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.

Q: Paragraph: "Even though the majority of strokes and heart attacks occur in people who are 65 and older, studies have found that cholesterol-lowering drugs are not prescribed as often for older people as they are for younger people," Dr. Seemant Chaturvedi of Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, said in a statement. "These results show that using these drugs is just as beneficial for people who are over 65 as they are for younger people." In April, British researchers reported in the New England Journal of Medicine that treating high blood pressure in people 80 and older cut their risk of fatal strokes and other heart problems. Statins cut the risk of heart attack or stroke by lowering levels of fatty substances such as low-density lipoprotein, or "bad" cholesterol, and triglycerides. They also raise levels of high-density lipoprotein or "good" cholesterol. They include atorvastatin, made by Pfizer Inc under the brand name Lipitor; pravastatin or Pravachol, made by Bristol-Myers Squibb; fluvastatin, made by Novartis AG under the brand name Lescol, and several others. Seemant and colleagues studied 4,731 people 18 and older who had a recent stroke or a mini-stroke as part of a study sponsored by Pfizer. About half were over 65, with an average age of 72. The other half were under 65 and had an average age of 54. In each age group, about half were taking Lipitor and the other half were on a placebo. The statin worked equally well in both groups, the researchers reported in the journal Neurology. It lowered LDL cholesterol by about 61 points in the group of older patients and by about 59 points in the younger age group. Stroke is the No. 3 killer in the United States behind heart disease and cancer. The U.S. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention estimate 780,000 Americans will have strokes this year. They will kill 150,000 people and permanently disable 15 percent to 30 percent of survivors. Claim: Statins fight stroke in older people too.

A: Older people who have had a stroke or mini-stroke benefit from cholesterol-lowering statin drugs just as much as younger people do, U.S. researchers said on Wednesday.
****
Q: Paragraph: In 2004, a virulent form of canine influenza surfaced at greyhound racing parks in Florida. In that outbreak, it infected 24 greyhounds and killed 8 more. The contagion has since been confirmed in seven states, having killed greyhounds at tracks in Florida, Massachusetts, Arizona, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Texas and Iowa. It is highly contagious, spreading through shared items (like toys) or human contact (kennel workers have carried the virus home with them), in addition to dog-to-dog encounters. The virus that has been felling greyhounds is an H3N8 flu closely related to an equine flu strain. It is not related to typical human flus or to the H5N1 avian flu that killed about 100 people in Asia. Several states including Florida, Minnesota, and Louisiana,among others reported another rash of cases in late June 2017. According to the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), the outbreaks in those states were caused by a strain known as canine H3N2 influenza, which was first reported in Chicago in 2015. An AVMA spokesperson, Sharon Granskog, told us in a phone interview that such outbreaks can be seasonal in nature: There's a time of year when more dogs are in contact with one another, they're at dog parks, it's highly contagious. We suggest that you make sure if your dog is going to a dog park that it's healthy and talk to a veterinarian about whether or not a vaccine would be right for your dog. The disease was first reported in the U.S. in 2004 after several racing greyhounds in Florida contracted it. The AVMA said that they believed that the dogs became infected by a strain of H3N8 influenza, which is particular to horses. Dr. Ruben Donis, chief of molecular genetics for the influenza branch of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, confirmed that the flu jumped from horses to dogs, "a very rare event of considerable scientific interest" and added "at this point, there is no reason to panic." How that jump occurred is either not known at this point or is not being commented on, so the email's assertion that the eating of raw meat was to blame should be regarded as speculation rather than as fact. While there is always the possibility the virus might again jump species, this time to humans, this strain of flu has been present in horses for more than 40 years without any documented cases of humans catching it or the related canine flu. But there are vaccines available for both the equine and canine flus. Many readers have been confused (and unnecessarily frightened) by the difference between the terms "morbidity rate" and "mortality rate." The morbidity rate describes the percentage of animals that will contract the disease after being exposed to the virus, but, despite its name, the term has nothing to do with the death rate associated with the flu. (Nearly 80 percent of dogs exposed to the canine flu virus will contract only a mild form of the disease which mimics kennel cough, a type of canine bronchitis that is rarely serious.) The mortality rate, which describes the percentage of animals that will die after contracting the disease, is in the much lower range of 5 to 8 percent, according to Dr. Cynda Crawford, the veterinary immunologist who first isolated the canine flu virus: The mortality rate is around 5 to 8 percent, says veterinarian Cynda Crawford at the University of Florida's College of Veterinary Medicine in Gainesville. "I want to stress that despite the rumors that are out on the Internet and other such sources, this disease is not as deadly as people want to make it," Crawford said. She says she receives more than 30 calls a day from concerned veterinarians. Dr. Crawford describes the contagion as producing in dogs "a moist, productive cough that ends in a gagging response, that will persist for one to four weeks, despite treatment with antibiotics or cough suppressants. Some dogs develop a thick, yellow discharge from the nose. A very few dogs will spike a high fever, between 105 to 107 degrees Fahrenheit. They become lethargic and weak, with rapid, shallow breathing. This is likely to progress to pneumonia." Other veterinary experts have estimated the potential death rate as between 1 and 10 percent, with the higher percentage applying to very young, very old, or infirm dogs. Presence of the virus in dogs can be confirmed only through blood tests performed at the Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine. Results of such blood screens take as long as two weeks. Dr. Crawford recommends keeping dogs showing symptoms of respiratory disease at home and away from other dogs for up to two weeks. The CDC, which is tracking the disease, issued no official recommendations. Because the symptoms of this as yet unnamed virus somewhat mimic bordetella, a less virulent illness commonly known as kennel cough, it is hard to ascertain how widespread the flu has become. On the flipside of that confusion, vets in various parts of the country have been thrown into a panic when encountering run-of-the-mill kennel cough in any of their clients, fearing they are instead confronting cases of the new flu. The Animal Health Diagnostic Center at Cornell University inserted a caution against such hair-trigger diagnosis within a larger advisory about the potential for the flu to have spread to the state of New York: "One should not lose sight of the fact that all respiratory infections in dogs are not due to canine influenza virus. Adhering to the 'band wagon' approach could result in the failure to appropriately treat dogs with infections previously known to cause respiratory problems in dogs." We found this good advice for vets and dog owners in our inbox one day: PLEASE DO NOT PANIC, and do NOT assume that every cough is Canine Influenza. Kennel Cough from parainfluenza and Bordetella is more common. However, the Animal Health Diagnostic Center at Cornell is interested in receiving samples from dogs that appear to have kennel cough. Clinical Signs: Since this is a new pathogen in dogs, there is currently no natural immunity present in the unexposed canine population. Almost all exposed dogs will become infected, and nearly 80% have clinical signs. In the mild form the dogs will have a cough that persists for 10 to 21 days. The cough may be soft and moist or dry. Many dogs will have a nasal discharge from a secondary bacterial infection and low grade fever. The nasal discharge responds to broad spectrum antibiotics. In the severe form with pneumonia there is a high fever (104-106 F) and respiratory difficulties. X-rays may show consolidation. These dogs often have secondary bacterial infections and have responded to broad-spectrum antibiotics and supportive care including intravenous hydration. The incubation period is two to five days and dogs may shed virus for seven to 10 days. The disease can spread rapidly throughout a boarding kennel. Dogs that are coughing SHOULD NOT BE BROUGHT TO SHOWS or Performance EVENTS. In a 1 June 2017 advisory to its members, the AVMA suggested that vaccines against the H3N2 virus strain "might be another prevention option" for dogs who were at least 8 weeks old and also recommended isolating dogs who could be infected, as well as not sharing toys between dogs and disinfecting shelter, veterinary, and boarding facilities. Claim: A virus deadly to dogs has been spreading in the canine population of the U.S.

A: Has a virus deadly to dogs been spreading in the canine population of the U.S.?
****
Q: Paragraph: The article did notinclude information about the cost of this medication. According to recent Consumer Reports data, Lexapro at the dosages studied here would cost about $110 a month. This significant cost is something to bear in mind considering the modest benefit the drug confers compared to a sugar pill. The story quantifies the benefits of treatment in appropriate absolute terms. It explains that women taking theantidepressant went from about 10 hot flashes per day to5.26 hot flashes a day, a decline of 47% or about4.5fewer hot flashes a day. By comparison,women taking the placebo reported 6.43 hot flashes a day after treatment, a decline of 33% or about3 fewer a day. The story also quantifies the severity of the hot flashes in terms that are useful to the reader. The story perhaps could have provided some contextregarding the size of the benefit compared with placebo, which was relatively small. It also could have noted noted thatsymptom reductions were much more modest thanthose seen with hormone treatment. The story wasn't thorough enough in its exploration of potential harms. The only adverse effect noted is the potential loss of libido discussed in the last line of the story. At one point, the story seems to dismiss thepotential for harm by noting that "no serious adverse events were reported" in the study. However, minor adverse effects take on greater importance when a drug provides only a modest benefit over placebo which is the case with this medication. The study should have provided more detail on what harms were observed (even "minor" ones), and how frequently. Lexapro, when used for depression, commonly results in gastrointestinal disturbance such as nausea, vomiting, loose stools, and indigestion. A variety ofother adverse effects are possible, including include difficulty sleeping and headaches. It is quite conceivable that an increase in theseproblems might outweigh the small benefit associated with the reduction in hot flashes, so the storyshould have provided this information. Another issue not addressed by the story is the potential for uncomfortable withdrawal symptoms when stopping this medication. This point is particularly relevant to make here because Lexapro hasn't been extensively studied in women who are healthy and don't have symptoms of depression. We know that some people with depression experience withdrawal symptoms after they stop taking the drug, but we don'thave much evidence on what happens to healthy non-depressed people when they stop taking it. The risk of a discontinuation syndrome increases the longerantidepressant therapy lasts, so an 8-week study may not capture the problems that womenmay experience with longer-term use of Lexapro for relief of hot flash symptoms. The story could have mentioned thatwomen should never abruptly stop taking an antidepressantmedication like Lexapro, as this can increase the risk ofmore severe withdrawal symptoms. The story includesenough details about how the study was conducted and what the researchers observed to earn a satisfactory. It notes that this was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study the "gold standard" of medical evidence. It explains that outcomes were based on women'srecords of how often and how severe their hot flashes were a relevant clinical endpoint. Although the story notes that women in the study tookthe drug for 8 weeks, it could have explained that 8 weeksisn't longto meet FDA criteria for a hot flash treatment; the FDA requiresthat benefits be maintained for 12-weeks. The study also should have explained that we have no idea how well these drugs will work over the longer term (menopause symptoms can last for years) or whether problems might occur with longer use (more onthis in the Harmscriterion). Lastly, it would have been useful to havesome discussion of how the treatment affected general health-related quality of life; this would have helped readersunderstand the importance of the observed benefit on hot flashes when considering overall health/function. Menopause has been the subject of considerable disease mongering over the years see here for some examples. This story, though, confines the discussion to women whose symptoms are severe enough to disrupt their lives and quality of life. That seems to be a fair basisupon which toidentify women who might be candidates for some kind of medical treatment ofmenopause symptoms. The story could haveprovided data on how many women suffer from moderate to severe hot flash symptoms, to give a betteridea of how widespread the problem is. The story quotes an independent expert who seems generally supportive of antidepressant therapy for hot flashes. While we don't think it would have been difficult to find someonewith a more skeptical takeon the results, which would have added value for readers,the storydid enough to satisfy this aspectof the criterion. (UPDATED COMMENT INSERTED ON 2/24/11: We originally but erroneously wrote that this story failed to disclose potential conflicts of interest. But it actually did, when it stated:"The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging and other sources. Freeman reports having received research support from Forest Laboratories Inc., and other pharmaceutical companies that make antidepressants. For this study, Forest, which makes escitalopram, provided the drug and placebo pills but no funding.") The story mentions that hormone therapy is another treatment option for hot flashes, but it doesn't provide enough informationto allow the reader to compare the two approaches. The story should have mentioned that hormone therapy seems to be more effective than antidepressants at reducing hot flash symptoms, although the risks may also be greater. It also could have mentioned that complementary and alternative medicine approaches are often used for hot flashes. Claim: Antidepressant May Help Ease Hot Flashes

A:
In contrast with the poorly sourced blog post, this storyincludes comments from two experts who providevaluable context about the findings of a recent trial. And while the discussion ofharms was stillinadequate, this story did at least mention the possibility of harmfrom the treatment and described one of the most common adverse effects. The story also did a good job of describingthedesign of the study and reporting the benefits in a way that readers can understand and use. Itwould have benefited from some cost data, a better comparison of antidepressants with hormone therapy, and more emphasis on the short-term nature of the study (8 weeks) considering thathot flashsymptoms can last for years. We need more treatment options for women withdisruptive menopausal symptoms. Although hormone treatment is effective, many women are reluctant to take hormones because of the increase in potentially serious adverse effects associated with their use. Emerging research suggests that antidepressantsmay be an alternate option, but the study discussed in this story found thatLexapro is only slightly more effective than a placebo for reducing hot flashes. In addition, use of antidepressants also may cause a variety of adverse effects which, while less serious than the risksof hormone therapy, can be troublesomeenough to causepeople to stoptaking themedication. Stories should provide this full context to helpwomenmake the best possible choiceabout how to manage their symptoms.
****