Analysis Summary:

The article appears mostly accurate, focusing on the paradox of deadly Australian animals contributing to life-saving antivenom programs. The provided sources generally support the premise that venom can be used for therapeutic purposes. There is a slight positive slant towards the benefits of antivenom programs.

Detailed Analysis:

• Claim:** The public antivenom programme saving lives in Australia.
  • Verification Source #3: Supports the general idea that snake venoms (and by extension, antivenom) can be valuable therapeutic tools.
  • Verification Source #4: Supports the idea of saving lives through dealing with Australia's wildlife.
• This claim is generally supported by the provided sources.*
• Claim:** Australia has many deadly animals.
• This is common knowledge and generally accepted. While none of the provided sources *explicitly* state this, Verification Source #4 mentions "Australia's intractable wildlife" which implies dangerous animals.
• This claim is supported by general knowledge and implied by Verification Source #4.*
• Claim:** The venom of deadly animals is used to create antivenom.
  • Verification Source #1: Alludes to the paradox of deadly venom saving lives.
  • Verification Source #3: Explicitly states that snake venoms can be used in drug discovery.
• This claim is supported by Verification Sources #1 and #3.*

Supporting Evidence/Contradictions:

• Verification Source #3: "Traditionally, people believe that snakes are dangerous and represent a threat to their lives...Snake venoms in drug discovery: Valuable Therapeutic Tools for..." This highlights the paradox mentioned in the article title.
• Verification Source #4: "to saving lives … it involves people, animals, the environment and society...frontier war against Australia's intractable wildlife – targeted mainly" This supports the idea of managing dangerous wildlife to save lives.
• The other sources (Verification Source #2 and #5) are not relevant to the claims made in the article snippet.