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]: On February 17 2020, an odd story came out of Cedar Rapids, Iowa via The Gazette, about the arrest of a man who allegedly forced made a woman watch the mini-series Roots so that she might better understand her own racism:A Cedar Rapids man [Robert Lee Noye, 52] who was arrested [February 17 2020] is accused of holding a woman captive and forcing her to watch “Roots” — a nine-hour miniseries that chronicles author Alex Haley’s family line from the capture and enslavement of his ancestor Kunta Kinte to the liberation of Kinte’s descendants. […]When she tried to move, Noye told her to “remain seated and watch the movie with him or he would kill her and spread her body parts across Interstate 380 on the way to Chicago,” the complaint said.Mugshots paired with a sensational headline are often employed by “fake news” or “junk news” sites imitating small local outlets, and The Gazette was a small-city paper. Because of this,  many readers encountering the story — including us — were skeptical it was authentic.Not long after its publication, the news was aggregated to other outlets across the country:A criminal complaint stated Noye forced the victim to watch the show, which is a nine-hour historical miniseries about slavery in the U.S. through the post-Civil War era, “so she could better understand her racism.”The complaint also stated the suspect told the victim he would “kill her and spread her body parts across Interstate 380 on the way to Chicago” if she did not sit and watch the show.We contacted the very responsive Cedar Rapids Police Department, and we spoke to an officer who confirmed that the report was accurate. They also sent over a brief release with additional detail about Noye’s arrest:Robert Lee Noye, DOB [redacted] age 52, was arrested for False Imprisonment and Assault Domestic Abuse Simple. The victim, a 37-year old female, was not allowed to leave a room where the suspect was keeping her. The victim dialed 911 and had an open line with the Joint Communications Center (Cedar Rapids 911 dispatch center). Dispatchers could hear the victim asking to leave and the suspect was screaming at her. The suspect is accused of harassing his girlfriend and threatening to commit a forcible felony by saying that he was going to kill her, then spread her body all over U.S. Interstate 380.On February 17 at 12:14 a.m. Cedar Rapids police officers were dispatched to [redacted] for an open 911 line to the dispatch center with lots of screaming. Dispatchers and officers were able to use GPS to locate the area where the call was coming from and, after checking the neighborhood, determined the incident was occurring at 718 2nd Avenue SW. An intoxicated male, later identified as Robert Noye, answered the door. There was 37-year old female and 12-year old female inside the house who were both upset and crying. The suspect allegedly was calling the victim names while officers were present.According to the victim, Noye was verbally assaulting her all night and she set up a bed in the basement to get away from him. According to the victim, Noye came downstairs and told her to get upstairs and watch the movie “Roots” to understand how racist she was while he continued to verbally assault her. He then made threats to kill her. The victim and her daughter went into a room upstairs where the suspect did not allow them to leave. The victim was able to call 911 and leave the line open.The suspect was arrested and transported to the Linn County Jail.The claim that a man was arrested for allegedly forcing a woman to watch Roots on February 17 2020 was genuine, not “fake news,” not “satire,” and not fabricated to capitalize on Black History Month or for any other reason; the suspect’s girlfriend is the alleged victim. The suspect was arrested and charged with first-degree harassment and false imprisonment.
[A]: "A man was arrested for allegedly forcing a woman to watch the nine-hour miniseries Roots to ""better understand her racism."


[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]: Kudos! This story reported on the costs of the drug Lucentis as well as the less expensive Avastin. The story provided quantitative information about the possible impact on vision. But we wish there information about any measurement of  the patients’ perspective on whether they are functioning better after receiving this treatment versus standard treatment While the story did include the common side effect of the drug in the study, there were other potentially important complications that were not mentioned. The story mentioned that the results reported on were from a phase III clinical trial; it included information about the number of affected eyes included in the study, and the impact on vision. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. Several experts in the field were quoted in this story. In presenting the outcome of the study, the story mentioned in passing treatments currently used for treating diabetic macular edema. The story also mentioned the existence of another drug, Avastin, which was reported as working the same way as the study medication. (A more accurate description comparing Avastin and Lucentis is that they contain the nearly identical active ingredient but the production methods are a little different.) It would have been nice to mention that there is an on-going trial comparing the effectiveness of these two medications for the treatment of macular degeneration (not the condition which was the disease in the study reported on.) The story was crystal clear that the drug reported on, Lucentis, is available as it is FDA approved for another condition; the story also mentioned that it is not yet FDA approved for treatment of diabetic macular edema. The story was very clear that this was a new use for a medication that is already on the market. The story provided some insight that the company underwriting the costs of this study had a very similar but less expensive drug which was FDA approved for other use. It would have been useful to include a little more information comparing the two medications. It might also have been nice to include some information about how the drug studied works as compared to laser treatment, the current standard. Does not appear to rely on a press release.
[A]:
A Genentech Eye Treatment Is Found to Help Prevent Vision Loss in Diabetics