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: There was no mention of the potential costs of screening women for vitamin D levels (as encouraged in the release in a statement from the principal investigator) or the cost of supplementation. The release does a good job of comparing data and providing explanations for the measurements used. We’ll award a Satisfactory for that precision, but as noted below under “Evidence,” there was no explicit caution regarding the fact that measurements of interleukin-6 (IL-6) are only surrogates for the effects of weight loss and vitamin D on clinical outcomes related to inflammation (e.g. cancer diagnoses). IL-6 levels dropped in both the placebo and vitamin D arms, and it’s not clear whether the statistically significant additional decline in IL-6 observed in the vitamin D group is clinically important. Because some of the participants were vitamin D-deficient and the dose of vitamin D provided was modest (2000 IU/d), this was a tough call. But supplementation is often so misunderstood, overhyped and oversold that some statement cautioning readers to pay attention to the specifics of this study and not apply its recommendations to everyone seems prudent. For the most part, the release provides a cautious and accurate description of what appears to be a well-conducted clinical trial in a well-defined population. For example, it notes that weight loss and vitamin D lowered inflammation LINKED to cancer — not that these things reduced cancer risk itself (something this study couldn’t establish). But as noted above, we would have appreciated an explicit acknowledgment that IL-6 is a surrogate marker for the clinical outcomes that people care about. And more importantly, we’re concerned about the closing comment that women should talk to their doctors about measuring their vitamin D levels to determine the most appropriate dose. The problem is there is no evidence supporting screening or treating to a level — and certainly not from this study. The US Preventive Services Task Force has concluded that evidence is insufficient to recommend routine vitamin D screening and the IOM has said that while there are data supporting the benefits of vitamin D supplementation with bone health and fall prevention, there is no evidence supporting benefits for cancer. While testing may be warranted in those with signs or symptoms of clinical deficiency, the statement made here implies that everyone should be tested so that an appropriate dose of vitamin D can be selected. That goes beyond the available evidence. It’s hard to argue that overweight, vitamin deficiency, chronic inflammation and cancer are not real threats, so no mongering apparent here. Funding sources are well documented. The study didn’t discuss alternative preventive measures or genetic causes of increased cancer risks. But this is such a broad and expansive topic that we don’t think the release should have been expected to address those myriad issues. We’ll rate this Not Applicable. Primary care physicians and other health providers are well positioned to monitor blood levels of vitamin D, along with dietary and exercise regimens. The news release makes that clear, albeit indirectly. As noted above, we think the release goes too far in suggesting that people ask their doctors about having their vitamin D levels checked. But we’ve already docked points for that, so we’ll award a Satisfactory rating here. The release makes a case for this being the first clinical trial of its kind; although it’s always difficult to make that statement absolutely, the writer of the release attributes the statement to the study author. As a general rule, it’s probably best to say “believed to be the first.”  While the release meets our standard here, we also wish it had delved a bit into the background of previous vitamin D research and the conflicting and confusing messages that research has generated. Without that context, the typical reader might wrongly jump to the conclusion, based on the wording of the lede and other parts of the release, that this study of vitamin D supplementation — because it was a controlled clinical trial — has somehow settled the important questions about the role of vitamin D and inflammation in cancer risk. The debate remains alive and well. None detected. Claim: Weight loss plus vitamin D reduces inflammation linked to cancer, chronic disease

Ex Output:
This news release describes a randomized, controlled clinical trial designed to learn whether adding vitamin D supplements to substantial weight loss regimens would have a synergistic effect in reducing inflammatory chemicals in the bodies of overweight, older women with levels of vitamin D considered too low. The study, published in Cancer Prevention Research, has potential relevance for cancer prevention because inflammatory cytokines have been implicated in the genesis and progression of some cancers, as well as heart disease and other disorders. The release offers substantial details about the design, metrics and outcomes of the clinical trial and does a pretty good job of defining the possible reasons for the effects of chronic inflammation and weight loss on cancer development. It goes to some lengths to narrowly define the results and avoid overstatement. That said, the release ends on a sour note by encouraging readers to talk to their doctors about vitamin D testing — a recommendation not consistent with U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines and which is not supported by this research. Readers might also have been better informed if the release had offered more context regarding the many conflicting and sometimes confusing studies that have previously looked for links among vitamin D, inflammatory responses, diet, overweight, sun exposure and cancer. News releases that include the words “diet,” “overweight,” “vitamin,” and “cancer” are almost narrative nuclear events, often guaranteeing an explosion of coverage, souped up vitamin sales pitches, and lots of negative fallout whose half-life seems forever. Cancer remains the second biggest killer disease overall of Americans, and some experts believe that it will soon push heart disease and stroke out of first place. Thus cancer prevention is a deservedly hot topic, and it is no surprise that Americans are eager for information about ways to limit their risk. News releases that describe research on these topics have enormous power to inform and misinform.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: "The sight of the moon’s shadow passing directly in front of the sun, blotting out all but the halo-like solar corona, may draw the largest live audience for a celestial event in human history. When those watching via broadcast and online media are factored into the mix, the spectacle will likely smash records. “It will certainly be the most observed total eclipse in history,” astronomer Rick Fienberg of the American Astronomical Society (AAS) said last week. The eclipse begins its cross-country trajectory over the Pacific Coast of Oregon in late morning. It will reach South Carolina’s Atlantic shore some 90 minutes later. The total eclipse of the sun is considered one of the most spell-binding phenomena in nature but it rarely occurs over a wide swath of land, let alone one of the world’s most heavily populated countries at the height of summer. In terms of audience potential, it is hard to top the United States, with its mobile and affluent population, even though the direct path is mostly over rural areas, towns and small cities. The largest is Nashville, Tennessee, a city of 660,000 residents. Even so the advent of social media and inexpensive high-tech optics have boosted public awareness, assuring what many U.S. experts predict will be unprecedented viewership for the so-called “Great American Eclipse.”   Some might take issue with that prediction, citing a solar eclipse visible over parts of India, Nepal, Bangladesh and central China in July 2009. National Geographic estimated 30 million people in Shanghai and Hangzhou alone were in its path that day. On Monday, the deepest part of the shadow, or umbra, cast by the moon will fall over a 70-mile-wide (113-km-wide), 2,500-mile-long (4,000-km-long) ""path of totality"" traversing 14 states. The 12 million people who live there can view the eclipse at its fullest merely by walking outside and looking up, weather permitting. (tmsnrt.rs/2fNQHFb)  LIVESTREAMING AND PRICE-GOUGING  Some 200 million Americans reside within a day’s drive of the totality zone, and as many as 7 million, experts say, are expected to converge on towns and campgrounds along the narrow corridor for the event. Many are attending multiday festivals featuring music, yoga and astronomy lectures. Millions more could potentially watch in real time as the eclipse is captured by video cameras mounted on 50 high-altitude balloons and streamed online in a joint project between NASA and Montana State University. A partial eclipse will appear throughout North America. Adding further to the excitement is the wide availability of affordable solar-safe sunglasses produced by the millions and selling so fast that suppliers were running out of stock. The owner of one leading manufacturer reported price gouging by second-hand dealers who were buying up large supplies and reselling them over the internet at a huge mark-up. Not all the hoopla will unfold on dry land. Welsh pop singer Bonnie Tyler is slated to perform her 1983s hit single “Total Eclipse of the Heart” aboard a cruise liner as the vessel sails into the path of totality from Florida on Monday. Back on the ground, forest rangers, police and city managers in the total eclipse zone are bracing for a crush of travelers they fear will cause epic traffic jams and heighten wildfire hazards. “Imagine 20 Woodstock festivals occurring simultaneously across the nation,” Michael Zeiler, an AAS advisory panel member wrote on his website, GreatAmericanEclipse.com, referring to the famously chaotic 1969 outdoor rock extravaganza in upstate New York. Hundreds of residents in a prime-viewing area in Oregon had to evacuate on Saturday under threat from a wildfire raging in the Deschutes National Forest, according to InciWeb fire-tracking website. The so-called Milli Fire, which has scorched more than 7,8OO acres (3,162 hectare), is one of seven burning in Oregon, Montana and Idaho, three of the states crossed by the totality path. Zeiler, an avowed “eclipse chaser” who made the 650-mile (1,046-km) drive from his New Mexico home to Wyoming for a choice view, said South Carolina is likely to see the greatest influx as the destination state closest to the entire U.S. Eastern seaboard. Monday’s event will be the first total solar eclipse spanning the entire continental United States since 1918 and the first visible anywhere in the Lower 48 states in 38 years. The next one over North America is due in just seven years, in April 2024." Claim: Millions of Americans to gaze upon Monday's once-in-a-lifetime eclipse.

Ex Output:
Twilight will fall at midday on Monday, stars will glimmer and birds will roost in an eerie stillness as millions of Americans and visitors witness the first total solar eclipse to traverse the United States from coast to coast in 99 years.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: “We have to have something in place that is efficient and that we can rely on, and we’re not there yet,” Fauci said in an interview with The Associated Press. Fauci’s comments come as President Donald Trump and others in the administration weigh how quickly businesses can reopen and Americans can get back to work weeks after the fast-spreading coronavirus  essentially halted the U.S. economy. Trump has floated the possibility of reopening some areas by May 1 and said he could announce recommendations as soon as this week. Fauci said a May 1 target is “a bit overly optimistic” for many areas of the country. Any easing off the strict social-distancing rules in place in much of the country would have to occur on a “rolling” basis, not all at once, he said, reflecting the ways COVID-19 struck different parts of the country at different times. Among Fauci’s top concerns: that there will be new outbreaks in locations where social distancing has eased, but public health officials don’t yet have the capabilities to rapidly test for the virus, isolate any new cases and track down everyone that an infected person came into contact with. “I’ll guarantee you, once you start pulling back there will be infections. It’s how you deal with the infections that’s going count,” Fauci told the AP. Key is “getting people out of circulation if they get infected, because once you start getting clusters, then you’re really in trouble,” he added. At the same time Fauci is directing critical government research, he’s also one of the administration’s leading spokespeople on the virus, spending hours each week by Trump’s side during his lengthy, daily White House briefings. Fauci said his public role is important but conceded that the duration of those briefings — Monday’s  ran for nearly two-and-a-half hours — was “really draining” and that doesn’t even count preparation and waiting for it to start. “If I had been able to just make a few comments and then go to work, that would have really been much better,” he said. “It isn’t the idea of being there and answering questions, which I really think is important for the American public. It’s the amount of time.” Much of Fauci’s time outside of the White House briefing room is focused on analyzing progress on blood tests that aim to tell who was exposed to the coronavirus -- whether they knew they were sick or not -- by spotting antibodies their immune system formed to fight back. Those tests will be crucial in determining when and how people can go back to work. The problem: Most of the tests have not yet been proven to work well, Fauci cautioned. He noted that some countries bought millions of antibody tests only to learn they didn’t work. Fauci, infectious disease chief at the National Institutes of Health, said his staff is working with the Food and Drug Administration to validate those tests. That means proving what level of antibodies it takes to really be immune; if particular types of antibodies are key rather than an overall level; and how long that protection lasts. “We’re going to have to find out the answer to all of those questions,” Fauci stressed. “I know people are anxious to say, ‘Well, we’ll give you a passport that says you’re antibody-positive, you can go to work and you’re protected.’ The worst possibility that would happen is if we’re actually wrong about that” and those people get infected. Another complication is that scientists still don’t have a solid understanding of how often people who show either no obvious symptoms or very few symptoms are spreading the virus. It’s “purely a guesstimate” but no less than 25% and no more than half of overall cases may be from the relatively asymptomatic, he said. Looking ahead, Fauci said a second wave of infection isn’t inevitable. But he added: “if you mean it goes way down and then come September, October, November, we have another peak, I have to say I would not be surprised. I would hope that if and when that occurs, that we jump all over it in a much, much more effective way than we have in these past few months.” Claim: Fauci: ‘We’re not there yet’ on key steps to reopen economy.

Ex Output:

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the government’s top infectious disease expert, said Tuesday the U.S. does not yet have the critical testing and tracing procedures needed to begin reopening the nation’s economy, adding a dose of caution to increasingly optimistic projections from the White House.