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.

Example Input: Paragraph: The story focused on costs, including information about the relative cost comparison between what are called “open” surgeries and those done laparoscopically (with a thin flexible tube.) The release summarized how minimally invasive techniques reduced the length of hospital stay and complication rates for patients. “Researchers also found that, on average, the minimally invasive approach reduced length of hospital stay by approximately two days, and open operations were more than $9,000 more expensive than minimally invasive procedures. The researchers also found that laparoscopic procedures were better for patients in terms of fewer complications. Laparoscopic anti-reflux operations were less likely to result in postoperative blood clots, wound complications, surgical site infection, esophageal perforation (which can be life threatening), bleeding, cardiac failure, and death.” We rate this, but just barely, for citing cost differences between the two types of surgery and the average reduction in the number of days a patient must remain hospitalized. We do wish the release had delved more into the specifics of reduced complications. How common were the surgical complications in each surgical method? The release names complications associated with both types of surgery for GERD, while stating that patients undergoing laparoscopic procedures encountered fewer of them: “postoperative blood clots, wound complications, surgical site infection, esophageal perforation (which can be life threatening), bleeding, cardiac failure, and death.” The news release gave details about how the study examined records of about 75,000 patients from 1,000 hospitals to compare outcomes in the records for open vs. the minimally invasive laparoscopic surgeries. That’s all to the good. However, the news release didn’t mention any of the study’s limitations. The key one is that this is a retrospective, observational review of records that isn’t capable of supporting cause and effect statements such as the minimally invasive approach “reduced length of hospital stay by approximately two days.” Nor should this kind of evidence be used as the basis for statements such as laparoscopic procedures “were better for patients” and “should be the standard of care.” Patients receiving open vs. laparascopic procedures could differ in unknown ways, which is why the superiority of one approach over the other should ideally be established by a prospective, randomized controlled trial. There were other limitations outlined in the journal article that were not mentioned in the release. Because the NIS database doesn’t link to hospital records, researchers weren’t able to track and measure outcomes “including complications, readmission, and mortality, occurring after the initial hospital discharge.” The researchers were also unable to determine which open surgeries were “re-dos” of previous surgeries. The potential for errors in coding which procedures were used was also cited as a possible limitation. There was no disease mongering. The release also provided useful context on the prevalence of GERD and further specified that smaller group of patients, from the many heartburn suffers, might be candidates for the surgery. Well done. The release does not list any funding source for the research and the published study notes that authors had “nothing to disclose.”  We’ll rate this not applicable since this is an examination of existing data, and there may have been no additional outside funding. The news release does a good job here. It compares different surgical methods and it also names alternatives for treating GERD such as medications and changes in the diet. It also states which group of patients the surgery is aimed at: “Anti-reflux surgery should be considered in patients who do not achieve complete control of their symptoms [regurgitation or cough] with medications; who do not want to take medications for the rest of their lives; or who experience complications of medical therapy.” It’s clear from the release that both methods of surgery have been widely available nationally and the outcomes of 75,000 surgeries were tracked by the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. The release also notes that “urban academic or teaching hospitals” perform laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery more often than “open” procedures, 54.4 percent versus 45.6 percent. And it recommends that anti-reflux surgery should be performed laparoscopically in specialized centers. The news release was not about a novel procedure and made no claim of novelty. However, this isn’t the first study to examine laparoscopic vs. open surgery. For example, the British Journal of Surgery published results of a randomized trial of the two methods and the Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology published research on long-term outcomes following laparoscopic and open procedures for GERD. We did not observe any unjustifiable language. Claim: Laparoscopic anti-reflux operation for GERD linked to fewer postoperative complications
Example Output: A new study by the American College of Surgeons, a professional organization, compared records for 75,000 patients who underwent surgery for GERD, or gastrointestinal esophageal reflux disease. The study looked at two different surgical procedures and found the less invasive one seemed equally effective, but kept patients in the hospital a shorter time with fewer complications. The news release did a good job of discussing surgical alternatives and costs, which were estimated to be $9,000 lower for the less invasive laparoscopic procedure. The release would have been better had it spelled out some of the study limitations, the key one being that a retrospective, observational review of hospital records — as this study was — isn’t capable of supporting the cause and effect statements sprinkled throughout the release. Millions of Americans complain of occasional heartburn, sometimes called a burning sensation in the throat from food coming back up from the stomach. But some estimates are that about 20 percent of US adults fit the definition of GERD, which means they suffer symptoms at least every week. If patients consider a surgical fix, this study shows that a less-invasive procedure could reduce their complications and shorten their hospital stay. It’s hard to pin down stats on GERD prevalence. A 2014 review of 16 epidemiological studies of GERD prevalence published in the journal Gut suggest GERD prevalence ranges from “18.1%-27.8% in North America, 8.8%-25.9% in Europe, 2.5%-7.8% in East Asia, 8.7%-33.1% in the Middle East, 11.6% in Australia and 23.0% in South America.”

Example Input: Paragraph: Scientists at Vienna University medical school’s Institute of Hygiene and Applied Immunology came to the conclusion after analyzing the water quality at 21 “holy” springs and 18 fonts at churches and chapels at various times of year. Only 14 percent of the water samples from holy sources showed no fecal contamination, and none of the springs could be recommended as a source of drinking water, the study presented to a conference in Vienna this week found. The springs held not only fecal contamination - likely the result of poor hygiene - but many also had agricultural nitrates and bugs that can cause inflammatory diarrhoea. “We need to warn people against drinking from these sources,” microbiologist Alexander Kirschner said in the study. Kirschner said the healing effects ascribed to holy sources arose from the hygienic conditions of the Middle Ages, when water quality in urban areas was generally so poor that people constantly contracted diarrhoea or other conditions. “If they then came across a protected spring in the forest that was not as polluted and drank from it for several days, their symptoms would disappear. So although in those days they were drinking healthier water, given the excellent quality of our drinking water today, the situation is now completely reversed.”  The study noted some ways to help address the problem, including regularly replacing holy water in church fonts. One Italian priest has invented a holy water dispenser that dispenses drops of holy water rather than having the faithful dip a hand in, it noted. Claim: Holy water in Austria unsafe to drink: researchers.
Example Output: Holy water at religious shrines and churches in Austria is often contaminated with fecal matter and bacteria, researchers have found, advising the faithful not to drink it, especially in hospital chapels.

Example Input: Paragraph: Pre-clinical testing by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), comprising injecting ferrets with two potential vaccines, was underway at its high-containment biosecurity facility near Melbourne. The first phase testing would take around three months, CSIRO’s director of health Rob Grenfell told Reuters, adding that any resulting vaccine would not be available to the public before late next year. “We’re still sticking to the optimistic 18 months for delivery of vaccine to the general consumers,” Grenfell said from Melbourne in an interview over Skype. “Now this, of course, may change. There’s a lot of technical challenges that we’re having to go through.”  Grenfell said scientists were working at a “remarkable” pace, reaching the pre-clinical testing stage in about eight weeks, a process that usually takes up to two years. “So, this is the speed that’s going on at the moment.”  More than 850,000 people have been infected with the novel coronavirus across 207 countries and territories, killing more than 42,000. Australia has reported around 5,200 cases and 24 deaths. Grenfell said he expected human trials of one of the two vaccine candidates being tested to begin later this month or early next month. CSIRO said its testing would cover both efficacy and evaluating the best way to administer the vaccine for better protection, including an intra-muscular injection and a nasal spray. CSIRO was the first research organisation outside of China to successfully develop a lab-grown version of the virus to enable pre-clinical studies on COVID-19. In February, it confirmed ferrets reacted to the coronavirus as they shared with humans a particular receptor on their respiratory cells that the virus binds itself to. “If we can stop that virus binding to the ferret receptors in the respiratory system, there’s a very good chance it (vaccine) will work in humans,” Grenfell said. Moderna Inc is the closest publicly known facility to human testing, announcing plans to start a trial in Seattle last month. The U.S. government has cut deals with both Moderna and Johnson & Johnson, and is in talks with at least two other companies, to produce massive quantities of vaccines. Israel has begun testing a COVID-19 vaccine prototype on rodents at its bio-chemical defense laboratory, a source told Reuters on Tuesday. In Australia, thousands of healthcare workers last week entered a trial to see if a century-old vaccine for tuberculosis can fight off the novel coronavirus. Claim: Australia begins pre-clinical testing for coronavirus vaccine.
Example Output:
Australia’s national science agency said on Thursday it has commenced the first stage of testing potential vaccines for COVID-19, as it joins a global race to halt the coronavirus pandemic.