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]: "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."
[A]: Insulin Study Could Lead to New Dosage Devices


[Q]: Under the agreement, Emergent BioSolutions will no longer enforce a contract that had allowed it to be the only company to develop a nasal spray version of the drug nalmefene for use as an antidote in a nasal spray. The attorney general’s office said the new agreement came after it found that Adapt Pharma, which has since been bought by Rockville, Maryland-based Emergent, had the exclusive rights to sell the drug using Aptar Pharma’s nasal spray technology. The drug is still in the pipeline and is not on the market, though. “Given the tragic, devastating effects of the opioid crisis, and the urgent need for additional drugs for the emergency treatment of opioid overdoses, my office will do whatever possible to ensure that there are no unnecessary impediments to the development of additional life-saving opioid overdose reversal drugs,” Attorney General Letitia James said in a written statement. The agreement with James’s office does not affect Narcan, a spray version of the drug naloxone now sold by Emergent. That from is popular for police, firefighters and others to use to try to revive people who are overdosing. It is not subject to an exclusivity agreement on the spray technology. Narcan retails for about $140 for two doses, but the company sells that amount to first responders for $75. More than 400,000 deaths in the U.S. since 2000 have been linked to opioids, a class of drugs that includes heroin, fentanyl, and prescription painkillers such as Vicodin and OxyContin. Companies would still need Food and Drug Administration approval before their products could be on the market. There is at least one effort to introduce a generic version of a naloxone nasal spray. Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, announced a grant in 2018 for a nonprofit drug company to develop one. ___ This story has been updated to correct that the drug at the center of the agreement is a spray version of nalmefene that is under development, not naloxone. It also clarifies that Narcan is sold to first responders for a lower-than-retail price.
[A]: Deal will let more companies make an overdose antidote spray.


[Q]: "Veterans groups in Pennsylvania typically prepare for Memorial Day by placing small American flags beside the headstones where fallen service members have been laid to rest. When a state lawmaker from Erie County learned that the coronavirus might scuttle that sacred tradition, he posted about it on Facebook. ""Gov. Wolf is not allowing companies that distribute U.S. flags to ship out orders to be placed at veteran’s graves for Memorial Day,"" Pa. House Rep. Brad Roae posted on Facebook on May 11. We wondered whether Wolf had really blocked Pennsylvania-based American flag distributors from operating during the pandemic. Roae, a Republican, did not return a call seeking comment on his Facebook post, which has now been shared more than 7,000 times. But it looks like he was right. Not only did Wolf exclude FlagZone, a manufacturer located in Gilbertsville, from his original list of life-sustaining businesses permitted to operate during the pandemic, his administration doubled down and rejected the company’s application for a waiver. FlagZone is one of the only American flag manufacturer in Pennsylvania and one of only a half dozen across the country. The company typically distributes more than six million small stick flags annually. Casey Smith, a spokesperson for the Pennsylvania Department of Community & Economic Development, told The Reading Eagle that the Wolf administration’s top priority is protecting the health and well-being of Pennsylvanians, and that flag-making, while patriotic, simply wasn’t ""life-sustaining."" ""Memorial Day celebrations and ceremonies are a staple in our nation, and many Pennsylvanians will need to adjust their routine this year to accommodate our new normal,"" Smith said. ""We encourage all Pennsylvanians to honor our nation’s fallen in their own special way."" Turns out the flags had already been manufactured and were sitting in a warehouse. FlagZone President Daniel Ziegler said it would only take a few workers to ship 400,000 flags that had been ordered by 24 different Pennsylvania counties in anticipation of Monday’s federal holiday. Bucks, Chester and Delaware counties were among those waiting to receive their orders. When State Sen. Scott Hutchinson learned about FlagZone’s woes, he also called on Wolf to ease restrictions imposed on the company. ""I see no reason why the time-honored and solemn tradition of placing flags at veterans’ graves could not be continued this year,"" Hutchinson, a Republican who represents Butler and other Western Pennsylvania counties, said in a statement sent to reporters via email. ""Certainly placing the flags in cemeteries could be done while practicing the social distancing Gov. Wolf recommends."" On Monday, FlagZone got some good news. The state cleared the way for the company to ship some flag orders even as it held firm that flag manufacturing is not essential during the pandemic. ""We’re just excited to get these flags out after months of being shut down,"" Ziegler told The Reading Eagle. ""Hopefully, when a family goes to the gravesite of a loved one who was a veteran they will now see that they were not forgotten."" Smith, of the community and economic development department, said in an interview that special approval from the state is not required for limited shipping activities and communicated  that to FlagZone. Roae posted on Facebook that Gov. Wolf had blocked companies that distribute American flags from shipping orders ahead of Memorial Day. Wolf initially blocked FlagZone from operating during the pandemic and then rejected the company’s request for a waiver. A state official later said the company did not need special permission to ship limited numbers of flags. However, the company didn’t understand this until the state said so, especially since the clarification came days after the Wolf administration rejected FlagZone’s application to resume operations."
[A]:
“Gov. Wolf is not allowing companies that distribute U.S. flags to ship out orders to be placed at veteran’s graves for Memorial Day.”