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: This release makes no mention of the costs of the drugs compared in this study, even though the drugs have been in use for years and are widely available. Since the study is a comparison of various treatments for this form of cancer, it seems relevant to offer a cost comparison as well as a comparison of efficacy. It appears that the high dose methotrexate is given over a 24-hour period, presumably in the hospital, while the standard methotrexate is given as a single dose. Also, the high dose methotrexate isfollowed by leucovorin administration while the standard dose is not. According to the site GoodRx, the cost for methotrexate in low-dose (2.5 mg) pill form averages out to about $50 for a month's supply. Newer, injectable variations of the drug cost upwards of $500 a month for the 25 mg dose. The release states that patients receiving high doses of the drug methotrexate "had a significantly better outcome, by 5 to 6 percent" than did patients receiving the current standard of care, which is gradually escalating doses of the drug. The release also explains that patients nine years old or younger who were also treated with a steroid called decadron (dexamethasone) forhalf as long as normal (14 versus 28 days) benefited from the treatment while patients 10 and older did not. We're not sure of the meaning behind these results as portrayed in the release. Which outcome was better by 5 or 6 percent? The study has several. Does that mean the relapse rate was reduced or is it the event free survival that was better? It would be more meaningful to readers if the release had included the actual relapse and event free survival rates for each group analyzed in terms most people can understand. For example: "relapse rates were 5 percent lower in Group X compared to Group Y." We'll give this category a satisfactory rating largely due to the release including information that patients 10 and older receiving dexamethasone "were at much higher risk for a debilitating bone condition called osteonecrosis," although we would have been happier if that greater risk would have been quantified. However, the published study explains that there were toxicity problems beyond that of dexamethasone and the release would have been stronger including that information as well. The release stated the study was randomized and controlled, and provides a broad overview of the study design, for which we give the release a borderline satisfactory under this criteria. However, these are thesuperficial results. On deeper delving into the study methodology, the statistical significances of the results were very close to notstatistically significant. This is due to their planned interim stopping of the treatment and the fact that they were looking at multiple outcomes in multiple groups. This release doesn't demonstrate disease-mongering. While the release does say that this clinical trial was run by the Children's Oncology Group, which is funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health, it makes no mention of possible conflicts of interest. Compounding that is the fact that the published study says, "Disclosures provided by the authors are available with this article at www.jco.org," but that information is behind the journal's paywall for most readers, so it's unknown if there is, or is not, a conflict. It appears as though five of the authors (out of a total of about 20) have some conflicts of interest, mostly from several types of drug company payments. The release is comparing the efficacy of treatment regimens using different drugs so alternative treatmentsfor B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia are noted. The release makes clear at the end that the treatment of this disease is improving thanks to refinement of the use of existing drug treatments, meaning that they are readily available for patient use. The release suggests the study findings could change the way childhood leukemia is treated. Modifying existing treatments to enhance a patient's survival is certainly novel enough to warrant a release. There is no use of unjustifiable language in this release. However, the tone may be a bit overly optimistic given the study findings. Claim: Relapses of childhood leukemia improve with high doses of common chemo drug
This release reports the findings of a large clinical trial testing whether alternative dosing regimens of standard chemotherapeutic drugs can improve the treatment of B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia. The study showed that using high doses of the drug methotrexate, rather than the standard regimen of gradually increasing doses, improved the outcomes for patients with the disease. The study also showed that using the steroid dexamethasone increased a debilitating bone condition in patients 10 and older but not in patients nine or younger. While the study results are promising, they are by no means clear-cut in the release. The release needed some qualifiers in order to give a clear picture of the benefits. The release also neglected to discuss costs and potential conflicts of interest among the investigators. This form of cancer B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia is the most common cancer in children and a major cause of cancer death in patients under 40 years old. And while the majority of patients survive with appropriate treatment, anywhere from one-fifth to one-quarter of patients do not. This study showed that refining the dosing of standard cancer drugs may improve the outcome for some high-risk patients.

Paragraph: "Accusations about the responsible party behind the United States' struggle to accelerate coronavirus testing have come from every which way and the blame has fallen, often inaccurately, on the shoulders of different public officials. In a March 13 tweet, President Donald Trump said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied its testing system for decades but wasn't prepared for a large scale pandemic, an issue that was complicated by policy changes made by former President Barack Obama. U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., retweeted Trump's remark and added his own comment: ""Trump is once again trying to blame the previous administration for the number of tests available. This is his #DailyLie."" U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Houston, retweeted Schumer's remark and said: ""It's not Obama's fault and it's not Trump's fault. We have stringent FDA regulations, long in place, that created barriers to the private industry creating a test quickly."" PolitiFact looked at a different Trump claim blaming Obama for a lack of testing. We also looked at a claim from Democrat Joe Biden about the Trump administration rejecting tests from the World Health Organization (they were never offered). Trump also inaccurately stated that any individual who wants to be tested for the coronavirus can get a test. We wanted to dig deeper into Crenshaw's claim, which attributes the delays in the availability of widespread testing to Food and Drug Administration regulations. Justin Discigil, spokesman for Crenshaw, pointed to articles from ProPublica, the New Yorker, The Atlantic and the Washington Post, all of which highlighted the role FDA regulations played here. He added: ""Just to be clear nowhere did we say that these regulations were the sole/only reason for the testing issue, we said that they created barriers."" A timeline of events The first confirmed case of COVID-19 in the United States came at the end of January, when a man in Washington state developed symptoms after returning from a trip to Wuhan. One month later, federal health officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it was inevitable that the U.S. would experience a spread of the virus and urged people to take precautions. In these early days of the virus, tests were not widely distributed to local and state laboratories. Instead, testing for the new coronavirus was conducted almost entirely by the CDC samples collected at the local level were sent to the agency. Initial test kits developed by the CDC for use in local and state labs were flawed and produced inaccurate results in some labs, meaning they couldn't be distributed. As the agency worked to correct the tests, health officials turned to the FDA. The U.S. Association of Public Health Laboratories submitted a letter asking the agency to use ""enforcement discretion"" and authorize local and state labs to develop and use their own tests. During a public health emergency, labs and drug manufacturers must seek an Emergency Use Authorization from the FDA to use diagnostic tests and medical treatments that have not gone through the typical clearance process to share them faster in the emergency. (These authorizations were begun in 2004 under President George W. Bush.) For laboratory-developed tests, like the ones in question, FDA policy has stated that they cannot be used in clinical diagnoses without the FDA's approval during an emergency. Although the goal of these regulations is to ensure only accurate lab tests are conducted, health officials have said they prevented them from quickly responding to the virus. One doctor in a Seattle lab described the process for getting an Emergency Use Authorization from the FDA and said the agency asked for a level of testing that didn't make sense in the context of an emergency, according to a GQ profile. A doctor in North Carolina told NBC News that she had developed a test using the World Health Organization's protocol but had yet to receive the use authorization from the FDA, putting the state ""way behind"" in its ability to test patients. On Feb. 29, the FDA announced a change in the process: Labs would still need to seek the agency's approval for their tests, but the labs could begin testing while waiting for the official green light. On March 16, (three days after Crenshaw made his claim) the FDA announced another change to its policies and put state officials in charge of coronavirus tests developed by laboratories in their states, meaning labs would engage with state officials and not the FDA. It also removes the requirement for these labs to apply for an Emergency Use Authorization for their tests. The changes also expand which labs and manufacturers are included in FDA guidelines and which kinds of tests can be developed. ""We believe the unprecedented policy set forth in today's updated guidance, which addresses laboratories and commercial manufacturers, will help address these urgent public health concerns by helping to expand the number and variety of diagnostic tests, as well as available testing capabilities in health care settings, and reference and commercial laboratories,"" reads a release from the agency. After the changes After the FDA announced changes to its policies, Labcorps and Quest Diagnostics both announced plans to start testing for the new coronavirus, crediting changes in federal policy with their ability to do so. ""We applaud the FDA for providing the flexibility for innovative, quality lab developed tests to be brought to patients and providers quickly to advance effective response to the coronavirus outbreak,"" said Steve Rusckowski, chairman and chief executive officer of Quest Diagnostics, in a statement. But even as state and local authorities move to ramp up testing, the number of available tests is still lacking. In Austin, for example, there is still a gap between available test kids and demand for testing, as officials prioritize testing for health care workers, people living in nursing homes and people at high risk for complications from the virus. Our Ruling Crenshaw said in a tweet that longstanding FDA regulations ""created barriers to the private industry creating a test quickly"" for the coronavirus. Crenshaw's statement is accurate. FDA procedures adopted in 2004 meant laboratories had to seek the agency's approval before developing and using tests in communities, a policy many health care officials have said prevented the country from taking early action in response to the novel coronavirus. It is important to keep in mind that other factors have contributed to the low levels of testing for the virus, beyond the FDA regulations. But Crenshaw's statement is accurate." Claim: Dan Crenshaw Says longstanding Food and Drug Administration regulations "created barriers to the private industry creating a test quickly" for the coronavirus.
Food and Drug Administration regulations in place since 2004 require labaratories to get an Emergency Use Authorization from the agency to use diagnostic tests and medical treatments that haven't gone through the typical clearance process. The policy was intended to speed up the process, but researchers reported significant delays between seeking an application and getting approval and these regulations played a role in that. The FDA has since changed the regulations to allow labs to start utilizing tests before receiving clearance.

Paragraph: On 26 January 2018, a Connecticut woman posted video to her Facebook page that was apparently video from a hidden camera showing California high school teacher Gregory Salcido talking pejoratively about the U.S. military: Salcido is both a long-time teacher at El Rancho High School and a city councilman in Pico Rivera, a working-class city of roughly 63,000 in southeast Los Angeles County. When we contacted him, he declined to comment. In the videos, which were secretlyrecorded by senior Victor Quinonez, Salcido's comments were often met with students' laughter. He criticizes military recruitment on the high school's campus and derides the glorification of the military, saying statements made by United States President Donald Trump about the its greatness are overblown. In the quote that drew the most outrage, Salcido said: We got all our freaking night vision goggles, all that kind of stuff, and we can't freaking control these dudes wearing freaking robes and chanclas. Because we got a bunch of dumb shits over there. Think about the people who you know who are over there, your freaking stupid Uncle Louie or whoever, they're dumb shits. They're not like high-level thinkers, they're not academic people, they're not intellectual people. They're the freaking lowest of our low. Not morally. I'm not saying they make bad moral decisions. They're not talented people. [] How come when you go to like the Rose Bowl, Rose Parade, Dodger opening day, why after the national anthem do we have a killing machine fly over the freaking stadium? You know the stealth bomber's out there and everyone's like, "Yeah that's what we kill people with!" Like why would that be something we celebrate? I don't get it. Anyway, you better not freaking go. The comments drew a rather intense round of what has become a familiar pattern of viral Internet outrage and backlash. In response to the controversy, Salcido has been officially admonished by the Pico Rivera City Council and stripped of his committee assignments. He has been placed on leave by theEl Rancho Unified School District while the incident is under scrutiny. Even the United States Department of Defense has weighed in, calling Salcido's comments "uninformed." Salcido told the Los Angeles Times he was receiving "vulgar and violent threats" directed against himself and his family. Pico Rivera is a tight-knit, primarily Latino suburb that has a strong tradition of honoring veterans and a large military-serving community, with two Veterans of Foreign Wars posts and two American Legion auxiliaries, said Mayor Gustavo Camacho. Speaking by phone, Camacho told us: I respect the First Amendment and freedom of speech and Mr. Salcido is entitled to his freedom of speech. But I want to remind him that the reason he has that freedom is because of the men and women who lost their lives in order for us to have that freedom of speech. Many folks can listen to an audio and interpret it as they see fit. If you have an opinion about recruitment or a particular college recruiter, why don't we tell our kids, "These are our options. I think this is a better option and let me help you get there," rather than saying they're dumb shits. I and my fellow council members strongly disagree with Mr. Salcido's statements and viewpoints. Frankly we denounce those statements. But Trinity College sociology professor and U.S. Army veteran Johnny Eric Williams said although Salcido's comments were delivered clumsily, the teacher shouldn't be formally punished for making them, calling the response troubling and overblown. Williams himself was the subject of a separate Internet outrage storm in June 2017, when a post on his personal Facebook page intended to criticize structural racism and white supremacy went viral after right-wing web sites interpreted it as racist toward white people. Williams, who is African-American, received death threats and told us that he continues to get them to this day. He added: The classroom is your social space where people can say things they wouldn't say normally out of the classroom setting so they can seriously interrogate it. It sounds like he was trying to provoke the kids to think about why a student would wear a Marines shirt without thinking about what the Marines do. Clearly it didn't come across well, but it's a classroom setting. He's not doing a major speech, he's trying to get kids to think about what the role of the military is. It's not simply to protect freedom, as they say generically. The question is, freedom to do what and whose freedoms? That's the question that should be asked. Why would a kid record a teacher like that in the first place without him knowing? I think that's a level of cowardice and of unwillingness to participate that is unfathomable to me. It was done with malice. All education is about integrating people into what it means to be an American. One of the most important things is to be someone who questions, who thinks critically and dissents. That's the most patriotic thing someone can do. Williams told us that as a veteran, he found Salcido's comments about the intelligence of service members to be unfounded and an excellent example of intellectual elitism: What happens is the U.S. military is the last option for folks in rural and poverty-stricken areas. There's no other opportunity for them. But the idea that these folks are not smart, I don't agree with that at all. That's how I got through college. I had to do it because I didn't have money. That's why you have a voluntary army, because these people have nothing else they can do. Then they go and die while the kids with money go to college and don't even think about the fact that we're in eternal war. Nevertheless, Williams cautioned that lacking the freedom to criticize the military is akin to fascism. He added: At this historical moment in time, people are more interested in how something is said, rather than what is said and what it means. Quinonez told local news stationKTLA he recorded Salcido because he wants to join the Marine Corps and was tired of the teacher's negative commentary on the military. Pico Rivera is a thriving community with a growing economy, but it's no stranger to cut-throat politics and controversy and neither is Salcido. However, much of the controversy in the city's past has been contained to the local level. In 2010, he ignited debate when he took the helm in the city's rotating mayoral position, then removed a Bible from the Council chamber's dais and put a halt to invocation, saying it was unconstitutional. He was also placed on administrative leave by the school district that year after admonishing a student to be quiet by saying, "Shut up, Kelly, before I kill you." Salcido said atthe time the comment was purposefully over-the-top and intended in jest. The child's parent,Gerald Kelly, said he was angry because Salcido was talking about marriage equality for LGBTQ people, criticizing organized religion, and (again) speaking critically of the military in class: This is the mayor and he's out here destroying these kids' minds. Why allow him to lead this city when he stands for non-religious beliefs and that it's OK to be against the Bible, [says it's OK to be] homosexual and defames people in the military? Salcido has clashed with his peers on the city council in the past as well, often as their vocal critic amid allegations of public corruption. Although Salcido has faced widespread criticism for his remarks, he has historically been a popular teacher with students. Some of his current and former students have come to his defense, averring that the teacher also promised to fully support a student if he decided to join the military in spite of Salcido's discouragement. (This purported gesture of reassurance was not shown in the videos.) More generally, students have described Salcido as "real," "inspiring" and "loved." One of Salcido's current students, a senior at El Rancho High School, spoke to us anonymously. (We have verified the student's identity.) That student described Salcido as a teacher who "cares greatly about his students' success" but deliberately provokes debate in his classes and encourages his students to have "deep conversations." The student also told us that Salcido "sometimes has a very sarcastic sense of humor, and sometimes it may be taken the wrong way," but offered the opinion that the teacher was expressing his "genuine beliefs" in the video clips: Not a lot of teachers can keep their students captivated as much as he can. He really is one of a kind. He likes to get us thinking and he genuinelycares about what the students think He's one of those guys that you would be happy to see every dayand a person to always make you laugh. On 20 March 2018, the El Rancho Unified School District Board voted to terminate Salcido's employment as a teacher at El Rancho High School. As reported by the Whittier Daily News, Salcido has one month in which he can appeal the decision, during which time he will remain on unpaid leave. Claim: "California schoolteacher Gregory Salcido called members of the United States military ""the lowest of our low"" during a classroom discussion."
Gregory Salcido, who is also a City Council member in Pico Rivera, was caught on video making a series of controversial remarks about the armed services.