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.

A still image provided by KPIX TV and taken from the broadcaster's video footage shows Timothy Ray Brown during an interview at his home in San Francisco. Timothy Ray Brown, was a young HIV-positive American living and working in Berlin who had developed leukaemia and suffered a relapse after initial treatment. REUTERS/Courtesy KPIX TV/Handout Dramatic scientific advances since HIV was first discovered 30 years ago this week mean the virus is no longer a death sentence. Thanks to tests that detect HIV early, new antiretroviral AIDS drugs that can control the virus for decades, and a range of ways to stop it being spread, 33.3 million people around the world are learning to live with HIV. People like Vuyiseka Dubula, an HIV-positive AIDS activist and mother in Cape Town, South Africa, can expect relatively normal, full lives. “I’m not thinking about death at all,” she says. “I’m taking my treatment and I’m living my life.”   Nonetheless, on the 30th birthday of HIV, the global scientific community is setting out with renewed vigor to try to kill it. The drive is partly about science, and partly about money. Treating HIV patients with lifelong courses of sophisticated drugs is becoming unaffordable. Caring for HIV patients in developing countries alone already costs around $13 billion a year and that could treble over the next 20 years. In tough economic times, the need to find a cure has become even more urgent, says Francoise Barre Sinoussi, who won a Nobel prize for her work in identifying Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). “We have to think about the long term, including a strategy to find a cure,” she says. “We have to keep on searching until we find one.”   The Berlin patient is proof they could. His case has injected new energy into a field where people for years believed talk of a cure was irresponsible. Timothy Ray Brown was living in Berlin when besides being HIV-positive, he had a relapse of leukemia. He was dying. In 2007, his doctor, Gero Huetter, made a radical suggestion: a bone marrow transplant using cells from a donor with a rare genetic mutation, known as CCR5 delta 32. Scientists had known for a few years that people with this gene mutation had proved resistant to HIV. “We really didn’t know when we started this project what would happen,” Huetter, an oncologist and haematologist who now works at the University of Heidelberg in southern Germany, told Reuters. The treatment could well have finished Brown off. Instead he remains the only human ever to be cured of AIDS. “He has no replicating virus and he isn’t taking any medication. And he will now probably never have any problems with HIV,” says Huetter. Brown has since moved to San Francisco. Most experts say it is inconceivable Brown’s treatment could be a way of curing all patients. The procedure was expensive, complex and risky. To do this in others, exact match donors would have to be found in the tiny proportion of people — most of them of northern European descent — who have the mutation that makes them resistant to the virus. Dr Robert Gallo, of the Institute of Virology at the University of Maryland, puts it bluntly. “It’s not practical and it can kill people,” he said last year. Sinoussi is more expansive. “It’s clearly unrealistic to think that this medically heavy, extremely costly, barely reproducible approach could be replicated and scaled-up ... but from a scientist’s point of view, it has shown at least that a cure is possible,” she says. The International AIDS Society will this month formally add the aim of finding a cure to its HIV strategy of prevention, treatment and care. A group of scientist-activists is also launching a global working group to draw up a scientific plan of attack and persuade governments and research institutions to commit more funds. Money is starting to flow. The U.S. National Institutes of Health is asking for proposals for an $8.5 million collaborative research grant to search for a cure, and the Foundation for AIDS Research, or amfAR, has just announced its first round of four grants to research groups “to develop strategies for eradicating HIV infection.”   Until recently, people in HIV and AIDS circles feared that to direct funds toward the search for a cure risked detracting from the fight to get HIV-positive people treated. Even today, only just over five million of the 12 million or so people who need the drugs actually get them. HIV first surfaced in 1981, when scientists at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention discovered it was the cause of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). An article in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of that June referred to “five young men, all active homosexuals” from Los Angeles as the first documented cases. “That was the summer of ‘81. For the world it was the beginning of the era of HIV/AIDS, even though we didn’t know it was HIV then,” says Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who has made AIDS research his life’s work. In the subsequent three decades, the disease ignorantly branded “the gay plague” has become one of the most vicious pandemics in human history. Transmitted in semen, blood and breast milk, HIV has devastated poorer regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, where the vast majority of HIV-positive people live. As more tests and treatment have become available, the number of new infections has been falling. But for every two with HIV who get a chance to start on AIDS drugs, five more join the “newly infected” list. United Nations data show that despite an array of potential prevention measures — from male circumcision to sophisticated vaginal or anal microbicide gels — more than 7,100 new people catch the virus every day. Treatment costs per patient can range from around $150 a year in poor countries, where drugs are available as cheap generics, to more than $20,000 a year in the United States. The overall sums are huge. A recent study as part of a non-governmental campaign called AIDS2031 suggests that low and middle-income countries will need $35 billion a year to properly address the pandemic by 2031. That’s almost three times the current level of around $13 billion a year. Add in the costs of treatment in rich countries and experts estimate the costs of HIV 20 years from now will reach $50 to $60 billion a year. “It’s clear that we have to look at another possible way of managing of the epidemic beyond just treating everyone forever,” says Sharon Lewin, a leading HIV doctor and researcher from Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. In some ways, we have been here before. Early AIDS drugs such as AZT came to market in the late 1980s, but within a decade they were overtaken by powerful cocktail treatments known as HAART, or highly active antiretroviral treatment. HAART had a dramatic effect — rapidly driving the virus out of patients’ blood and prompting some to say a cure was just around the corner. But then scientists discovered HIV could lie low in pools or reservoirs of latent infection that even powerful drugs could not reach. Talk of a cure all but died out. “Scientifically we had no means to say we were on the way to finding a cure,” says Bertrand Audoin, executive director of the Geneva-based International AIDS Society. “Scientists ... don’t want to make any more false promises. They didn’t want to talk about a cure again because it really wasn’t anywhere on the horizon.”   The ultimate goal would allow patients to stop taking AIDS drugs, knocking a hole in a $12 billion-a-year market dominated by Californian drugmaker Gilead and the likes of Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Merck. It’s unlikely to happen anytime soon, but Brown’s case has opened the door to new ideas. “What it proved was that if you make someone’s cells resistant to HIV...then all the last bits of HIV, that hang around for a long time in patients on treatment, did in fact decay and disappear,” says Lewin. Now scientists working on mimicking the effect of the Berlin patient’s transplant have had some success. One experimental technique uses gene therapy to take out certain cells, make them resistant to HIV and then put them back into patients in the hope they will survive and spread. At an HIV conference in Boston earlier this year, American researchers presented data on six patients who had large numbers of white blood cells known as CD4 cells removed, manipulated to knock out the existing CCR5 gene, and then replaced. “It works like scissors and cuts a piece of genetic information out of the DNA, and then closes the gap,” says Huetter. “Then every cell arising from this mother cell has this same mutation.”   Early results showed the mutated cells managed to survive inside the bodies of the patients at low levels, remaining present for more than three months in five. “This was a proof of concept,” says Lewin. Another potential avenue is a small group of patients known as “elite controllers”, who despite being infected with HIV are able to keep it under control simply with their own immune systems. Researchers hope these patients could one day be the clue to developing a successful HIV/AIDS vaccine or functional cure. Scientists are also exploring ways to “wake up” HIV cells and kill them. As discovered in the late 1990s, HIV has a way of getting deep into the immune system itself — into what are known as resting memory T-cells — and going to sleep there. Hidden away, it effectively avoids drugs and the body’s own immune response. “Once it goes to sleep in a cell it can stay there forever, which is really the main reason why we can’t cure HIV with current drugs,” says Lewin. Her team in Melbourne and another group in the United States are about to start the first human trials using a drug called SAHA or vorinostat, made by Merck and currently used in cancer treatment, which has shown promise in being able to wake up dormant HIV. As scientists begin to talk up a cure, the old question of whether that’s the right goal has re-emerged. Seth Berkley, a medical epidemiologist and head of the U.S.-based International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) is concerned. An HIV-positive person holds a placard during a programme organized to mark World AIDS Day in Kathmandu December 1, 2010. To match Special Report AIDS/ REUTERS/Deepa Shrestha “From a science point of view, it’s a fabulous thing to do. It’s a great target and a lot of science will be learned. But from a public health point of view, the primary thing you need to do is stop the flow of new infections,” says Berkley. “We need a prevention revolution. That is absolutely critical.”   Vuyiseka Dubula agrees. The South African activist finds talk of a cure for HIV distracting, almost disconcerting. “This research might not yield results soon, and even when it does, access to that cure is still going to be a big issue,” she says. “So in the meantime, while we don’t have the answer on whether HIV can be cured or not, we need to save lives.”
Special Report: An end to AIDS?.

While the story does describe the cost of stenting, it does not provide the cost of the medication for comparison. The story does give the rate of heart attack or death as 19% within 7 years for both the stent and the medication group. Although the study mentions the risk of clotting with drug-coated stents, this is not adequate information on harms. Furthermore, the study does not mention any possible harms of medication. The story adequately describes the design of the current study. The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of heart disease. Furthermore, the story clearly states that this study was done on patients at low risk, that is, those with stable heart disease. The story only quotes one cardiologist not associated with the study and gives no rationale for why he was chosen. (Is it because he's in New York and readily available?) The story could have quoted other clinicians or experts who could have provided some valuable perspective on the impact of this new development on the management of heart disease. The story does mention medication as the alternative to stenting. The story clearly states that stenting is very common in the U.S. The story clearly states that stenting is not a new idea. Because the story quotes the lead author of the study and one physician who is not related to the study, the reader can assume the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
Heart study: Most angioplasties not needed

“Pets are your loved ones, pets should be your family, pets are not something you keep on a chain in the backyard,” the intensive-care nurse from Somers, Connecticut, said. Lescault, 43, who enrolled Moose in a clinical trial of an experimental drug designed to help his immune system fight his  cancer, represents the type of pet lover that has spurred animal health companies around the globe to invest in developing complex new treatments previously reserved for humans. Biotechnology, which produces medicines from living cells, revolutionized the drug industry more than a quarter century ago with breakthrough medicines at prices that now run as high as hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. In recent years, the cost of genetic testing and biotech drug production has fallen sharply, making biotechnology for pets financially viable at much lower prices, industry experts said. For a FACTBOX, click  Sector leader Zoetis (ZTS.N) and others say animal drug development is faster, less expensive and more predictable than drugs for people. “It’s not nearly as common for pivotal studies to fail in animal health as it is in human medicine. Most of them are successful,” said Cheryl London, professor in comparative oncology at Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University in Massachusetts. Biotech drugs for pets, if proven safe and effective, would be a boon to a $44 billion veterinary medicines market currently dominated by vaccines, flea and tick repellents and anti-infectives. A recent product launch has galvanized the industry. Cytopoint for canine itch relief sold by Zoetis reached blockbuster status by animal health standards in its second year on the market. Launched in late 2016, Cytopoint generated 2018 sales of $129 million, and first-quarter 2019 sales jumped 65% from a year earlier. Produced from cloned genetically engineered hamster cells over at least eight bio-processing steps, the monoclonal antibody is no less complex than comparable therapeutic proteins used in human medicine. But the cost to consumers is far less. Like many biotech drugs, dose and cost is determined by weight. Zoetis declined to disclose its prices. But an animal hospital in Stamford, Connecticut, for example, charges $104 for a 40-pound (18 kg) dog. For much smaller dogs, a Cytopoint injection, which lasts about four to eight weeks, costs about $35 to $50. To keep a large dog from scratching itself raw could run $140 per shot. The cost of a highly effective new anti-itch biotech drug to treat severe atopic dermatitis in humans can run about $30,000 a year. “Cytopoint was a turning point that has made it clear that (biotech drugs) can be successful in this space,” London said. “Now there are an estimated five to ten companies developing antibodies for the veterinary market.”  That has created increased business for related services. “It’s a big challenge for us to keep up with the pace of demand growth,” said Klaus Hellmann, managing director at Munich-based Klifovet AG, Europe’s largest contractor for late-stage clinical trials of veterinary drugs. While Cytopoint sparked investment interest in biotech treatments for animals, drug development still comes with inherent risks and uncertainty. Aratana Therapeutics Inc’s canine lymphoma drug, Blontress, was launched in 2015, but later withdrawn after scientific data led the company to determine it was unlikely to be a financial success. Declining costs has mitigated some of the risk. “Over the past several years, human health has been able to advance the technology to improve efficiency of their cell production systems,” said Rob Polzer, head of global therapeutics research for Zoetis. Zoetis can repurpose and optimize existing procedures, mechanisms of action and technologies, it said. The company is seeking approval for a biotech medicine to treat osteoarthritic pain in cats, with plans for a 2021 market launch and a similar product for dogs thereafter. Others have jumped on the bandwagon. German start-up Adivo was spun out of biotech firm Morphosys (MORG.DE) in March 2018 out of frustration by its founders that scientific advances for humans were not translating into better treatment options for their dogs. It has since struck a global collaboration deal with Bayer’s (BAYGn.DE) animal health unit for its early-stage research platform for animal-specific monoclonal antibodies - the backbone of biotechnology. “Over the last few years, the veterinary market has seen an incredibly dynamic development,” said Adivo co-founder Kathrin Ladetzki-Baehs. This could prove a lifesaver for Moose, the bulldog in the oncology drug trial. In early August, Lescault discovered a mass on Moose’s  throat, soon followed by deteriorating health and a diagnosis of canine B-cell lymphoma. Moose was given one to two months to live without treatment or about a year with 25 weeks of punishing chemotherapy. Lescault’s local vet suggested the Tufts trial testing an experimental protein that could help advance the current immuno-oncology craze into the animal health arena. Tufts declined to disclose the compound or the study’s sponsor. But more than three weeks into the trial, Moose’s cough and labored breathing has disappeared and he is back to his playful and boisterous self, Lescault said. While treatment in a clinical trial is free, Lescault said she would not hesitate to pay thousands of dollars for a safe and effective drug to save Moose. “I wouldn’t blink an eye,”  she said. That is exactly what drug companies are banking on.

Biotech is going to the dogs - and big profits await.