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 story sidebar estimates that a full course of treatment can cost $3000 or more. It could have added that this treatment is unlikely to be covered by many insurance companies. This was the biggest hole in an otherwise reasonably solid story. The article claims that there is “growing evidence” that neurofeedback can help treat people with ADHD. However, the story never describes any of the results of this purported increase in research that supposedly documents these benefits. The closest we come is the description of a study which hasn’t even been published yet. The story also suggests that neurofeedback’s benefits might last longer than those of medication. Again, however, we are never given any sound basis to believe that neurofeedback works at all — let alone better than other treatments. At the same time, the story leans heavily on testimony from a journalist who has written a book about ADHD and claims neurofeedback worked for her and her son. We are told that the primary improvement she saw with her son was that he was “easier to live with.” Although this kind of anecdotal report can be useful to add context to scientific findings, it is certainly no substitute for reporting on the actual clinical outcomes of research. The story failed to discuss any potential harms of neurofeedback treatment. The most prominent of these is that patients could forego other treatment approaches that have better supporting evidence and are more likely to reduce symptoms. There is also some evidence that neurofeedback can cause seizures or make symptoms worse in some individuals with psychological disorders. In addition, the need for frequent treatments may necessitate taking a child out of school. Readers should come away from this story with a generally accurate feel for where the research on this treatment stands. The story told readers early on that neurofeedback is “scientifically uNPRoved” for the treatment of ADHD. It backs up this contention later in this story by noting that almost all research on this treatment hasn’t involved a placebo control group. And the only study to include such a group apparently hasn’t released its results yet and seems to have involved a very small number of patients. In addition, the story quotes an expert who emphasizes that other forms of treatment (e.g. medication and behavior therapy) have better evidence to support their effectiveness for ADHD. We did think the story focused a bit too much on a single patient anecdote (a deficiency discussed later under the “Benefits” criterion) — an emphasis which makes the treatment sound very promising with little justification. The story could have struck a better balance by toning this section down a bit. No disease-mongering in this story. In addition to extensive comments from the journalist book author who discusses her experience with neurofeedback, the story quotes a Duke University researcher who is an expert on ADHD and offers some counterbalancing perspective. The story quotes a researcher who says that two other approaches — medication and behavior therapy — have a more extensive research base supporting their use for ADHD compared with neurofeedback. It’s clear from the story that this type of treatment is available to the general public. We like that the story cautioned readers to look out for unqualified therapists and gave tips for finding reputable clinicians. The story could have been more specific about how many trained professionals there are and how easy it is to find them outside of large population centers. The story does not oversell the novelty of neurofeedback for the treatment of ADHD. This story does not appear to be based on a news release.

A: Train The Brain: Using Neurofeedback To Treat ADHD
****
Q: The release does not mention cost or whether it’s covered by private insurance or Medicare, and in this case, it’s a pretty big omission. This may be an enormously expensive treatment for patients — and it’s why we have a cost criterion in our reviews. The hopeful psoriasis patient who sees this release without a cost discussion might already have their hand on the phone to call their dermatologist. Here’s a very rough estimate of what that patient might face in terms of cost: Based on a conservative wholesale price of roughly $4,000 per 80 mg injection and following the recommendation (found on the package insert) of two injections every two weeks for 12 weeks, followed by monthly injections, we calculated $48,000 for the first 12 weeks plus $36,000 for the following 9 months or $84,000 total. The release stated that by week 12, “76.4 to 81.8 percent of patients had their psoriasis classified as “clear” or “minimal” compared to 3.2% of patients on the placebo. By the 60th week, 68.7 to 78.3 percent of patients had maintained their improvement.” We also wanted more detail on the measured strength of the response for each patient. For example, what constitutes “minimal”? The release adequately addresses harms and notes that long-term side effects are unknown with this sentence: “Adverse events associated with ixekizumab included slightly higher rates of neutropenia (low white blood cell count), yeast infection and inflammatory bowel disease compared to the placebo. The safety of therapy longer than 60 weeks will need to be monitored in the future.” The release clearly and thoroughly describes the three phase 3 international trials at 21 sites, that they enrolled a large number of patients, and that they were randomized and controlled. There was no disease mongering. The release describes what psoriasis is and its prevalence, and explains that these trials were for moderate to severe psoriasis which covers at least 10 percent of the body. The release is very transparent in stating that the drug manufacturer paid for the research and that the lead researcher is a paid consultant to Eli Lilly. The release did not compare the many different ways that patients treat psoriasis, some with topical agents and some with oral steroids or other medications. The release states that the drug has been approved by the FDA following the completion of the trials. This is a strong indication that the drug is or soon will be available. The release should have noted that the drug is already being marketed under the brand name Taltz. The release makes an understated claim to novelty with this quote from the lead researcher: “Ten years ago, we thought complete clearance of this disease was impossible. It wasn’t something we would even try to do. Now with this drug, we’re obtaining response levels higher than ever seen before.” There was no unjustifiable language in the release.

A: New drug clears psoriasis in clinical trials
****
Q: "President Barack Obama is expected to take another stab at raising the minimum wage when he delivers his State of the Union speech this week. But Republicans appear ready to stymie that proposal once again. The topic came up Jan. 26, 2014, on Fox News Sunday during a discussion between host Chris Wallace and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. ""Isn't it reasonable that somebody who's working full time, 40 hours a week, should be able to live above the poverty line?"" Wallace asked McConnell, referring to Obama’s calls to hike the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. ""Yeah. But of course, the minimum wage is mostly an entry-level wage for young people,"" McConnell replied. ""We have a crisis in employment among young people right now."" McConnell went on to say that he believes raising the minimum wage will hurt employment and ""we ought to be doing things that create more jobs."" But what about McConnell’s characterization of minimum wage workers? Is it a workforce mostly made up of young folks? We’ll stick to the federal minimum wage, which is $7.25, since that’s the topic up for debate. As it stands, 21 states and the District of Columbia have set their minimum wage higher than the federal level. A spokesman for McConnell pointed us to a study by the U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics, ""Characterizations of Minimum Wage Workers,"" released in February of last year. We’re familiar with it, having written a couple of fact-checks recently on the minimum wage. According to the report, of the 75 million people making hourly wages in 2012, about 1.6 million earned the minimum wage while another 2 million earned less than $7.25 an hour. (How does one earn less than the minimum wage? Certain exceptions are carved out for ""vocational education students,"" ""full-time students employed by retail or service establishments, agriculture, or institutions of higher education,"" and those ""impaired by a physical or mental disability."") The underlying data in the report largely backs up McConnell’s claim. In fact, the report even says ""Minimum wage workers tend to be young."" How young? Only 20 percent of individuals earning hourly wages are ages 16-24, but that demographic makes up half of all individuals earning at or below the minimum wage. About a quarter of those individuals are teenagers ages 16-19 and another 25 percent are 20 to 24 years old. Broadened to include 25-29 year olds, and nearly two-thirds of all workers making at or below the minimum wage are younger than 30. The older you get, the more likely you’re making more than $7.25. But McConnell also described minimum wage jobs as ""entry-level."" That’s a characterization with which some may take an issue. Entry-level jobs typically indicate positions that, while at the bottom of the totem pole, have potential for growth. Young adults take entry-level jobs at companies hoping to climb the career ladder. And while wages are lower, there is potential to see considerable salary increases and/or career advancement. A majority of minimum-wage jobs don’t really fit that description. According to the report, two-thirds are part-time, and half of all minimum wage jobs are in the leisure or hospitality industry. This includes food service jobs like waiters and cooks, hotel employees or movie theater workers, among other jobs. While many of those jobs are traditionally held by young people, they don’t typically lead to careers in those industries. The same can be said for retail jobs, which make up another 16 percent of all minimum wage-or-less positions. Our ruling McConnell said ""the minimum wage is mostly an entry-level wage for young people."" The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that indeed half of all workers making a minimum wage are 16 to 24, and another 20 percent are in their late 20s or early 30s. That’s a large chunk of the minimum wage workforce, though about 30 percent of people making the minimum wage are 35 and older. McConnell also goes a bit too far in calling these jobs ""entry-level."" For most young people, these are part-time jobs in the food or retail businesses or similar industries with little hope for career advancement."

A:
The minimum wage is mostly an entry-level wage for young people.
****