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.

"Like its competitors, the Times did not discuss costs–an omission which perhaps is more acceptable in this story since it clearly indicated that this is not very close to being a marketable product. Nevertheless, we would have liked to have seen some mention of the financial impact. Many patients with type 1 diabetes are not using currently available pumps and sensors because of the high cost of these devices. It seems likely that this new treatment, if it ever becomes widely available, will be as expensive or more so than the current pump and sensor technology. We applaud the Times for avoiding the term ""artificial pancreas"" in the headline and using it sparingly in the body of the story. The competing stories couldn’t resist it. We can understand why marketers and media relations people would favor this term because of its promotional value, but we don’t think it’s a good way to describe this technology in an objective piece of journalism. ""Artificial pancreas"" is misleading because we’re not really anywhere close to being able to replicate what the normal human pancreas does through artificial technology. Forgetting for a moment that the pancreas does much more than simply dispense insulin (it also produces a number of other hormones and digestive enzymes that aren’t impacted by diabetes), what’s more important is how the pancreas works in concert with the brain and other systems to regulate glucose in a very tight range. The normal human pancreas starts releasing insulin before we eat in response to complex environmental cues, whereas any artificial system would need to be told that meal is coming or react to the rise in glucose after the fact. Plus, insulin produced by the body starts acting right away, whereas insulin analogues take about 20 minutes to take effect. Put this all together and we see that the ""artificial pancreas"" will, for the foreseeable future, require human intervention to predict post-meal insulin needs and dosing or else patients will be at risk of post-meal blood sugar spikes. And it’s not at all clear that such a system will improve overall blood sugar management compared with existing methods. The term ""artificial pancreas"" conjures up a vision of totally automated glucose management and essentially a ""cure"" for type 1 diabetes. This is overselling what the technology can do. The Times waited until the last 3 paragraphs of an 1,100-word story to hint that an automated system could deliver unsafe doses of insulin. It isn’t until the last sentence that we learn that the system would need to be ""exquisitely reliable"" in order to be safe. We feel the story should have raised these issues earlier and that it could have done more to emphasize just how difficult it will be for any device to calculate insulin requirements on the fly. Insulin dosing is affected by factors ranging from how much a person has exercised to what and how much they have eaten. It’s conceivable that technology can account for all of these variables, but there are a lot ways things could go wrong, with potentially deadly results. It’s a close call, but we don’t feel the story did enough to call attention to these issues. In contrast to its competitors, which all led readers to believe there had been a fully automated system sensing glucose levels and dispensing insulin to the participants in this study, the Times noted that the insulin was dispensed by a nurse based on calculations made by a computer algorithm. The Times clearly indicated that the significance of this test was as a ""proof of concept"" that the algorithm works and is safe, not as a test of any specific device. It noted that a fully automated system combining glucose monitoring and insulin delivery was still ""hypothetical."" In addition, the Times story was the only one to draw attention to the small size of this study and the fact the findings were not statistically significant for the primary outcomes. This note of caution was completely lacking from the competing coverage. The story did not exaggerate the effects of type 1 diabetes. The story includes quotes from interviews with one of the study investigators and another researcher, and identifies both as having ties to diabetes products manufacturers. It also quotes an analyst at an investment firm. It would have been better had they included one more source who didn’t have commercial ties to specific products. The story describes currently available technology for glucose monitoring and insulin infusion. It describes the limitations of current approaches for managing insulin, especially during the overnight period. The story is a bit misleading in that it leaves the impression that all type 1 diabetics are currently using pumps at night. This is not actually the case. Most people are doing self monitoring of blood glucose and making judgement calls on whether and how much insulin to administer. However, the story does enough for a satisfactory in our view. The Times did a good job of describing the system used in this study and how close it is to being commercially available. It called the system ""experimental"" and said that it was ""not fully automated."" It said that a fully automated glucose monitor/insulin delivery system was still ""hypothetical"" and would face regulatory hurdles before it could be marketed to the public. The story describes the progression from skin prick glucose testing to continuous monitoring and insulin pumps. It places the new developments in this field on this continuum. There could have been more discussion of many of the recent advances that have made daytime hyper- and hypoglycemia less of a problem such as the newer short-acting insulins. The story did not rely on any news release."
Insulin Study Could Lead to New Dosage Devices

The vaccine, developed by U.S. drugmaker Merck & Co, is already being used under emergency guidelines to try to protect people against the spread of a deadly Ebola outbreak in Democratic Republic of Congo. It protects against the Zaire strain of the Ebola virus - the one that most commonly causes outbreaks. The shot is also being reviewed under a fast-track system by regulators in the United States, with a decision expected in the first quarter of next year. “This vaccine has already saved many lives in the current Ebola outbreak, and the decision by European regulators will help it to eventually save many more,” the WHO’s director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in a statement. The Congo Ebola outbreak has killed more than 2,100 people since the middle of last year. It is the second-largest Ebola outbreak in history, after a 2013-16 epidemic in West Africa that killed more than 11,300. The Merck vaccine, which the company has now brand-named Ervebo, is likely to get a full marketing license from the European Commission in a few weeks. Roger Perlmutter, president of Merck Research Laboratories, said the company’s priority now was to get regulatory approval of its Ervebo manufacturing site in Germany so that licensed supply of the vaccine “can be used to support global public health preparedness”. Merck’s vaccine is being used in Congo in a so-called “ring vaccination” approach, in which people who may have been in contact with someone newly infected with Ebola are traced and offered the shot to protect them. Charlie Weller, head of vaccines at the Wellcome Trust global heath charity said the Merck shot had already saved “countless lives” in the country. “Having this vaccine available under research conditions has been key in preventing the ongoing outbreak in the DRC spiraling into a repeat of the 2014-16 epidemic, where 11,000 people died,” she told Reuters. Health authorities in Kinshasa said last week they planned to introduce an experimental second Ebola vaccine, developed by  drugmaker Johnson & Johnson, in the country’s eastern provinces in November. The Ebola virus causes hemorrhagic fever and spreads from person to person through direct contact with body fluids. It kills around half of those it infects. There are currently no licensed treatments for the deadly infection, but scientists said in August they were a step closer to being able to cure it after two experimental drugs showed survival rates of as much as 90% in a clinical trial in Congo.
 This is a photograph of a   letter from C. Dennis Packee of Reiman’s Harley-Davidson in Kewanee, Ill.,   to Christopher and Jamie Walters. The letter explains that Reiman’s will   store the Walters’ motorcycles at no charge. It is their way of saying   thank you to military members on deployment.        

Viagra pills are seen in a handout photo. REUTERS/PRNewsFoto They found women on antidepressants who took Viagra had fewer sexual side effects than those who took a placebo. Sexual dysfunction can prompt many people to stop taking drugs to treat depression. While other studies have hinted that Viagra might help these women, the latest research, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, is one of the first scientifically rigorous studies to show this benefit. “By treating this bothersome treatment-associated adverse effect ... patients can remain antidepressant-adherent, reduce the current high rates of premature medication discontinuation, and improve depression disease management outcomes,” Dr. H. George Nurnberg of the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque and colleagues wrote. The research was funded by Pfizer Inc, maker of Viagra, which is known generically as sildenafil. Nurnberg has been a paid consultant for the company. Sexual dysfunction is linked with most commonly used antidepressants, including selective and nonselective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. These drugs represent 90 percent of the 180 million antidepressant prescriptions filled in the United States each year, according to the researchers. The researchers studied 98 women with an average age of 37 who had symptoms of sexual dysfunction, including delay of orgasm or lack of arousal, and whose depression was in remission after treatment with antidepressants. Women took a dose of Viagra or the placebo one to two hours before anticipated sexual activity for eight weeks. While 73 percent of women taking the placebo reported no sexual improvement, only 28 percent of women taking sildenafil failed to benefit. Related drugs such as Eli Lilly and Co.’s Cialis, known generically as tadalafil, and Levitra or vardenafil, sold by GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer AG and Schering-Plough, work in a similar way to Viagra. “These findings are important not only because women experience major depressive disorder at nearly double the rate of men and because they experience greater resulting sexual dysfunction than men, but also because it establishes that (drugs such as sildenafil) are effective in both sexes for this purpose,” they wrote.

Viagra helps depressed women get satisfaction too.