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: The story says the procedure to insert stents costs from $11,000 to $41,000 in the U.S. The story makes clear there was no significant difference between a sham procedure or stent insertion, but it only describes the benefit as "less pain." We would like to see how the pain was measured, some numbers on how much pain was reduced, and how many patients benefitted in each group. The story briefly mentions there are potential harms, including death. The story describes the study's methods in some detail the sham surgery of the control group, for instance and mentions the size of the study and the characteristics of the subjects. It adds heft to the sense that this was a very good study with multiple reactions from expert sources "humbling," "unbelievable," "impressive" and "very well conducted." Importantly, it quotes one source describing a few desired measures that the study didn't address, such as whether stents would be more effective in patients with more severe disease or who were studied for a longer period of time. The story could have done a better job of explicitly calling attention to the relatively small number of participants and the need for confirmatory follow-up studies. Heart disease is very common in our society and opening up blocked arteries is a common almost routine procedure. No disease mongering occurred in the article. We were pleased to see discussion from many experts, however, the story left out two important potential conflicts of interest. The story states that: Dr. William E. Boden, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Boston University School of Medicine, called the results "unbelievable." Readers should have been informed that Boden has received fees from Abbott, a major stent device maker. Also, the story states that: Dr. David Maron, a cardiologist at Stanford University, praised the new study as "very well conducted" but said that it left some questions unanswered. The participants had a profound blockage but only in one artery, he noted, and they were assessed after just six weeks. The story didn't disclose that Dr. Maron is an "employee of and stockholder in Cardiovascular Services of America, which provides outpatient cardiac catheterization and computed tomography angiography services," which was disclosed here. The story (and the study) suggest that medication can manage pain from blocked arteries. Stenting procedures are clearly widely available in the U.S. and across the world. What's less clear, the story says, is whether guidelines or practice for stenting will change in the U.S.: "The idea that stenting relieves chest pain is so ingrained that some experts said they expect most doctors will continue with stenting, reasoning that the new research is just one study." We thought this was an interesting point and are glad it was included. The many expressions of surprise by practicing cardiologists makes clear that the study offers a novel finding. The story did not rely on the news release. Claim: 'Unbelievable': Heart Stents Fail to Ease Chest Pain
This New York Times story describes startling news that a very common procedureinserting a stent to open a blocked blood vesseldoes not add benefit over medication in patients with angina. Angina is chest pain due to blocked heart arteries, and is common among people with heart disease. Sourcing is a strong point for this story: It features perspective from many American cardiologists who were shocked to learn of the negative results from this study. However, two important potential conflicts of interest among the sources were not disclosed. In addition, the story contains lots of helpful detail on the limitations of the study, the possibility that placebo effects are at play, and how medical practice may or may not change as a result. It also discussed the costs and potential harms of stenting procedures. That said, the story could have provided more information on what the study itself measuredand what, precisely, the results were. The Wall Street Journal story, which we also reviewed, was stronger on this point. Heart disease is still the leading killer of Americans so any news about treating aspects of heart disease, such as blocked arteries, is newsworthy. In addition, this story suggests that stenting common, but expensive is a prime example of over-treatment. Also the procedure carries some risk and may be causing complications if overused.

Paragraph: The unveiling of former President Barack Obama's official portrait on 12 February 2018 also introduced many Americans to artist Kehinde Wiley for the first time as well, as opening the door to late-breaking controversy over some of Wiley's earlier work. Wiley, who has described his own visual style as "bombastic, syrupy, and garish," is celebrated in the contemporary art world for his large-scale portraits of black and brown men and women striking heroic poses modeled on those of aristocrats in classic European paintings. Two portraits in particular, both of them modern takes on the biblical story ofJudith beheading Holofernes and featuring elegantly-dressed black women brandishing the severed heads of white women, suddenly turned controversial in the context of Wiley's new role as a presidential portraitist. Images of the paintings were shared on social media with comments stating or implying that their content is racist: This what is confusing to me you can't have Confederate flags you take down historical statues because they are racist but the 44th POTUS picks the guy who painted these pictures to paint his presidential portrait and that's just fine? Maybe I'm missing something? #tcot pic.twitter.com/9RhYCGPQK7 Jeannie-ology (@jeanniology) February 12, 2018 So a racist ex-President selects a racist artist to paint his picture. Anyone surprised? Artist Who Painted Obama's Official Portrait Known For Painting Blacks Beheading Whites https://t.co/JarXVYUQ27 American Real News (@USArealnews) February 13, 2018 In a post on right-wing blog TheGatewayPundit.com, Kehinde Wiley was described as being "known for" and "having a great fondness for" painting black people beheading white people: Both beheading pieces are titled "Judith beheading Holofernes", referencing a story in the Book of Judith, which involves a beautiful woman who seduces an invading general before he is able to destroy their land, gets him drunk, and then decapitates him. Typical artists from the Rennaissance [sic] era have placed Judith in the role of a scriptural savior, "a type of the praying Virgin or the church or as a figure who tramples Satan and harrows Hell." Given the historical context and how Wiley recreated it in his works, is hard to interpret his use of this theme as anything other than a blatant statement of racism; black women are the powerful angels of the earth, conquering the white devils. Can you imagine for a second if George W. Bush, or any other former president, decided on a painter who was famous for depicting white people killing black people to paint his official portrait? It's hard to imagine, right? Yea, that's because it's disgusting and backward. It is not the case, however, that Wiley was "famous for depicting black people killing white people" before politically motivated commentators chose to make it so. Far from it. Of the scores of paintings the artist has produced, only the two based on the biblical beheading story depict such a scene. They generated very little controversy before Wiley's portrait of Obama was publicly unveiled. That the strong, couture-clad black females in the paintings are depicted in the immediate aftermath of decapitating white women is not incidental. As with many works of art, this was meant to be provocative ("I think at its best what art is doing is setting up a set of provocations," Wiley said in a 2015 interview). A 2012article on the web site of the North Carolina Museum of Art (NCMA) supplies some needed context: Known for his monumental portraits of young black men, placed in historical poses and settings appropriated from Old Master paintings, Kehinde Wiley critiques the racism of art history while also commenting on contemporary street culture and masculine identity. Reinventing classical portraiture and questioning who is represented in the portraits found in museums worldwide, Wiley states, "The whole conversation of my work has to do with power and who has it." Judith and Holofernes is from Wiley's most recent body of work and his first series of paintings to feature female subjects. Wiley uses "street casting" to find his models walking city streets and asking ordinary people if they would pose for a portrait. He met the model for this painting, Treisha Lowe, at Fulton Mall, a pedestrian shopping street in downtown Brooklyn. This painting references a specific art-historical work, a 17th-century painting by Giovanni Baglione, Judith and the Head of Holofernes (1608). The subject is taken from the apocryphal Old Testament Book of Judith, in which a Jewish town is under attack by the Assyrian army led by the general Holofernes. Judith, a widow from the town, goes to Holofernes under the pretense of helping him defeat the Jews. After he falls asleep, she cuts his head off with his own sword, and the town defeats the army. Wiley translates this image of a courageous, powerful woman into a contemporary version that resonates with fury and righteousness. "It's sort of a play on the 'kill whitey' thing," Wiley said in a 2012 interview with New York Magazine. The operative word is "play." What is all too easy to miss on a cursory glance is the deeply conceptual nature of these works. We turn again to the NCMA's commentary: Wiley takes obvious artistic license with the story Holofernes is represented by a woman's head, and Judith wears a gown designed by Riccardo Tisci of Givenchy. This new rendition can be interpreted on many different levels, including racial and gender identity and inequity, the representation of women throughout art history, and society's ideals for beauty. In Wiley's words, "I am painting women in order to come to terms with the depictions of gender within the context of art history. One has to broaden the conversation . . . This series of works attempts to reconcile the presence of black female stereotypes that surrounds their presence and/or absence in art history, and the notions of beauty, spectacle, and the 'grand' in painting." In contrast to the blunt literalism of those who prefer to interpret these paintings as a celebration of racial violence, art critic Walter Robinson writes that Wiley's take on Judith and Holofernes "suggests, with a jovial brutality, that Judith would prefer to be done with white standards of beauty." If, as Wiley has said, his intent as an artist is to be provocative, he can consider himself successful. Claim: Kehinde Wiley, the artist who painted former President Barack Obama's official portrait, also produced a pair of paintings depicting black women decapitating white people.
We reached out to Mr. Wiley for comment, but did not receive a reply.

Paragraph: Hanan al-Hroub, a Palestinian teacher scheduled to speak at a Clinton Global Initiative Annual Meeting dinner event on 20 September 2016, drew criticism from Republicans because her husband, Omar al-Hroub, is a Palestinian official who served 10 years in an Israeli prison for supplying chemicals used in a deadly bombing attack in Hebron that killed six Israelis in 1980 especially given the close proximity (in both time and distance) of the speaking engagement to recent bomb attacks in New York and New Jersey. For example, Raj Shah, deputy communications director of the Republican National Committee, stated that: In the wake of this weekend's attacks, granting a platform to the spouse of a terrorist bomb-maker just miles away from where explosives were detonated days ago is an insult to the victims and makes a mockery of the Clinton Foundation. Donald Trump's campaign similarly issued a press release titled "Statement on Clinton Foundation Honoring Wife of Palestinian Terrorist," objecting to al-Hroub's appearance at the Clinton Global Initiative dinner: Today's report that the Clinton Foundation is feting the wife of a Palestinian man convicted of helping bomb innocent Israeli citizens is deeply disturbing, especially in the wake of this weekend's attacks. The decision to honor the wife of a terrorist by Hillary Clinton's foundation shows a complete lack of judgment and a callousness that should disqualify her from holding the presidency. Mrs. al-Hroub has become famous in her own right, independently of her husband, as described in a March 2016 Guardian profile of her achievements that delved into her experiences and her path to worldwide recognition: Hroub only began working as a teacher in 2007. After leaving school, she was forced to abandon her plans for further education when Palestinian universities closed during the first intifada, or uprising, between 1987 and 1993. Instead she got married and had five children. In 2000, when her youngest was established at school, Hroub resumed her education part-time at Al-Quds University. Within months, her husband, Omar, and two of her daughters were shot at by Israeli soldiers at a checkpoint near Bethlehem. Omar was injured in the shoulder and the girls were traumatised. "This incident changed my life. We were in shock. My children were suffering, and the teachers were not trained to deal with trauma. At that point I decided to commit my life to teaching." She vehemently rejects Israeli claims that Palestinian schools incite children against Israel. "My message to those who say that is that all children should be protected from violence. I had a very hard childhood, and I don't want these children to experience the same. Once a cycle of violence is created, it's very hard to break." Prior to the Clinton Foundation-related controversy, the Associated Press reported on a similar issue surrounding Mrs. al-Hroub's March 2016 receipt of a global award for excellence in education: The U.K.-based foundation that awarded a Palestinian schoolteacher a $1 million prize for preaching nonviolence is sticking by its choice following revelations that the woman's husband participated in an attack that killed at least six Israelis three decades ago. The Varkey Foundation awarded Hanan al-Hroub its Global Teacher Prize. In its selection, it cited her slogan "No to Violence" and her efforts in protecting Palestinian schoolchildren from the effects of living in a conflict zone. She had developed a book called "We Play and Learn" focusing on the importance of playing, trust, respect, honesty and literacy. However, her husband, Omar, served time in Israeli prison, convicted as an accomplice in a bombing attack that killed six Israelis as they were walking home from sabbath prayers in the West Bank city of Hebron in 1980. According to an Associated Press account at the time, Omar al-Hroub was a chemist who provided chemicals needed for making the bombs In a statement, the Varkey Foundation said it does not look into the conduct of candidates' relatives and that the teacher was committed to nonviolence. "As a point of principle, we only look at the qualities, achievements and conduct of the candidates themselves As Hanan al-Hroub has said herself, she has spent her whole life dealing with the effects of violence on children at close hand and every day she works toward a world where children, wherever they come from, can grow up peacefully," it added. "She has spent her entire career teaching the principle of nonviolence. She believes in nonviolence in all its forms and in all circumstances." Qadura Faris, the director of the Palestinian prisoners' association, said that after serving a 10-year sentence, Omar al-Hroub accepted the 1993 Oslo interim peace accord with Israel, served as a deputy Cabinet minister in the Palestinian Authority and supports a two-state solution with Israel. He said al-Hroub remains a senior Palestinian official who is close to President Mahmoud Abbas and "believes in his peaceful approach." Al-Hroub's biography, as presented among those of the speakers at the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI)'s Annual Meeting from 19 to 21 September 2016, reads: Winner of the 2016 Global Teacher Prize, an initiative of the Varkey Foundation, Hanan Al Hroub grew up in the Palestinian refugee camp, Bethlehem, where she was regularly exposed to acts of violence. She went into primary education after her children were left deeply traumatized by a shooting incident they witnessed on their way home from school. Her experiences in meetings and consultations to discuss her children's behavior, development and academic performance in the years that followed led Al Hroub to try to help others who, having grown up in similar circumstances, require special handling at school. With so many troubled children in the region, Palestinian classrooms can be tense environments. Al Hroub embraces the slogan "No to Violence" and uses a specialized teaching approach she developed herself. Al Hroub has shared her perspective at conferences, meetings and teacher training seminars. Claim: Hanan al-Hroub, whose husband was jailed for providing chemicals used in making bombs that killed Israelis, was invited to speak at a Clinton Global Initiative dinner.
Hanan al-Hroub was one of several dozen people invited to speak during the Clinton Global Initiative's Annual Meeting; she was not singled out to be "honored" or "feted" by that event.