: “I think this report will make people more cautious” and “The onus is on the people who propose extra calcium and vitamin D to show it is safe before they push it on people.” Although we agree with the story’s skeptical overall message, we think it may have slammed the door just a bit too hard on the possibility of benefit from supplemental vitamin D. While claims of benefit may not be supported by the currently available evidence, they have not been conclusively disproved in randomized controlled studies, either. In fact, research is now underway to determine whether the benefits found in observational studies of vitamin D can be replicated in more rigorously designed trials. The story probably should have mentioned this research, and left the door to potential benefits open just a crack. No disease-mongering here. The diversity of independent voices included in this story is a real strength. Although it solicits the obligatory comment from a supplement industry spokesman, it didn’t go out of its way to find any of the more widely known vitamin D experts, some of whom have been issuing recommendations that are untenable based on current evidence. The enthusiasm of some of these researchers might be explained by their significant career and financial interests in promoting vitamin D. Not applicable for this story. The approaches discussed are not new, and there’s not really any alternative to getting adequate amounts of these essential nutrients. The availability of vitamin D from diet, sunlight and supplements is clear from the story. The novelty of vitamin D and calcium is not really in question, so we’ll call this not applicable. This story was not based on a news release. Claim: Report Questions Need for 2 Diet Supplements

Ex Output:
In one particularly effective passage, the story quoted a representative of a supplement industry group who disagreed with the report, saying that higher levels of vitamin D could be beneficial. But it then segued immediately into an explanation of why claims from supplementation advocates “are not supported by the available evidence.” The key problem, as the story points out, is that these claims are based almost exclusively on observational studies that can’t prove cause and effect and are often skewed by factors the researchers haven’t accounted for. Proponents of supplementation also have tended to downplay the possibility that higher doses of vitamin D and calcium might cause harm–a stance which the story notes may not be justified. We applaud this story’s effort to show readers where the weight of the evidence lies on this issue. Vitamin D is the latest in a long line of “miracle” nutrients that people have turned to in the hope of improving their health. As we’ve learned from copious previous experience, these supplements rarely work as advertised and can sometimes cause harm at the higher doses people often think will be beneficial for them. More isn’t necessarily better when it comes to vitamin D–or most other health care interventions for that matter.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: Here are some things to know about the state of avian influenza in the U.S. and worldwide, and how the poultry industry has tried to prepare for a recurrence: THE THREAT The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced Sunday that a highly pathogenic form of bird flu was confirmed Saturday in a flock of 73,500 breeding broiler chickens in Lincoln County, Tennessee, after hundreds of birds began dying. It was identified as an H7N9 virus of North American wild bird origin. The USDA stressed that it was not the same H7N9 virus of Chinese lineage that has sickened poultry and people in Asia, nor is it related to the virus that caused the 2015 U.S. outbreak. Officials quickly moved to kill the entire flock to prevent the virus from spreading. The affected farm supplies Tyson Foods Inc. The USDA also said a flock of 84,000 turkeys at a Jennie-O Turkey Store farm near Barron, Wisconsin, had been confirmed with a low pathogenic H5N2 virus. The USDA stressed it was different from the highly pathogenic H5N2 virus that devastated the Midwest chicken egg and turkey industry in 2015. On Thursday, the Tennessee Department of Agriculture reported a case of low pathogenic H7N9 at a different chicken breeding farm operated by an unspecified different company, in Giles County. Officials said they didn’t think one farm sickened the other. The birds in the affected flock were killed. THE 2015 OUTBREAK The USDA calls the 2015 outbreak the largest animal health emergency in U.S. history. It cost farmers nearly 50 million birds before it burned out in June 2015. Iowa, the country’s top egg producer, and Minnesota, the No. 1 turkey producer, were by far the hardest hit. Retail turkey prices weren’t noticeably affected, but egg prices soared. Congressional testimony as the dust was starting to settle conservatively estimated the total economic impact at over $3.3 billion. An outbreak of H7N8 in Dubois County, Indiana, in January 2016 remained isolated to 10 farms, but more than 414,000 turkeys and chickens died. Most of those farms had a low pathogenic version, but the USDA said it apparently mutated into highly pathogenic at one farm. HIGH-PATH VERSUS LOW-PATH The first symptom of highly pathogenic bird flu, the kind that’s almost always fatal to domestic poultry, is typically birds dying en masse. Scientists learned in 2015 that it’s crucial to euthanize entire infected flocks immediately. “You want a very rapid response and a very rapid stamping out. ... The faster the birds die, the faster the outbreak stops,” said Dr. Carol Cardona, a poultry disease expert at the University of Minnesota. Low pathogenic is more common. Symptoms are typically mild, if any. Infected birds usually recover. While response plans differ from state to state, a common and effective approach is “controlled marketing.” Infected flocks are not euthanized but are kept quarantined until they recover and test negative for the virus, and then they can be marketed, Cardona said. That’s what’s being done in Wisconsin, according to the USDA. FARMERS’ RESPONSE U.S. producers have stepped up biosecurity in response to the new cases, as well the ongoing outbreaks in Asia, Europe and Africa that have led to the destruction of hundreds of millions of birds and killed dozens of humans. Bird flu viruses don’t usually spread to people except by close contact with infected birds, but health authorities are always alert to the possibility. Since wild waterfowl are considered the main reservoirs of bird flu, farmers and scientists get nervous when birds are migrating. Droppings from infected birds flying north in the spring, or south in the fall, can get tracked into barns or carried in on contaminated equipment. So producers are being more vigilant about keeping people and vehicles from entering their farms unless they absolutely need to be there. “They understand this is a high-risk period with the spring migration period, so they’re watching their flocks closely and doing additional surveillance to make sure that if anything pops up, they’re going to identify it quickly,” said Dr. Shauna Voss, senior veterinarian at the Minnesota Poultry Testing Laboratory in Willmar. Since 2015, many farmers have built the “Danish entry” system into their barns, said Steve Olson, executive director of the Minnesota Turkey Growers Association. Anyone entering or leaving has to sit on a bench, take their boots off, swing their legs around to the “clean” side of the room, put on new boots and clothing that stay in the barn, and reverse the process when they leave. WHAT ABOUT VACCINES? Bird flu viruses keep evolving, like human influenza viruses, so a vaccine that works against one strain might be ineffective against another. While an H5N2 vaccine was developed in 2015, it was never deployed in the field. Producers are wary of vaccines because many countries refuse poultry products from countries that use vaccines. That is because tests for the disease look for the same antibodies that vaccines trigger an animal to produce. ___ Follow Steve Karnowski on Twitter at https://twitter.com/skarnowski. His work can be found at http://bigstory.ap.org/content/steve-karnowski. Claim: Bird flu cases revive fear of repeat of major 2015 outbreak.

Ex Output:

The detection of a highly pathogenic strain of bird flu at a Tennessee chicken farm has poultry farmers stepping up security in an attempt to prevent an outbreak like the one in 2015 that required the destruction of millions of chickens and turkeys in the Midwest. The appearance of milder forms of bird flu at a Wisconsin turkey farm and another Tennessee chicken farm has heightened concern.