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.

Example Input: Paragraph: "This is the only of the five stories to actually put a dollar figure on the classes. ""Even the cost of a class, which can top $50 a month, is modest compared with the cost of many medications. And unlike drugs, tai chi had no harmful side effects, she says."" Unlike the AP story, which made the mistake of saying that ""symptoms improved significantly for the tai chi group and little for the others,"" this story, at least, presents some numbers. The trouble is, those numbers are in relative terms. So, instead of saying that three months after the classes ended, 27 patients who took tai chi classes felt better and 17 who tried other therapies also felt better, it presents the difference as 82% versus 53%. That seems more dramatic. Absolute data would be more meaningful. Why make the reader do the math? The story is one of the few stories that covered this study to actually point out that ""unlike drugs, tai chi had no harmful side effects."" In the end, because of the comments from Gloria Yeh, the story puts the appropriate caveats on the findings. This sentence does a great job of summarizing some of the problems with the study: ""Yeh notes that researchers don’t know which aspects of tai chi were most helpful: the exercise, deep breathing, relaxation exercise, meeting new friends or learning from a charismatic teacher."" This story actually spends too little time talking about the condition itself. The AP devoted a whole paragraph in an eight paragaph story to the condition, and the LA Times led its piece by describing the disease. USA Today instead went with a very nice description of tai chi, putting the emphasis on the beauty and simiplicity of the therapy rather than the difficulty clinicians have had correctly diagnosing and treating fibromyalgia. This is the only story to include the phrase ""white crane spreads its wings"" or anything like that. The story doesn’t actually quote any of the authors and instead quotes two outside experts, one of whom wrote an accompanying editorial. It fails to fully attribute the comments made by ""Callahan."" It appears that the writer means Leigh F. Callahan, who just completed a study of tai chi for arthritis and was quoted by other reporters. (How did this slip through copy editing? Was this a slip-up only in the online version?) But we can’t give credit to an independent source that the story doesn’t adequately identify. The story does not compare the therapy to existing alternatives or even discuss existing alternatives, aside from a passing reference at the very end to medications. This is the only one of the five stories to note that ""A study in 2007 from the National Institutes of Health found that 2.3 million American adults had used tai chi in the past year."" This doesn’t tell you whether tai chi classes are as readily available in Oklahoma as they are in New Mexico, but it does give you a sense of how popular they are. It is unclear from this story whether tai chi has been studied before for other conditions. It has. It also is unclear what fibromyalgia patients now do for therapy. The LA Times, for example, pointed out that patients in the study stopped taking drugs for treatment, for example. The story does not rely on a news release." Claim: Tai chi may ease fibromyalgia pain
Example Output: "The story does two things better than all the other stories. It puts a dollar figure to the cost of tai chi therapy, and it gives people a better sense of how popular tai chi is. It could have done a better job evaluating the evidence and providing some absolute numbers to help readers decide how seriously to take these results. Why not just give the absolute numbers? How many out of how many? Why make the reader do the math? ""79% of tai chi participants said their symptoms had improved, compared with 39% of those in the educational class…Even three months after the classes ended, 82% of tai chi students still felt better, compared with 53% of the comparison group."" Sure, the denominators are in the story but we shouldn’t need to pull out the calculator to figure out 79% of x, vs. 39% of x."

Example Input: Paragraph: "Cost data for flibanserin is not provided. Some projection of cost should be available for any drug this far along in Phase III trials – and for which the company has already begun marketing campaigns. If not from the company, then from stock analysts. The story properly quantifies the reported benefits in absolute terms which allows the reader to see that they are small. (Results are described in Quality of Evidence comments.) In an interview a study researcher conceded that the absolute number of women reporting benefit was not large. The story provided statistics on common side effects including daytime sleepiness, dizziness, fatigue, anxiety, dry mouth, nausea and insomnia. These side effects resulted in 15% of those taking flibanserin vs 7% taking placebo withdrawing from the study. The story does a good job of presenting and evaluating the available evidence. Results are presented in absolute terms, for example that just under one third of women taking flibanserin reported improvement in sexual distress/desire compared to approximately one fifth of women taking placebo. In contrast, these results were presented in relative terms by the manufacturer. Except for the headline, "" ‘Female Viagra’ May Treat Low Sexual Desire"", this story avoids disease mongering and notes that ""hypoactive sexual desire disorder"" in women is a controversial diagnosis. The text clarifies that while the popular press is dubbing flibanserin as the ""female Viagra"", it is not similar to Viagra or other drugs to treat erectile dysfunction. Conflicts of interest are disclosed. The story noted that the study researcher interviewed is a paid consultant for the drug manufacturer. An alternative point of view is provided by two independent experts, a psychologist and a sex-therapist. The independent sources comment on the role that personal relationships play in sexual desire and experience which was not addressed or acknowledged by the researchers. The story indicates that an alternative drug called the Intrinsa testosterone patch is available in Europe, but not in the U.S. The story also notes a difference between these dugs; Intrinsa is a hormonal treatment compared to flibanserin which is a non-hormonal. The story indirectly informs that reader that flibanserin is not available by noting that it is in phase III clinical trials and that the manufacturer is seeking FDA approval (despite early direct to consumer marketing campaigns). The story makes it fairly clear that this is a new treatment – also for a new and controversial diagnosis. The story was apparently based on research presented in abstract form at the annual clinical meeting of the American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians, although this information has not been published in independently, peer-referred scientific journals. There is no direct evidence that it relied largely on a news release. In fact, the use of interviews with independent experts makes it clear that independent reporting took place." Claim: ‘Female Viagra’ May Treat Low Sexual Desire
Example Output: "This story reports on a investigational drug, flibanserin, that is being developed to treat what is a controversial diagnosis called ""hypoactive sexual desire"" in women. The popular press has dubbed this drug ""Female Viagra"" despite that fact that it has few similarities to drugs that treat erectile dysfunction. Preliminary research examining the drug’s efficacy in treating sexual distress and/or low sexual desire were presented at the May 2010 annual clinical meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). To place the story in context, previous reports from the manufacturer claimed that flibanserin resulted in ""clinically significant"" improvement in the number of sexually satisfying events reported by women taking the drug vs. those taking placebo, an absolute difference of 0.7 events per month. The story was detailed and did a good job of presenting information in absolute terms so that the reader could clearly see that reported benefits were small and of unknown clinical significance. Good reminders that this is a controversial diagnosis and that ""some experts see it as the medicalization of what is for many women a relationship issue."""

Example Input: Paragraph: Hooray! Unlike the WebMD story, this story includes cost information. “The price for IBS treatment hasn’t been determined, he said. But the price listed at Drugstore.com suggests it’s not cheap, with a two-week supply of the dosage used in the study costing $910, or about $21 a pill.” By providing the price and actually showing readers (and other reporters) the source for the price, the story puts the antibiotic treatment into perspective and goes part of the way toward helping readers judge how cost-effective this treatment may be. Unlike the WebMD story, which took too long to present any of the data, this story attempts to quantify the benefits in the second sentence. “In two large studies, 41 percent of the patients who took the antibiotic rifaximin said their symptoms substantially improved, compared to 32 percent of those who got fake pills. Their relief lasted for up to 10 weeks.”  The story makes no mention of harms other than antibiotic resistance. Instead, the story says the drug “also been safely used elsewhere for more than two decades.” But readers should be told explicitly what side effects were found in the study. The story adequately addresses the number of patients studied, the duration of study and the study endpoints. The story does not engage in disease-mongering. It says that IBS is “a poorly understood and painful condition that especially afflicts younger women” and says that IBS affect as many as 1 in 5 Americans.”  Better than the WebMD story on this count as well, AP explains that the non-constipation form of IBS is “the most common form.” The only researchers quoted in the story are researchers who do drug-company-funded research on IBS drugs. The lead author is identified this way: “Dr. Mark Pimentel, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles,” and only much later does it say, “The studies were paid for by the Salix, based in Raleigh, N.C. Some of the researchers were Salix employees and others had received consulting and other fees from the company. Cedars-Sinai holds a patent on the use of rifaximin for irritable bowel syndrome.” The story should have said clearly, as the WebMD story did, that Pimentel serves as a Salix consultant and sits on its scientific advisory board. The story also quotes Dr. Jan Tack, “of the University of Leuven in Belgium.” It makes no mention of the detail noted in the WebMD story: that Tack has worked as a scientific advisor to companies evaluating IBS treatments. The final quarter of the story is devoted to Amy McMahon, “who developed the disorder about four years ago.” It says, “She tried a variety of treatments, changed her diet, and saw a number of specialists before Pimentel prescribed the antibiotic about a year later. “I felt remarkably better” after one treatment, said McMahon. So here you have a drug-company funded researcher providing a success-story-patient for a quote. The story could have included other patients who saw no relief or no patients at all. This skews the entire perspective of the story. A more representative picture would have been presented by including one of the vast majority who saw no improvement from the antibiotic. Slightly better than the WebMD story. It says, “What causes the disorder has been a mystery; sensitivity to certain foods or stress are among the theories. Patients are typically told to change their diet, reduce stress and take medicines or fiber supplements to ease symptoms.” There is no quantitative statement about relative effectiveness of the existing approaches, but they are mentioned and it is clear that symptom reduction is the best that can be offered. The story explains that: “In the U.S., rifaximin is approved for traveler’s diarrhea and for a complication of liver disease. Salix Pharmaceuticals, which markets rifaximin under the name Xifaxan in the U.S., is seeking to expand its use to IBS. A decision from the Food and Drug Administration is expected in March, said William Forbes, executive vice president and chief development officer for Salix.”  Taking predictions from a company exec about when the FDA might act would not result in a good batting average over time. This story, at least, quoted the author of an accompanying editorial saying that he thought the treatment was novel. The story does not rely on a news release. Claim: Antibiotic eases common stomach pain, studies find
Example Output:
AP included cost information, and this is a significant factor that should not have been ignored by other stories. At the same time, the lack of independent experts was a flaw. This is underscored by an unrepresentative anecdote from a glowing patient success story, even though the study itself showed that the vast majority of people did not get adequate relief. And the placebo effect alone was  significant. Because IBS treatment has been a frustrating experience for so many, even a modest improvement in symptoms that lasts a few months may be worthwhile for some. This appears to be a novel way of treating IBS, and the fact that symptoms improved at all is of interest, even if the duration of the study was short. At $21 a pill, though, one could ask hard questions about how many people are actually going to benefit and whether the treatment is a cost-effective alternative.