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.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: A Lehigh County judge tossed out evidence cited in support of drug and firearms counts stemming from the Nov. 7 search in Allentown, The (Allentown) Morning Call reported . “The smell of marijuana is no longer per se indicative of a crime,” Judge Maria Dantos wrote in her opinion filed earlier this month. Authorities said Timothy Barr, 27, was a passenger in the car driven by his wife that was stopped by state troopers on a traffic violation. Troopers said they smelled a strong odor of marijuana and told Barr that gave them the legal right to search the vehicle even after he showed them his card authorizing the use of medical marijuana. Officers found small amounts of marijuana and residue and also found a loaded handgun under the driver’s seat. Court records indicate that Barr cannot legally possess a firearm due to a prior conviction. In her ruling, Dantos said it was “illogical, impractical and unreasonable” for the troopers to suspect illegal activity once Barr showed them his medical marijuana card. She said Pennsylvania lawmakers never contemplated people with such cards being arrested and prosecuted for possession of marijuana in a package not clearly marked with a dispensary name. “Such actions are merely means of hampering the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes,” Dantos wrote. Prosecutors must now decide whether to appeal to state Superior Court or try to move forward without the evidence. District Attorney Jim Martin said his office is reviewing the opinion and transcripts from a July 17 hearing and had made no decision on an appeal. Defense attorney Joshua Karoly said the ruling could be the first step in changing a procedural rule that allows police to search a vehicle based on the smell of drugs alone. “This case will put a spotlight on the plain smell doctrine in Pennsylvania which police use far too often to invade citizens’ privacy,” he said. Dantos wrote in the opinion that officers’ confusion over medical marijuana exemplified a “clear disconnect between the medical community and the law enforcement community.” One trooper testified that he believed medical marijuana had no smell and the other said she mistakenly thought dried marijuana was illegal and not used for medical purposes. Marijuana in flower and dry leaf form has been offered at dispensaries since August 2018. ___ This story has been corrected to show that the medical marijuana card belonged to the passenger, not the driver, and decision came earlier this month rather than Friday. ___ Information from: The Morning Call, http://www.mcall.com Claim: Vehicle search prompted by marijuana smell ruled illegal.

Ex Output:
An eastern Pennsylvania judge has ruled that state police troopers who said they smelled marijuana in a car weren’t allowed to search it once they were shown a passenger’s medical marijuana card.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: The analysis suggests the potentially harmful effect of Celebrex dosage is most pronounced in higher-risk patients, researchers said at the American College of Cardiology scientific meeting. “Patients at low cardiovascular risk should take some level of comfort,” said Dr. Scott Solomon, lead researcher of the National Cancer Institute-sponsored analysis. “That wasn’t so clear previously.”   Doctors should exercise caution in prescribing the drug, generally known as celecoxib, in high-risk patients, said Solomon, whose analysis was also published online in the journal Circulation. Celebrex belongs to a class of pain drugs known as cox-2 inhibitors and is the only such drug still on the market in the United States. Merck and Co Inc withdrew its widely used cox-2 drug, Vioxx, from the market in 2004 after a study showed it doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke in long- term users. Another cox-2 inhibitor from Pfizer called Bextra was also pulled from the U.S. market due to safety concerns. While the analysis sheds light on how the drug should be used, Solomon said he could not judge whether the data lift the cloud over this class of drugs. The six trials involving a total of 7,950 patients all studied Celebrex against a placebo for uses other than arthritis. Patients received either 400 milligrams once a day, 200 mg twice a day, or 400 mg twice a day. The primary goal of the pooled analysis was an assessment of the combined risk of cardiovascular death, heart attack, stroke, heart failure or events involving blood clots. Researchers found the heart risk was lowest at the 400 mg daily dose. They found nearly a two-fold risk of adverse heart events with the 200 mg twice daily dose and that jumped to about a three-fold risk at the 400 mg twice daily dose. “Even 400 mg once a day showed elevated risk” in the high-risk population, Solomon said, adding he could not extrapolate whether doses lower than 400 mg cut risk further. The increased risk was not affected by aspirin use, researchers said. “Most of the data used in this pooled analysis have previously been published and are consistent with what we already know about the cardiovascular risks of Celebrex and other prescription arthritis pain relievers,” said Gail Cawkwell, Pfizer’s executive medical director. “The analysis doesn’t provide any new conclusions on the FDA-approved doses of Celebrex, including the most commonly prescribed dose of 200 mg daily,” she said. Dr. Steven Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic, who has a study on lower doses underway, added: “There aren’t long-term randomized placebo-controlled trials for that dose, The only way we’re ever going to answer these questions is with good randomized prospective data,” he said. “We’ll tell it like it is when the data is in.” Claim: Celebrex risky in high-risk patients, study finds.

Ex Output:
Doctors should prescribe the lowest doses of Celebrex possible in patients at high risk of heart problems, researchers who did a combined analysis of six studies of the Pfizer Inc pain drug said on Monday.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: "The cost of currently available low-dose, pulsed immune suppressing drugs could have been mentioned. It would be good to know if there would be a potential cost-saving for the patient with HiCy therapy. The story does note the economics driving drug research and implications for the development of new treatments for people with difficult-to-treat chronic conditions. The suggestion that results of this study could lead to a cure for MS seems premature, especially given the small number of people involved and outcomes at 2 years; however, the story does note the limited information available for HiCy and the need for future randomized controlled trials with a larger group of patients. The story mentions the harms of treatment typically seen in patients taking the pulsed dose of cyclophosphamide, as well as side effects seen in the small group of patients in the HiCy trial. These included: nausea and hair loss and increased risk of infection. The story also mentioned that some patients’ symptoms became worse before they improved. Researchers do not currently know the long-term effects of this high-dose, concentrated drug regimen. The story adequately describes the small, open-label, pilot-stage study of 9 MS patients and presents findings for the lay reader. The story appropriately notes inclusion criteria for the study (i.e. early stages of aggressive MS) and cautions that the preliminary findings may not apply to other people with different subtypes of MS. The story provides some data on study endpoints, i.e. brain lesions in 7 of 9 people improved and there was a statistically significant reduction in disability in most participants. The story does not engage in disease mongering. The story includes U.S. prevalence data and describes different forms of MS, qualifying discussion of the novel treatment with a reminder that HiCy was only tested in very debilitated patients. As mentioned in the press release accompanying this story, the study included the ""worst of the worst""  MS patients. The story includes interview with study authors and participants, as well as Dr. Richert, VP of research and clinical programs for MS Society, who puts the results of this study in perspective. The story mentions other FDA-approved treatments for MS and compares  the current use of longer-term pulsed intervals of cyclophosphamide with the higher-concentrated regimen–which lasted only 4 days and was less toxic. The story notes that this experimental delivery system was tested in people in the early stages of a particularly aggressive form of MS, and the treatment is not a long-term cure. The story mentions that high-dose cyclophosphamide  (generic name for Cytoxan, Neosar, Revimmune) (HiCy) is currently being studied via clinical trials, and at this time the concentrated form of the immunosuppressant drug is limited to people in the early stages of an aggressive form of MS. The story mentions that cyclophosphamide is already used in a different dosing regimen for treatment of MS. The high-dose regimen is under study and more information about risk and efficacy is needed before it can be accepted for clinical use. The story describes the pros and cons of this new method of administering an existing drug to a subset of patients in the early stages of a particularly debilitating form of MS. The story discusses why this method of delivery may be an improvement over existing immunosuppressant drugs regimens for difficult-to-treat cases. There is similar language in the press release and news story; however, there is also some independent reporting and the story includes a perspective (MS researcher Dr. Richert) other than those of the researchers and  participants from the HiCy trials." Claim: “I’ve gotten my life back”: Hopkins reports success with MS treatment

Ex Output:

The story describes a new method of administering an existing drug to a subset of patients in the early stages of a debilitating form of Multiple Sclerosis (MS). The story discusses why this method of delivery may be an improvement over existing immunosuppressant drug regimens for difficult-to-treat MS cases. And it explains why more information about risk and efficacy of the high-dose treatment is needed before it can be accepted for clinical use. The story adequately describes the small, open-label, pilot-stage study of 9 MS patients. The story appropriately notes inclusion criteria for the study (i.e. patients in the early stages of aggressive MS) and cautions that the preliminary findings may not apply to other people with different subtypes of MS. The suggestion by a study researcher that results of this study could lead to a cure for MS seems premature, especially given the small number of people involved and outcomes at 2 years; however, the story does note the limited information available for HiCy therapy and the need for future randomized controlled trials with a larger group of patients. The story mentions the harms of treatment typically seen in patients taking the pulsed dose of cyclophosphamide, as well as side effects seen in the small group of patients in the HiCy trial. The cost of currently available low-dose, pulsed immune suppressing drugs could have been mentioned. It would be good to know if there would be a potential cost-saving for the patient with HiCy therapy. But the story does note the economics driving drug research and implications for the development of new treatments for people with difficult-to-treat chronic conditions. Overall, though, this was a solid report.