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.

Let me give you an 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
The answer to this example can be: 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.
Here is why: 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.

OK. solve this:
Paragraph: On 19 July 2017, the Finnish news web site Yle reported that a group of Finnish researchers had developed a vaccine for Type 1 diabetes, and that human trials were set to begin in 2018: A vaccine for type 1 diabetes developed by Finnish researchers will be tested on mainly Finnish human subjects in late 2018, researchers announced on Tuesday. The scientists first found that the prototype works effectively and safely on mice, and now saythat the vaccine could be in mainstream use within eight years if the coming rounds of tests prove successful. One skeptical reader asked us to check out the story. Yle is Finland's public broadcasting corporation (akin to NPR or the BBC). T he names of the lead researchers and their universities are real, the announcement of vaccine trials is real, and the story is true. On 18 July 2017, the University of Tampere in Finland announced that Professor of Virology Heikki Hyoty and his team of researchers had identified a particular strand of enteroviruses (viruses transmitted through the intestines) linked to Type 1 diabetes, and developed a vaccine against them. "Already now it is known that the vaccine is effective and safe on mice," Hyoty said. "The developing process has now taken a significant leap forward as the next phase is to study the vaccine in humans." The university's statement continued: In the first clinical phase, the vaccine will be studied in a small group of adults to ensure the safety of the vaccine. In the second phase, the vaccine will be studied in children and the aim is to investigate both the safety of the vaccine and its effectiveness against enteroviruses. In the third phase, the aim is to investigate whether the vaccine could be used to prevent the onset of Type 1 Diabetes. However, it can take about eight years in order to certainly know whether the vaccine prevents Type 1 Diabetes. Hyoty added that the vaccine would not cure existing cases of Type 1 diabetes, but that if it is successful, it would protect from other infections caused by enteroviruses including the common cold and meningitis. Another pioneer in this research, Professor Mikael Knip from the University of Helsinki, told Ylethat the vaccine could have massive financial and public health benefits: It is estimated that the additional cost of care for one child with diabetes over their lifetime is about a million euros. This vaccine could prevent at least half of new cases, which amounts to some 250 million euros in annual savings. Claim: In July 2017, it was announced that Finnish researchers would begin human trials of a Type 1 diabetes vaccine in 2018.
Answer:
The American biopharmaceutical company Provention Bio, which is based in Lebanon, New Jersey,is funding the continuation of Hyoty and Knip's research, after reportedly receiving $28.4 million in financing, which it will disburse between the Type 1 diabetes vaccine trials and a second project.