Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.

Q: Since 2011, Pugh received $500,000 selling her illustrated books to the University of Maryland Medical System, a $4 billion hospital network that’s one of the largest private employers in the state. Since the arrangement was exposed by The Baltimore Sun earlier this month, she’s stepped down from the volunteer board and returned her most recent payment of $100,000 for the hard-to-find books. She also defended her actions and portrayed press inquiries as a “witch hunt.” A Democrat who became mayor in 2016 and represented some of Baltimore’s poorest areas in the state’s Senate before that, Pugh is the public face of the still-unfolding debacle. But the Baltimore mayor — who served on the UMMS board since 2001 and once sat on a state Senate committee that funded the major health network — is hardly the only influential Marylander connected to the board or the medical system facing questions. One-third of the UMMS board members received compensation through the medical system’s arrangements with their businesses, a revelation that Gov. Larry Hogan has called “appalling.” Two other members of the board also resigned, and four others went on voluntary leave while the system reviews governance practices. The president and CEO of the University of Maryland Medical System has recently been sent on a temporary leave of absence. Maryland Comptroller Peter Franchot said Tuesday that an independent audit is urgent to understand how many “self-dealing” arrangements there have been over the years. In Pugh’s case, there needs to be a thorough examination of whether a product was actually delivered, he said. “I describe it as juvenile, this arrangement where she was providing or not providing books — no receipts, no contracts, no procurement. It was simply a $500,000 gift to her from the University of Maryland Medical System,” Franchot asserted in a phone interview. The slim “Healthy Holly” books, sharing tips on nutrition and exercise, were meant to be distributed to schools and daycares. However, the Sun has reported that 50,000 copies are unaccounted for, leading to widespread speculation that a good chunk were never printed in the first place. In recent days, fewer than 9,000 copies were tracked down collecting dust in a warehouse of Baltimore’s school district, which has described Pugh’s children’s books as “unsolicited” donations. The city library system, daycare programs and booksellers can’t find copies. “Healthy Holly: Exercising is Fun” is unavailable on Amazon, where the only reviews for the book are entries of people savaging Pugh’s ties with UMMS. In a written statement, Pugh has defended her lucrative book deal with UMMS, saying it started as a passion project. “I recall passing the time by thumbing through the first book before an UMMS meeting. One my colleagues loved it and thought it would help advance children’s health,” she said in a recent statement. Pugh has since cancelled all public appearances and her spokespeople say she was hospitalized over the weekend with pneumonia. They say she will address the matter more once her health improves. Criticism of UMMS and of Pugh — who faces a 2020 Democratic primary for re-election in a city dominated by a single party’s political machine — has been intense. The Washington Post’s editorial board asserted the UMMS had a “get-rich-quick program” for many of its board members, with Pugh’s involvement painted as an egregious case of “political sleaze.” Meanwhile, UMMS and Pugh have not provided clarity on the whereabouts of the 100,000 copies of the “Healthy Holly” series books or definitive proof they were published and distributed. A spokeswoman for the university-based health network says their communications team was “working hard on all of the inquiries.” The medical system had classified the “Healthy Holly” purchases as grants in federal filings. Some critics say the various statements made by Pugh and others regarding the arrangements with UMMS board members are absurd on so many levels that it’s hard to know where to begin. “Whatever Pugh does, she is going to be operating under a very, very big cloud for a long time,” said Donald Norris, professor emeritus of public policy at the University of Maryland Baltimore County. “This is an unethical lapse of humongous proportions — $500,000 worth.” ___ Follow McFadden on Twitter: https://twitter.com/dmcfadd

A: Baltimore mayor’s $500K book deal draws intense criticism.
****
Q: The release, while loaded with information about the research, fails to mention costs related to this new approach at any point. This is in spite of the fact that the paper provides what’s necessary to fulfill this criterion. The study authors wrote: “The easy access to the tumor site, the absence of the need for surgical removal of the tissue containing the T cells, the numbers of cells obtained with the harvest, and the ability to expand products in all patients with a relatively short process at a reasonable cost contrast sharply with several limitations of TIL ACT” (a current therapeutic approach to the disease). The release does a good job of spelling out the results of this phase 1 trial by providing data showing that MILs can target and kill cancer cells. It shows that in more than half of the study’s patients, their cancers had shrunk by at least half. In 15 of the 22 patients, their cancers did not progress for nearly a year after the MILs therapy. This wasn’t a controlled study, so it’s unclear how these patients would have fared without the MILs treatment, and the release could have attempted to provide some insight on that point. But we’re pleased that the release focuses appropriately on the apparent safety of the approach, rather than trying to make claims about survival benefits that aren’t supportable by this kind of small, uncontrolled study. The release also explains that the research provides information suggesting which patients might benefit best from this approach, and that other research at this cancer center is centered on testing this approach on different forms of cancer. We’ll give this criterion a satisfactory rating since the release specifically spells out, “None of the participants had serious side effects from the MILs therapy.” However, the study is really too small, and the time span too short, to comment substantively on the possible harms that might be seen if and when the treatment is more widely used. The research paper actually makes the point that the new procedure doesn’t require the “surgical removal of tissue,” and the procedure can be done at bedside rather than an operating suite. But the removal of cells from the bone marrow is still an invasive procedure that carries its own risk of infection or other problems. The release would have benefited from at least mentioning this aspect. The release makes a very good effort to objectively describe a technically complicated trial. It defines the trial at least twice as being “small” and calls it a “pilot,” suggesting that caution is appropriate when considering the results. It effectively explains the process involved in the treatments, including what was learned regarding the growth of cells in the lab after harvesting. It also points to the fact that while tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) can only be retrieved from a quarter of the patient candidates for this technique, MILs were obtained from all of the patients in this study, suggesting that they may be a better tool for this therapy. Describing multiple myeloma as “the second most common cancer originating in the blood” doesn’t add much to our understanding of this disease. However, other statistics provide context regarding the scope of the problem in the United States. We’ll give it a pass. The funding sources for this research are listed in an end note in the release. No conflict of interest information is provided in the release, although the research paper discloses no conflicts. The release does mention that other forms of this adoptive T cell therapy use different cells, suggesting that other approaches are possible. The release also notes, “Three days before the injections of expanded MILs, patients received high doses of chemotherapy and a stem cell transplant, standard treatments for multiple myeloma.” The release points out that “several U.S. cancer centers have conducted similar experimental treatments” but adds that Johns Hopkins is the only one using the MIL cells. It also points to several other ongoing clinical trials at Hopkins that build on the findings of this small study. Using the terms “pilot” and “experimental,” the release signals that availability is very limited. We like the fact that the headline itself defines this as a “pilot” clinical trial and that the lede says that it is “what is believed to be the first small clinical trial of its kind.”  Those kinds of qualifiers both declare the specifics of the research and also provide informative caveats, allowing the reader to gauge how much credence to give to the findings. All too many other medical releases fail to provide this measured approach. This release is conservative throughout in its choice of language in describing this research which, based on its findings, might be ripe for exaggeration.

A: Pilot clinical trial finds injected immune cells safe in multiple myeloma patients
****
Q: That expands on the Swedish company’s announcement last month that it would increase capacity by 60%. Ventilator producers are under pressure to raise output as hospitals around the globe become overwhelmed by coronavirus patients. Meanwhile, the pandemic is disrupting the transport and supply of crucial ventilator parts such as hoses, valves, motors and electronics. “The demand for advanced ventilators for the intensive care units in hospitals continues to increase globally as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak,” Getinge said in a statement. The company said on March 16 it had already raised output substantially, going from one work shift to nearly two at its ventilator factory, and was looking to quickly ramp up further though it was experiencing component shortages. The following day, Getinge, which says it has around a 25% share of the global ventilator market, said it would increase capacity by 60%. In 2019 it produced 10,000 ventilators, equipment that is crucial in the care of patients critically ill with COVID-19, the disease caused by the new coronavirus. To counter the shortage, some countries including Italy, Britain and the United States have drafted in carmakers and aerospace manufacturers to start producing ventilators. On Sunday, electric carmaker Tesla Inc showed a prototype for a ventilator in a video published on its YouTube channel.

A:
Getinge to ramp up ventilator production capacity by 160% due to coronavirus.
****