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.

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
"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."

Paragraph: George W. Bush stood with a bullhorn on a pile of rubble after the 9/11 attacks on lower Manhattan and promised that the people who were responsible “will hear all of us soon.” Barack Obama was in office for just a few months when the first reports came in about the H1N1 virus, which would eventually be declared a pandemic  like today’s new coronavirus. Most American presidents will confront a crisis — or crises — before they leave office, whether it is a natural disaster, war, economic downturn, public health threat or terrorism. What matters is how they respond, historians say. “The number one thing a president can do in a moment like this is try to calm the nation,” said Julian Zelizer, a presidential historian at Princeton University. It’s what Franklin D. Roosevelt did during an extraordinary 12 years in office, guiding the nation through a bleak period of Depression-era unemployment, a severe Midwest drought known as the Dust Bowl and battle against the Nazis and Japanese in World War II. During the influenza of Wilson’s time, which killed an estimated 50 million people worldwide, including about 675,000 in America, presidents were not involved in public health issues in the same way that President Donald Trump has become engrossed in the U.S. effort against the new coronavirus. Such issues were left for public health professionals at the state and local level. “Wilson never issued any public statement whatsoever,” said John M. Barry, author of “The Great Influenza,” a book about the 1918 flu. “He was entirely focused on the war. Period.” In fact, Wilson was so focused on the post-war peace talks he was participating in in Paris that he, too, ended up stricken with the flu. He recovered. Trump, on the other hand, seems intent on being the public face of the effort against what has become his most serious challenge in this reelection year. Trump, who has no scientific or medical training, now leads a daily White House briefing on coronavirus efforts by a task force he tapped the vice president to lead. Trump styles himself as a “wartime president” fighting an “invisible enemy” responsible for hundreds of deaths and thousands of infections in the U.S. - numbers that will continue to rise as the virus spreads — and a dramatic upheaval of everyday life. Millions of people have been ordered or urged to stay home for the foreseeable future, cut off from simple pleasures like going to restaurants, shopping malls or movies in a bid to slow the virus. But Trump’s crisis management has earned mixed reviews, with praise from many supporters and criticism from detractors, including mayors and governors who are desperate for Trump to more robustly use his authority to help them get much-needed protective gear and supplies for doctors and nurses. The president’s early attempts to minimize the severity of the situation, and to suggest that it was under control, have been panned, though he recently adopted a more urgent tone. But the damage has been done, said Steve Morrison, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, citing lack of public trust due to Trump’s early handling of the situation. “Not having trust and confidence is a huge liability heading into something this catastrophic,” said Morrison, senior vice president and director of the Global Health Policy Center at CSIS. Obama was a few months into his first term in 2009 term when reports started coming in that April about the H1N1 flu. He addressed the situation that month, assembled a team and ultimately declared both a public health emergency and a national emergency to deal with the threat. “This is obviously a very serious situation, and every American should know that their entire government is taking the utmost precautions and preparations,” Obama said as he opened a White House news conference that month. He said public health officials had recommended that schools with confirmed cases consider temporarily closing, and that he had asked Congress for $1.5 billion in emergency funding to help monitor and track the virus, and to build a supply of antiviral drugs and other equipment. “Everyone should rest assured that this government is prepared to do whatever it takes to control the impact of this virus,” Obama said. Dr. Howard Markel, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for the History of Medicine, said Obama was “very hands on” during H1N1 — but not as visibly as Trump. Obama’s director of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention conducted daily briefings from Atlanta. “He took a step back because he allowed his experts to run the show,” Markel said of Obama. “He didn’t have to be in front of the podium, but you knew he was there.”  Nearly 12,500 deaths due to the H1N1 flu were reported in the U.S. between April 2009 and April 2010, when the World Health Organization declared an end to the pandemic. Obama spent nearly $1 billion and sent U.S. military personnel to West Africa to help with the response to an outbreak of Ebola  in 2014. Still feeling his way through his first year in office, Bush became a wartime president the instant hijackers recruited by the al-Qaida militant network flew commercial airliners with passengers into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field on Sept. 11, 2001. Days later, Bush stood atop the rubble and memorably spoke for the nation. “I can hear you!” Bush blared through the bullhorn as emergency responders cheered. “The rest of the world hears you! And the people – and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.”  Weeks after that appearance, Bush authorized military airstrikes against Taliban military installations and al-Qaida training camps in Afghanistan. U.S. military engagement in Afghanistan continues to this day. ___ This story has been corrected to reflect that Morrison’s first name is Steve, not Scott. ___ Bev Banks contributed to this report. Follow Darlene Superville on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/dsupervilleap ___ The Associated Press receives support for health and science coverage from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Claim: Presidents in health crises: Trump more hands-on than many .
Woodrow Wilson was more focused on the end of World War I than a flu virus that was making its way around the globe, ultimately sickening hundreds of thousands of Americans, including the president himself.

Paragraph: Costs are not discussed, as this is an investigational procedure. The article provides n values and quantifies the results from the first stage of the study. The potential benefits of the test have to do with its ability to rule out malignancy based on X-ray results; thus, the specificity and sensitivity data are particularly relevant. We wish the paragraph on subjects with stage I disease would have quantified the results. It provides no sensitivity or specificity rates to justify the conclusion of the technique’s potential application in early stage disease. Quantified harms are not as pertinent since this a blood test. However, one could infer indirect harms, the false positives and false negatives, from the data provided. The story is up-front about these results being preliminary and from a conference. Ideally, the story should have further described the preliminary nature of these findings, in a way that would have made sense to a lay audience. The results have not been peer-reviewed, and the technique is only being developed based on these data. In other words, the study didn’t assess a technique, they built one to match the data. The strategy hasn’t been tested in a realistic population.As this report was all about a new diagnostic test, is it particularly important to define the groups clearly and the sensitivity/ specificity (and positive predictive value/ negative predictive value). This is where independent expert assessment of these results would have helped clarify their significance and early status. Regarding SomaDX, mentioned offhand, this evidence and its 90% sensitivity isn’t evaluated at all. At the time of this article, the report hadn’t even been officially released by the company, and not independently vetted. The article does not exaggerate the burden of lung cancer, accurately citing ACS statistics and the enormous importance of the disease. It also does not overstate the problem of false positives. An independent source was cited, a meeting attendant, and the SomaLogic quotes were added for context. The latter were good for illustrating that the Dubinett group is not the only game in town working on this type of blood test. Ideally, the article would have had more independent analysis of the specific results. No independent source was used to assess the SomaLogic employee’s claims of their experimental test’s sensitivity. Although the MedPage Today coverage of the study is aimed at a professional medical audience, it provides a good example of some of the critical points outside sources can provide about these type of very early results. Although the article does not identify conflicts of interest, from the MedPage Today article it’s not clear that the investigators disclosed any conflicts of interest in their abstract. Claim: Blood Test for Lung Cancer in the Works

We would have liked to see more independent assessment of the specific results presented at this scientifiic meeting. Ideally, the story should have touched on the limitations of drawing conclusions from results presented at scientific meetings – results that have not been peer-reviewed. A validated non-invasive test for lung cancer could offer several benefits. The current protocol to diagnose lung cancer frequently includes an X-ray and then a biopsy or other invasive procedure to investigate any X-ray abnormalities, which are common. But X-rays have a high rate of false-positives: 20% or more of those invasive investigations reveal that the abnormality is benign. CT scans may improve specificity, but there have been concerns about the radiation levels in these scans. Thus, a new diagnostic method, if specific and reliable enough, could be an important advance used to confirm abnormalities seen on x-ray before undergoing biopsy, with the potential to reduce patient discomfort, complications, and costs.