TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: 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.

SOLUTION: Pilot clinical trial finds injected immune cells safe in multiple myeloma patients

PROBLEM: The third-term Democrat touted past achievements and trumpeted a long list of policy initiatives, many of which he previewed in a series of announcements over the past month. Cuomo also stressed the need for fiscal restraint, with the state staring at a $6 billion budget gap, caused largely by soaring Medicaid spending. The agenda Cuomo outlined in the speech includes plans for expanding anti-discrimination protections in the state constitution, an overhaul for New York City’s Penn Station and a proposed ban on foam food containers. Cuomo also outlined another ban that would cover marketing flavored e-cigarettes to children, initiatives intended to lower the cost of prescription drugs, guaranteed paid sick leave time for more New York workers and expanded universal pre-kindergarten. “New York at her best is the progressive capitol of the nation, and we must fulfill that destiny again this year,” Cuomo said. Cuomo delivered his address at the Empire State Plaza Convention Center in downtown Albany to an audience of members of the Legislature and top politicians from around the state. The speech kicked off a legislative session running through June 2. The governor’s address comes after several episodes of violence targeting Jewish people, including an attack by a man who stormed inside the home of a Monsey rabbi, Chaim Rottenberg, and stabbed five people at a Hanukkah celebration. Rottenberg delivered a blessing before Cuomo’s address and called for tolerance. “I will never forget the horror of that night,” Rottenberg said. “But I will also never forget how we continue to celebrate after that day, how we continue to rejoice in the miracle of Hanukkah. I will never forget the resilience on display that night and in the following days, the resilience of Jewish people and the resilience of New York.” Cuomo is proposing a new law targeted at domestic terrorism and said New York would be the first state in the U.S. to enact such legislation. The new law would apply to crimes in which at least one person died and victims were targeted by their race, religion and gender, among other topics. Cuomo called the attack “intolerable” and pledged the state won’t stand for it. “They attacked me, and they attacked you,” Cuomo said. “These are the times, my friends, when New York state is called upon to lead to set a course for a troubled nation searching its way through the fog of confusion,” he said. In a policy briefing book that accompanied his speech, Cuomo said his proposal to legalize marijuana would limit the sale of cannabis products to adults over age 21. But he only briefly mentioned his legalization proposal in his address Wednesday, to tepid applause. A similar proposal to legalize recreational marijuana failed last year among disagreements over funding and hesitation from suburban Democrats. Lawmakers instead scaled back penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana and created a process for expungement. Cuomo has declared “Making Progress Happen” as his slogan for 2020. But any progress will have to come while the state is grappling with a budget gap fueled by soaring Medicaid costs. Debate over how to handle the shortfall is expected to color virtually every policy debate this year. Hundreds of activists rallied in Albany demanding action on issues including the state’s ambitious climate change goals. Cuomo called climate change the “transcendent threat of our times” and proposed sending voters a $3 billion bond in November to fund a flood reduction and habitat restoration program he is calling Restore Mother Nature. “Because no economic strategy, no social justice reform, no education policy will be worth a damn if we don’t have a planet to live on,” he said. Cuomo has yet to share many details about his plans to address soaring costs of the Medicaid program, which serves over 6 million people. The governor called Wednesday for improved accountability in the Medicaid system, saying safeguards were needed to limit potential overspending on the program by municipalities. More details of how the administration plans to address the funding gap may have to wait for his budget proposal, expected in mid-January. Cuomo has cautioned against overspending while pledging not to raise taxes. That budget-conscious message could clash with more left-leaning lawmakers and advocates who want to balance the budget with new taxes on the wealthy. The governor’s party has seen big political wins in recent years, even as some long-time Democratic incumbents have lost to more left-wing challengers. But Cuomo argued Wednesday true progressive politics must be grounded in “reality” and champion results over rhetoric. Republicans, who have seen their clout diminish in Albany, say they will hold down spending and resist new taxes. Republican leaders including state GOP chairman Nick Langworthy criticized the governor for failing to address the budget deficit as well as a mounting debate over bail reforms enacted last year. Cuomo and other Democrats have signaled they are open to making changes to the statute. In his preview announcements over the past month, Cuomo has released proposals to ban untraceable guns, study high speed rail, allow liquor sales in movie theaters, require the use of American-made steel and iron on infrastructure projects and ease rules for prosecuting sexual assault involving intoxicated victims, among other initiatives. Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie, a Democrat, said lawmakers have their own priorities this year, including working to increase school aid, affordable housing, infrastructure, local businesses, rural hospitals and mental healthcare.

SOLUTION: Cuomo’s 2020 agenda: Fight hate, help planet, legalize pot.

PROBLEM: This one is true. Ann Coulter made the remarks during a June 2015 appearance on the Simon Conway Show, a syndicated talk radio program. Coulter was talking about the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) waiving citizenship requirements when she said: “The INS is waiving many English-language requirements for immigrants. And that obviously goes to the heart of it: Are you switching allegiances? Do you love this country? Beyond that, how about the wheelchair only section, how about the section for the blind? Look, we wish these people well, but we’re not running a charity here. It’s insane for any country not to be using its immigration policies to bring in people who are better than us, not people who are going to immediately need taxpayer assistance. We already have our own poor people. And, again, this includes all the immigrants who have come in forever and are here now. It’s people who live in America we should be taking care of, not bringing in people we have to help.” It’s not clear what Ann Coulter is referencing when she talks about a “wheelchair only section” and a “section for the blind.” But, in the past, immigrants who were unable to complete a naturalization interview, a naturalization test and take an oath of allegiance due to a physical disability were unable to be become naturalized citizens. That policy came to light during the 1990s. A 25-year-old immigrant from India who had lived in the U.S. since she was a baby was denied citizenship because she had cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy and other illnesses that made it impossible for her to recite the oath of allegiance. President Clinton signed a bipartisan bill into law in 2000 that granted a waiver to immigrants who qualified for citizenship but were unable to complete the process because of a disability.

SOLUTION:
 Ann Coulter, a conservative commentator and author, said immigrants who are blind or are in wheelchairs should not be granted citizenship.