Given the task definition, example input & output, solve the new input case.
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: Paragraph: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release.". Claim: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Output: We really don't understand why only a handful of mainstream news organizations reported this story. (At least in what we found.) The most common emergency surgery in the world. Rushing to emergency surgery may not carry any benefit. Waiting a few hours may be safer and less expensive. Why is that not a story? We applaud USA Today for finding time and space and clearly it didn't need to free up much space to do a good job telling the story. The story explains that as many as 300,0 appendectomies are done each year in the US. That figure alone explains why this is an important study to report.
The output is an analysis of the claim while considering the paragraph as a reference. The output highlights the key features presented in the paragraph and explains the claim accordingly.

New input case for you: Paragraph: In late June and early July 2020, Snopes readers asked whether Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation's foremost immunologist, had stated that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was told to cancel funding for research into how coronavirus infections emerge in humans. Fauci, who leads the NIH National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, made the statement when responding to a question while testifying, along with other coronavirus task force leaders, on June 23, 2020, before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The testimony came as the U.S. experienced a spike in reported COVID-19 cases. Although scientists believe that the novel coronavirus, the virus causing the COVID-19 disease pandemic, had animal origins before it infected humans, the Trump administration has promoted an unfounded conspiracy theory that the disease originated in a lab in Wuhan, China, where it was originally detected in the winter of 2019. U.S. Rep. Marc Veasey asked Fauci about the grant, stating it didn't make any sense to him that funding for research on the coronavirus had been canceled "while we are in the midst of a coronavirus pandemic," asking Fauci if he knew why the decision had been made. "Why was it canceled? It was canceled because the NIH was told to cancel it," Fauci replied. "I don't know the reason, but we were told to cancel it." Claim: Dr. Anthony Fauci said the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was told to cancel a grant funding research for a study investigating how coronaviruses jump from bats to humans.
Output:
The exchange can be heard right after the 4:36 mark in this C-SPAN video.