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: Researchers around the world are working to develop potential treatments or vaccines against the respiratory disease that has killed nearly 47,000 people and infected almost a million in just a few months. A team at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine in the United States said they were able to move quickly in developing a potential COVID-19 vaccine after working on other coronaviruses that cause Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS). “These two viruses, which are closely related to SARS-CoV-2 (the new coronavirus causing the COVID-19 pandemic), teach us that a particular protein, called a spike protein, is important for inducing immunity against the virus,” said Andrea Gambotto, an associate professor at Pittsburgh. “We knew exactly where to fight this new virus.”  When tested in mice, the prototype vaccine - which the researchers have called PittCoVacc - generated what they described as “a surge of antibodies” against the new coronavirus  within two weeks. The Pittsburgh researchers cautioned that because the animals have not been tracked for very long as yet, it is too early to say whether and for how long the immune response against COVID-19 lasts. But they said that in comparable tests in mice with their MERS experimental vaccine, a sufficient level of antibodies was produced to neutralize the virus for at least a year. So far, the antibody levels of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccinated animals seem to be following the same trend, they said in peer-reviewed study in the journal EBioMedicine. The team said they hope to start testing the vaccine candidate on people in clinical trials in the next few months. The potential vaccine uses a needle patch design, called a microneedle array, to increase its potential potency. This array is a fingertip-sized patch of 400 tiny needles made out of sugar and the spike protein, Gambotto explained. It is designed to deliver the spike protein pieces into the skin, where the immune reaction is strongest. Claim: Potential COVID-19 vaccine shows promise in mouse study.

Answer: Initial tests in mice of a potential COVID-19 vaccine delivered via a fingertip-sized patch have shown it can induce an immune response against the new coronavirus at levels that might prevent infection, U.S. scientists said on Thursday.


Question: Paragraph: The analysis suggests the potentially harmful effect of Celebrex dosage is most pronounced in higher-risk patients, researchers said at the American College of Cardiology scientific meeting. “Patients at low cardiovascular risk should take some level of comfort,” said Dr. Scott Solomon, lead researcher of the National Cancer Institute-sponsored analysis. “That wasn’t so clear previously.”   Doctors should exercise caution in prescribing the drug, generally known as celecoxib, in high-risk patients, said Solomon, whose analysis was also published online in the journal Circulation. Celebrex belongs to a class of pain drugs known as cox-2 inhibitors and is the only such drug still on the market in the United States. Merck and Co Inc withdrew its widely used cox-2 drug, Vioxx, from the market in 2004 after a study showed it doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke in long- term users. Another cox-2 inhibitor from Pfizer called Bextra was also pulled from the U.S. market due to safety concerns. While the analysis sheds light on how the drug should be used, Solomon said he could not judge whether the data lift the cloud over this class of drugs. The six trials involving a total of 7,950 patients all studied Celebrex against a placebo for uses other than arthritis. Patients received either 400 milligrams once a day, 200 mg twice a day, or 400 mg twice a day. The primary goal of the pooled analysis was an assessment of the combined risk of cardiovascular death, heart attack, stroke, heart failure or events involving blood clots. Researchers found the heart risk was lowest at the 400 mg daily dose. They found nearly a two-fold risk of adverse heart events with the 200 mg twice daily dose and that jumped to about a three-fold risk at the 400 mg twice daily dose. “Even 400 mg once a day showed elevated risk” in the high-risk population, Solomon said, adding he could not extrapolate whether doses lower than 400 mg cut risk further. The increased risk was not affected by aspirin use, researchers said. “Most of the data used in this pooled analysis have previously been published and are consistent with what we already know about the cardiovascular risks of Celebrex and other prescription arthritis pain relievers,” said Gail Cawkwell, Pfizer’s executive medical director. “The analysis doesn’t provide any new conclusions on the FDA-approved doses of Celebrex, including the most commonly prescribed dose of 200 mg daily,” she said. Dr. Steven Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic, who has a study on lower doses underway, added: “There aren’t long-term randomized placebo-controlled trials for that dose, The only way we’re ever going to answer these questions is with good randomized prospective data,” he said. “We’ll tell it like it is when the data is in.” Claim: Celebrex risky in high-risk patients, study finds.

Answer: Doctors should prescribe the lowest doses of Celebrex possible in patients at high risk of heart problems, researchers who did a combined analysis of six studies of the Pfizer Inc pain drug said on Monday.


Question: Paragraph: The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), a series of laws affecting multiple areas of the Federal Code, was first signed into law in 1994. The act provided federal funds for services offered to survivors of domestic and sexual violence, created the Office on Violence Against Women within the Justice Department, enhanced the training of law enforcement officers in the area of sexual and domestic violence, and strengthened penalties for certain sexual crimes (including requiring perpetrators of sexual violence to pay restitution to their victims). VAWA has been reauthorized several times since 1994, often with adjustments or modifications. In December 2018, authorization for the Violence Against Women Act lapsed during negotiations over ending a federal government shutdown, as reported by Washington Post at the time: The Violence Against Women Act expired at midnight as the government shut down and temporarily cut off funding for programs that help victims of sexual assault, domestic abuse and stalking. The blow to the landmark 1994 law came after multiple short-term extensions. The act was due to expire on Sept. 30 and on Dec. 7 but received a last-minute reprieve each time. Its programs are funded under the Justice Department, which is affected by the shutdown. VAWA was briefly reauthorized on a temporary basis as part of a continuing resolution passed on 25 January 2019, but it lapsed once again three weeks later. In April 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives introduced legislation to reauthorize the act with modifications that, among other things, lowered the criminal threshold for barring the purchase of firearms by closing the so-called “boyfriend loophole” and restricting the sale of guns to individuals convicted of stalking, as described by NPR: The most controversial [modifications to VAWA] are new provisions to lower the criminal threshold to bar someone from buying a gun to include misdemeanor convictions of domestic abuse or stalking charges. Current law applies to felony convictions. It would also close the so-called “boyfriend loophole” to expand existing firearm prohibitions to include dating partners convicted of abuse or stalking charges. The National Rifle Association (NRA) opposed these putative changes (which we have displayed in full below this fact check) and as a result called on lawmakers to oppose reauthorization of VAWA as proposed in a House bill: The NRA called for a “no” vote and notified Capitol Hill offices this week that the organization was “scoring” how lawmakers vote on the bill to measure future ratings and endorsements in elections … NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said the group supports the underlying VAWA law, just not the new gun restrictions. “The gun control lobby and anti-gun politicians are intentionally politicizing the Violence Against Women Act as a smokescreen to push their gun control agenda,” she told NPR. Gun rights activists say the new provisions are too low of a threshold to deny someone a constitutional right for the rest of their life. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, in a speech delivered on the floor of the House, highlighted a National Coalition Against Domestic Violence statistic showing that presence of a gun increased the risk of homicide in a domestic violence situations by 500%: According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, on average, nearly 20 people every minute, 20 people every minute, are physically abused by an intimate partner in the United States. That is a tragedy and a crisis. One-in-four women experience severe intimate partner physical violence, and one-in-seven have been stalked by an intimate partner to the point at which she felt very fearful, or believed that she or someone close to her would be harmed or killed. The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk – hear me – increases the risk of homicide by 500%. That is why we aim to close gun loopholes by expanding the definition of intimate partners to include dating or former dating partners. It is also why this bill has language preventing anybody convicted of a misdemeanor crime of stalking from obtaining a gun. On 4 April 2019, the House passed the inclusion of the gun purchase amendments to VAWA in the face of the NRA’s opposition, as reported by the New York Times: The House … rebuffed a furious lobbying campaign by the National Rifle Association and approved a revamped Violence Against Women Act that would expand law enforcement’s ability to restrict gun purchases by convicted domestic abusers. The legislation passed easily, 263-158, but the divided vote came on what was once a broadly bipartisan measure first passed in 1994. In recent years, partisan rancor over efforts to expand the protections of the legislation have clouded efforts to renew it, and this year, the divide came over gun control. This legislation headed to the Senate, where, the Times reported, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein and Republican Senator Joni Ernst would lead an effort to pass their version of VAWA’s reintroduction. Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code (Existing text, Deleted text, Added text): (32) The term “intimate partner” means, with respect to a person, the spouse of the person, a former spouse of the person, an individual who is a parent of a child of the person, and an individual who cohabitates or has cohabited with the person. (A) means, with respect to a person, the spouse of the person, a former spouse of the person, an individual who is a parent of a child of the person, and an individual who cohabitates or has cohabited with the person; and (B) includes— (i) a dating partner or former dating partner (as defined in section 2266); and (ii) any other person similarly situated to a spouse who is protected by the domestic or family violence laws of the State or tribal jurisdiction in which the injury occurred or where the victim resides.”; (33) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the term “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” means an offense that— (i) is a misdemeanor under Federal, State, municipal, and or Tribal  law; and (ii) has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, intimate partner, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, intimate partner, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim. (34) (A) the term ‘misdemeanor crime of stalking’ means an offense that— (i) is a misdemeanor crime of stalking under Federal, State, Tribal, or municipal law; and (ii) is a course of harassment, intimidation, or surveillance of another person that— (I) places that person in reasonable fear of material harm to the health or safety of— (aa) that person; (bb) an immediate family member (as defined in section 115) of that person; (cc) a household member of that person; or (dd) a spouse or intimate partner of that person; or (II) causes, attempts to cause, or would reasonably be expected to cause emotional distress to a person described in item (aa), (bb), (cc), or (dd) of subclause (I). (B) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter, unless— (i) the person was represented by counsel in the case, or knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel in the case; and (ii) in the case of a prosecution for an offense described in this paragraph for which a person was entitled to a jury trial in the jurisdiction in which the case was tried, either— (I) the case was tried by a jury; or (II) the person knowingly and intelligently waived the right to have the case tried by a jury, by guilty plea or otherwise. (C) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.”. Section 922 of title 18, United States Code (Existing text, Deleted text, Added text) (1) (d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or described in subsection (g)(8); (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. ; or (10) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of stalking.” […] (g) It shall be unlawful for any person — […] (8) who is subject to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. (8) who is subject to a court order— (A) that was issued— (i) after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; or (ii) in the case of an ex parte order, relative to which notice and opportunity to be heard are provided— (I) within the time required by State, tribal, or territorial law; and (II) in any event within a reasonable time after the order is issued, sufficient to protect the due process rights of the person; (B) that restrains such person from— (i) harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; or (ii) intimidating or dissuading a witness from testifying in court; and (C) that— (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such individual described in subparagraph (B); or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such individual described in subparagraph (B) that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; (9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. ; or Claim: In April 2019, when the U.S. House of Representatives voted to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, the NRA opposed the move due to the addition of amendments that would lower the criminal threshold required to bar someone from buying a gun.

Answer:
(10) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of stalking.