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: "The article doesn't mention costs of angioplasty or costs of medications, which presumably must be taken for the rest of one's life. The article does mention that angioplasty is expensive, but does not provide real numbers or comparisons. The story provides absolute numbers of the primary endpoint over a 4-year period ""17 percent of those given angioplasty and drugs and nearly 16 percent of those given drugs alone had either died, suffered another heart attack or developed heart failure results considered to be statistically the same."" The story states that there was a worrisome trend toward more heart attacks in people who received late angioplasty compared to those who received just medications,although the story also tells readers that this could have been a statistical fluke or due to chance. However, other harms of the procedure were not discussed, including risks of the procedure itself, including bleeding, infection, or emotional distress/anxiety. The article also does not discuss risks of the alternative, e.g. medications, which have side effects, costs, or inconvenience. But, the story does discuss the main harm found in the study, e.g. a trend toward increased heart attacks. The research is important because it is a randomized controlled trial and the first such trial to be conducted for the clinical situation of late angioplasty in people with few to no symptoms after their heart attack. The story tells readers that enrollment of patients was delayed because ""doctors were unwilling to risk randomly assigning patients to drug treatment alone,"" indirectly stating that the study was a randomized trial. While an astute reader could probably pick up that this was a randomized trial, this fact could have been clearer. In addition, there islittlecontext around this being the first randomized trial for this clinical situation (as opposed to retrospective observational studies), although the story does tell readers that the results were surprising and that they could change guidelines. The story appropriately describes a heart attack, and more importantly, reinforces that early opening of the artery to restore blood flow to the heart after heart attack is still beneficial and that these results don't apply to that population or indeed the majority of people receiving angioplasties. No obvious disease mongering. The article provides an independent source of information from the chairman of theAmerican Heart Association program committee that reviewed the research. The story also provides information from the director of the National, Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, but tells readers that this organization largely funded the research, therefore disclosing potential conflicts of interest. The story tells readers that the alternative that was tested in the latest research was medications, including those to lower blood pressure and cholesterol, aspirin, and anti-clotting drugs. The story could have mentioned beta-blockers specifically, since the protective effect of drug treatment may come from this family of drugs, although this is not yet proven. And the story could have been clearer about the course of treatment, e.g. that these medications are generally taken for the rest of one's life. The story tells readers that the usual treatment for people suffering a heart attackis angioplasty, even for a subset of people who weren't treated right away (the study population)/ The article also tells readers that the tendency to perform angioplasty electively (3 to 28 days after the event) was so strong, that recruitment to the study was prolonged in order to find enough patients (and their doctors) willing to participate in the study. It's widely understood that angioplasty and standard drug therapy after heart attackare not new. The article provides independent sources of information not included in the press release."

A: Study says late angioplasty futile
****
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: "At least among Fox News viewers, nothing boosts audience like taking President Barack Obama to task. The day after Fox News host Bill O'Reilly had an interview with Obama, O'Reilly picked up an additional 1 million viewers for his show The O'Reilly Factor. The president sat down with O'Reilly right before the Super Bowl, and the tone of the conversation itself stirred up a flurry of reactions. Here's a small example from a moment when O'Reilly pressed Obama on the administration's response to the attack on the American compound in Benghazi, Libya. O'Reilly: If (Ambassador to the United Nations) Susan Rice goes out and tells the world that it was a spontaneous demonstration... Obama: Bill... O'Reilly: -- off a videotape but your... Obama: Bill... O'Reilly: -- your commanders and the secretary of Defense know it's a terror attack... Obama: Now, Bill... O'Reilly: Just... Obama: -- Bill... O'Reilly: -- as an American... Obama: -- Bill -- Bill... O'Reilly: -- I'm just confused. Obama: And I'm -- and I'm trying to explain it to (you), if you want to listen. No wonder that many observers described the interview as testy. Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank called it ""the roughest and nastiest exchange"" of the three times that O'Reilly has interviewed Obama. ""He interrupted the president 42 times in 10 minutes,"" Milbank said on MSNBC's Politics Nation. Of all the words uttered in this 10-minute interview, 40 percent were uttered by O'Reilly."" We wanted to check Milbank's numbers. Not on the interruptions, but on the word count. We pulled out our digital centrifuge and separated the O'Reilly and Obama utterances. According to our research, O'Reilly delivered 787 words to Obama's 1,484. This gave O'Reilly 35 percent of the conversation. That's a little lower than Milbank said but more or less in the same ballpark. We reached out to Milbank and did not hear back. To satisfy our own curiosity, we decided to compare this with another one-on-one interview between the president and a journalist. A couple of days before Obama sat down with O'Reilly, he did the same with CNN's Jake Tapper. We subjected that transcript to the same rigorous methods and found that Tapper spoke 23 percent of the time, leaving the president the other 77 percent. The precise word counts were Tapper -- 849 and Obama -- 2,886. Milbank's point was that O'Reilly's interview was almost as much about O'Reilly as it was about the president. We don't know about that, but we can say that O'Reilly spoke about 50 percent morethan Tapper did in his interview. The topics in the two interviews differed greatly. O'Reilly brought up Obamacare, the Benghazi attack and the IRS scrutiny of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. Tapper focused on issues like immigration reform, legalization of marijuana, spying by the National Security Agency, and security at the Winter Olympics in Sochi. O'Reilly had a second installment of his time with Obama that aired the night after the Super Bowl. Milbank's comment came on the same night, so we're counting only the segment that had aired publicly at that point. For the record, in the second installment, O'Reilly asked the president about African-American children raised in single-parent households, school vouchers, the Keystone pipeline, a contraceptive coverage exemption for Little Sisters of the Poor, and veterans benefits. Our ruling Milbank said O'Reilly said 40 percent of the words during his interview with the president. That was a little high. By our count, 35 percent would be more accurate. O'Reilly spoke decidedly more than Tapper did in his time with Obama."

A:
Dana Milbank Says Bill O'Reilly spoke 40 percent of the words in an interview with President Barack Obama.
****