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: The story notes the an additional $20 per mammogram with CAD when billed to Medicare. With the newer technology, costs to public health would increase via additional screening and unnecessary biopsies, and treatment would increase for cancers that may never become problematic (i.e. some forms of DCIS or ductal carcinoma in situ). The story provides data that there was little positive difference between radiologists' and CAD detection of cancer via mammogram images. However, the story does not mention results of any other evaluations of the technology (e.g. how it has been used in UK and other countries where results did show benefit in terms of increased detection of cancer). The story mentions that the newer technology may result in over treatment as there are more false positives with the CAD technology vs. radiologists' analysis alone. In a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, there was 20% increase in biopsy rates after mammographers used the CAD software. The article does not present the study well. It was an observational study of select practices in the US – not randomized, not controlled and there was no information about how representative these samples were, especially the centers that used CAD. The story presented some key results but virtually nothing about the study design. The story does not engage in disease mongering or suggest that women should opt for mammograms at centers that have the new CAD technology. The story provides many clinical perspectives on the CAD technology. The reporter interviews not only the study author and the author of an accompanying NEJM editorial, but also clinicians and radiologists who talk about use of CAD in practice. Interviews with clinicians who provide their rationale for not using the CAD technology provide excellent balance to the story. The story discusses the continued benefit of mammography for early detection of breast cancer. The story highlights that computer-assisted screening does not replace human judgment in interpretation of radiological films. The story mentions that about 30% of mammography centers use computer-aided detection (CAD) technology. The story mentions that CAD is a newer method of reading mammographies, but in a recent observational trial it was no better–and may have produced more false positives–than images read and interpreted by radiologists alone. The story does not rely solely on a press release for information, and there is independent reporting and sources cited not affiliated with the recently published data on CAD. Claim: Doubts on mammogram software

A: This story provides readers with a balanced discussion of the potential downside of incorporating newer technologies into routine practice too soon. Specifically, the story reports evidence recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine that computer-aided detection (CAD), a newer method of reading mammographies, was no better–and may have produced more false positives–than images read and interpreted by radiologists alone. There was 20% increase in biopsies after mammographers used the CAD software, and many of these women had non-malignant lesions. The article did not adequately describe the study. It was an observational study of select practices in the US – not randomized, not controlled and there was no information about how representative these samples were, especially in the centers that used CAD. The story reported on key results, but without adequately explaining how they were arrived at. The story provides multiple perspectives on the CAD technology in breast cancer detection. The reporter interviews not only the lead author of the NEJM study, but also the author of an accompanying editorial on this newer technology, as well as radiologists who talk about CAD in their practice. Interviews with clinicians who offer a rationale for not using the CAD technology give excellent balance to the story and provide an often overlooked perspective: newer and more high-tech devices are not necessarily better. The story notes the additional $20 per mammogram cost to Medicare with CAD. With the newer technology, costs to public health would increase via additional screening and unnecessary biopsies, and treatment would likely increase for cancers that may never become problematic (i.e. some forms of DCIS or ductal carcinoma in situ). Importantly, the story discuses the continued benefit of mammography for early detection of breast cancer. The story highlights that computer-assisted screening does not replace human judgment in interpretation of radiological films. More screening centers with the CAD technology are available; however, the new technology may not serve women any better. Traditional mammography with a radiologist interpreting the results may be more accurate and result in fewer unnecessary tests and biopsies.
****
Q: Paragraph: In May 2020, as demonstrators in various parts of the U.S. continued to advocate for the lessening of social-distancing measures and forced business closures enacted to combat the spread of the coronavirus pandemic, social media users circulated the following photograph, said to have been taken at an “end the lockdown” protest:  Many viewers found the protester’s sign equating the mandatory wearing of personal protective equipment (PPE) such as face masks to muzzles worn by dogs or slaves to be insulting, and they questioned whether this image was authentic or whether the wording of the sign had been digitally altered. Claim: "A photograph shows a protester against pandemic stay-at-home orders holding a sign declaring that ""muzzles are for dogs and slaves."

A: But the photograph is indeed real, and was taken at a protest on May 15, 2020, against California’s stay-at-home order staged at the Humboldt County courthouse in Eureka, California. Kym Kemp’s Redheaded Blackbelt blog features the original photograph, along with a snapshot of another demonstrator holding the same sign.
****
Q: Paragraph: Doctors in India have been successful in treating coronavirus with a combination of drugs (Lopinavir, Retonovir, Oseltamivir along with Chlorphenamine) and are going to suggest the same medicine globally. India’s ministry of health has advised that the anti-HIV drugs, Lopinavir and Retonovir, are used in some groups of Covid-19 patients. But it is unclear how successful this treatment has been. The other two drugs from the claim are not mentioned in their guidance. Researchers at the Erasmus Medical Center claim to have found an antibody against coronavirus. Researchers in the Netherlands have released research, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, on an antibody against the new coronavirus. A 103 year-old Chinese grandmother has made a full recovery from Covid-19 after being treated for 6 days in Wuhan, China This has been widely reported in the media. Apple has reopened all 42 China stores. Correct. On 13 March 2020, Apple announced that it had reopened all 42 stores in mainland China after a closure of almost six weeks. Cleveland Clinic developed a Covid-19 test that gives results in hours, not days. The number of new cases in South Korea is declining. Italy is hit hard, experts say, only because they have the oldest population in Europe. Whilst it is true that an older population has contributed to a high number of deaths in Italy, it may not be the sole reason. Scientists in Israel are likely to announce the development of a coronavirus vaccine. Scientists in Israel and elsewhere are working on developing a vaccination to prevent the spread of the new coronavirus, but it won’t be ready for the public for over a year. Three Maryland coronavirus patients fully recovered and are able to return to everyday life. Correct. On 13 March 2020, Montgomery County, Maryland confirmed that three residents who previously had the virus no longer tested positive. A network of Canadian scientists are making excellent progress in Covid-19 research. At least one group of Canadian scientists has recently announced some progress in understanding Covid-19. A San Diego biotech company is developing a Covid-19 vaccine in collaboration with Duke University and National University of Singapore. Tulsa County's first positive Covid-19 case has recovered. This individual has had two negative tests, which is the indicator of recovery. Correct, this patient has recovered according to official Tulsa County sources. Two negative tests is one of three official indicators of recovery among people with Covid-19 (who showed symptoms). All seven patients who were getting treated for Covid-19 at Safdarjung hospital in New Delhi have recovered. There is a news story reporting that seven patients in this hospital in New Delhi had recovered. However, these were not the only Covid-19 patients in the city. Plasma from newly recovered patients from Covid -19 can treat others infected by Covid-19. This is being used as a treatment in some countries, but clinical trials have not yet proved that this is effective. Claim 1 of 15 Claim: A network of Canadian scientists are making excellent progress in Covid-19 research.

A:
At least one group of Canadian scientists has recently announced some progress in understanding Covid-19.
****
