instruction:
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: The Idaho State Journal reports that last year there were nearly 6,600 STD cases, including HIV, up from fewer than 6,300 in 2016. Cases are also up nationally, with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announcing last week that nearly 2.3 million cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis were diagnosed in the United States in 2017. Kimberly Matulonis-Edgar of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare says experts in the state and across the country are struggling to understand what's driving the increase. The most prevalent STDs reported nationally and in Idaho are gonorrhea and chlamydia. State health officials say that the rate of reported gonorrhea cases in Southeast Idaho fell about 14 percent from a year ago, but jumped more than 200 percent in south-central Idaho. ___ Information from: Idaho State Journal, http://www.journalnet.com Claim: Health experts alarmed by jump in STDs in Idaho.
answer:
A jump in reports of sexually transmitted diseases in Idaho has health experts worried.

question:
Paragraph: "The story mentions that 30 capsules ofOSR#1 cost $60. It would have been nice had the story also includedinformation about the amount of active ingredient per capsuleand the manufacturer's recommendeddosage. This wouldhave allowed readers to make a better calculation as to the financial impact oftreatment. This is critical information consideringthese costs will be borne out of pocket by anyone usingOSR #1. The storyjuxtaposes a light-hearted""success story""with information about the industrial uses of OSR #1 for removing toxic heavy metals from contaminated soil. This is a clever way ofway of emphasizingthat the use of this product is based entirely on anecdote. The storyclearly states that there is no credible evidence supporting the efficacy of the product. The harms of this product are impossible to quantify, given that it doesn't seem to have been studied in humans or in animals. The story notes that otherchelating drugs carry ""significant risks""and ""can strip the body of metals necessary for health."" It would have been nice to see more specifics about what chelators can do, but the story satisfies the critierion. The story states that medical searches turned up no papers about OSR#1, and that the companywhich makesthe productprovided nopublished studies about its use. The story rightly suggests that this total lack of evidenceshould be deeply troubling. The story doesn't exaggerate the prevalence or severity of autism, or of the potentially toxic compounds sometimes used to treat it. The story quotes multiple experts on pharmacology and an FDA spokesperson. It also quotes from an interview with Boyd Haley, president of the company which makes OSR#1. It attempted to get a reaction from Kim Stagliano, an OSR #1 proponent, but this effort was not successful. While the story mentions that there other are chelation drugs out there, it could have mentioned that there areeducational strategies which can be helpful for children with autism and which have betterevidence to support their use. The story states that OSR#1 is, according to the manufacturer'swebsite, available onlythrough dentists' or doctors' offices. Itnotes, however,that theTribune was able to buy 30 capsules of the productdirectly from a compounding pharmacy listed on the site. We areimpressed that the Tribune went to these lengths toestablish the product's availability. The story provides a fairly detailedpedigree for OSR #1and discusses itssimilarity to other chelation therapiesused in the treatment of autism. It also gives credit to blogger Kathleen Seidel for being the first to raiseconcerns aboutOSR #1 in her blog, Neurodiversity.com The story is well sourced and is not based on a press release." Claim: Industrial chemical OSR#1 used as autism treatment
answer:
"The product known as OSR #1 contains a chemical originally intended for clean-up of toxic waste at industrial sites. This story by the Chicago Tribune (which was republished by the Los Angeles Times) examineshow,despite a total lack of any researchon the product in humans,OSR#1 ended up being marketedas a ""dietary supplement"" for childrenwith autism. The story does an especially good job of pointing out the regulatory gaps whichcan allowrisky, poorly researchedproductsto be sold as ""cures"" to desperate parents and caregivers. It's an example of health journalism doing what it'ssupposed to do, and doing it well. Autism is a serious disorder which affects a growing number of children and their families and for which there are few goodtreatment options. Thisis asituation ripe for abuse by overzealous advocates andunscrupulous marketersof uNPRoven therapies. AsBoyd Haley, president of the company thatmake thethe OSR#1 supplement, puts it:""There are so many snake oil salesmen out there, it's just incredible."""

question:
Paragraph: While the story included a calculation that suggested that the intervention was as cost effective as strategies screening for elevated LDL, the story failed to indicate the actual cost to the consumer. Although the story mentioned the number of people in the two study groups who had heart-related death, heart attacks and other serious cardiac problems during the course of the study, it could have a done a better job at clarifying that this represented a small percentage of affected individuals. A more direct statement an juxtaposition of absolute versus relative risk reduction would have been helpful. The story indicated that there was an increased number of people taking Crestor who developed diabetes during the study. The story mentioned that the results of the study were presented at a recent meeting and that the results of the study had been published. It described that the study population was a group of 17,802 individuals, all of whom had elevated levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and that it was a randomized study of individuals given 20 mg of rosuvastin (Crestor) compared with a placebo group. The story did temper the enthusiasm for more testing and more treatment by including skeptical comments from editorial writer Hlatky. The story included comments from several individuals who were not involved in the study and provided some cautionary perspective about the implications of the study. And while this piece relied heavily on comments from Dr. Ridker, the story did mention that he was an inventor of the test for CRP was also the recipient of funding from the manufacturer of the study drug. The two main issues in the study reported on was the use of CRP to identify candidates who could benefit from lipid lowering and then the use of Crestor to lower lipids in these individuals to lower cardiovascular disease risk. In terms of treatment options,the story indicated the uncertainty about whether the outcomes observed were the result of the specific drug study or could be obtained with the use of any in the statin class of drugs. It also mentioned that the reduction in CRP was not associated with the decrease in LDL levels seen in the study participants. There was no discussion, however, about what, if any, other means for lowering CRP were available. The story did mention that there was little known about what the long term impact of maintaining very low levels of LDL cholesterol. From the story, it was clear that Crestor, the medication reported on, was currently available. In addition, the story indicated that it did not have FDA approval for use in the way it was employed in the study. The story reported that the study indicated a new target population for a medication that was currently approved for use. However, the story failed to note that other studies (e.g. AFCAPS) have found benefit from lipid lowering in patients with no history of heart disease and non-elevated LDL levels, using the statin lovastatin, a drug with is now available as generic. The reductions reported were somewhat smaller, but not radically different. Does not rely exclusively on a press release. Claim: Cholesterol Drug Cuts Heart Risk in Healthy Patients
answer:
This story described the results of the JUPITER study which found that use of the statin medication Crestor reduced the risk of heart-related death, heart attacks and other serious cardiac problems in people who would be calculated to be at low risk of these but who had elevated levels of C-reactive protein. The story met most of our criteria, but could have emphasized that the findings are those of a single study and that results need to be replicated before they can be assumed to have widespread application. It also could have mentioned that there have been other studies with less expensive drugs with similar results. It is good that the story included skeptical comments from editorial writer Hlatky, something that a surprising number of stories ignored or failed to include. We are troubled by the high placement of the impressive-sounding 44% relative risk reduction figure, with the absolute risk reduction given later in the piece, but not juxtaposed to the more impressive-sounding statistic. We think readers need more clear help processing such stats. There was also only a brief mention of the troubling diabetes rate in the Crestor group.