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: "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

Answer: "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."


Question: 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.

Answer: 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.


Question: Paragraph: The demonstrators opposed to the pipeline and a marine export terminal in Oregon demanded that Gov. Kate Brown publicly oppose the project, which she refused to do. Southern Oregon Rising Tide, which organized the protest, said the 21 arrested by Oregon State Police spent the night in jail and were out by 5 a.m. Friday. In a statement the Oregon State Police said the 21 were arrested on trespassing charges after being asked to leave. The proposed marine terminal, in Coos Bay, would allow export of American liquid natural gas to Asia, and would have a 230-mile (370-kilometer) feeder pipeline from an interstate gas hub in southern Oregon’s Klamath County. A federal agency has issued a final environmental impact statement on the controversial proposal to build the pipeline and it concluded that there would be no significant impact on the state’s waters, wildlife and minimal risk of a pipeline accident. The lengthy report was issued earlier this month by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. On Thursday protesters flooded into the Oregon State Capitol and staged a sit-in at the governor’s office before police arrested 21 of them for trespassing. The protesters, who demanded Brown take a public stand against the pipeline, were jailed overnight and released early Friday. Brown, a Democrat, refused to oppose the project that the protesters say will encourage further use of fossil fuels that leads to global warming, and risk spoiling the land and ocean with spills. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s final impact statement said it believes the Canadian company behind the Jordan Cove Project, Pembina Pipeline Corporation, will manage risks. Pembina Pipeline Corporation says the project will bring investments, property tax revenue and jobs. The proposed marine terminal, in Coos Bay, Oregon, would allow export of American liquid natural gas to Asia, and would have a 230-mile (370-kilometer) feeder pipeline from an interstate gas hub in southern Oregon’s Klamath County. The federal agency said that before construction, Jordan Cove should file spill containment system drawings showing containment for all hazardous fluids including all liquids handled above their flashpoint. Over 600 species of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife live in the project area. Constructing and operating the project would temporarily and permanently affect these species, including amphibians, reptiles, birds, fish, and mammals, the impact statement said. “Displacement, and impacts on other behaviors as well as the loss of habitat would increase the rates of stress, injury, and mortality experienced by wildlife,” the report said. But mitigation projects proposed by the Jordan Cove and required by the Forest Service means the project would not significantly impact wildlife and aquatic resources, the agency said. Jared Margolis, senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, said the group is concerned about what it called a lack of adequate analysis on several aspects of the project. “Jordan Cove would be a disaster for local streams and rivers that people and wildlife rely on, but regulators appear willing to ignore these impacts to bring dirty fracked gas to market,” Margolis said. In a statement, the company said the final environmental impact statement “represents a significant step forward for this investment in Oregon.” The impact statement represents the final step in the federal environmental review process before an order is issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approving the project, expected in February 2020, Jordan Cove said. People opposed to the project have vowed to keep up protests, and recalled the demonstrations against a pipeline in North Dakota. The project is still undergoing permitting processes by the state. But in August, the Trump Administration in proposed streamlining approval of gas pipelines and other energy projects by limiting states’ certification authorities under the Clean Water Act. ___ Follow Andrew Selsky on Twitter at https://twitter.com/andrewselsky Claim: Pipeline protesters at governor’s office arrested, released.

Answer:
Authorities have released 21 people protesting a planned liquefied natural gas pipeline who were arrested Thursday night during a sit-in at the governor’s office in the Oregon State Capitol.