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.

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 inan otherwise reasonably solid story. The article claims that there is "growing evidence" that neurofeedback can help treat peoplewith 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 withher sonwas that he was "easier to live with."Although this kind of anecdotal reportcan be usefulto add context to scientific findings,it iscertainly no substitute for reporting on the actual clinical outcomesof research. The story failed to discussany potential harms of neurofeedback treatment. The most prominent of these isthat patientscould forego other treatment approaches that have better supporting evidence and are more likely to reduce symptoms. There is also some evidence thatneurofeedback can cause seizures or makesymptomsworse 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 generallyaccurate 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 aplacebo control group. And the onlystudy toinclude 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 whichmakes 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 forunqualified therapists andgave tipsfor finding reputable clinicians. The story could have been more specific about how many trained professionals there are and how easyit isto 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.
Train The Brain: Using Neurofeedback To Treat ADHD

The decision by Dewayne Johnson, who sued Monsanto in 2016, brings the total award to $78 million, down from the jury's verdict on Aug. 10 of $289 million - $39 million in compensatory and $250 million in punitive damages. Johnson's law firm said in a statement that he accepted the reduction "to hopefully achieve a final resolution within his lifetime." Judge Suzanne Bolanos of San Francisco's Superior Court of California, who oversaw the trial, earlier this month affirmed the liability portion of the verdict, but ordered punitive damages to be slashed to concur with California and federal law. Bayer denies allegations that glyphosate can cause cancer and said it will appeal the decision as the verdict was not supported by the evidence presented at trial. The verdict, which marked the first such decision against Monsanto, wiped 10 percent off the value of the company and shares have since dropped nearly 30 percent from their pre-verdict value. The company, which faces more than 8,700 U.S. lawsuits over glyphosate, says decades of scientific studies and real-world use have shown glyphosate to be safe for human use. Regulators around the world, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have found glyphosate was not a likely carcinogen to humans and approved the chemical, but the cancer unit of the World Health Organization in 2015 classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans." The jury found the company's glyphosate-containing RoundUp and Ranger Pro products responsible for causing Johnson's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and said the company had failed to warn him and other consumers of the risks. Johnson could decide whether to accept the reduction or face a new trial on the punitive damages portion. His lawyers on Wednesday said they would challenge the amount of damages during Bayer's appeal.
Groundskeeper in Bayer in U.S. weed-killer case accepts reduced award.

"The story states that the drug will cost $4.86, but there is no indication of how this costcompares to existing therapies. Furthermore, it is likely that often the drug will need to be combined with another drug, adding to the costs. Also the article cites what is likely to be the average wholesale price and not the price to the consumer. The story does not quantify the benefits of treatment. The story does state that the effects of the drug were ""modest,"" but this is not adequate information on the benefits of treatment. The story mentions the side effects of the drug. The story also comments on the uncertainty around the long-term safety of the drug. Although the story indicates that further research is needed, it does not adequately describe the nature of the existing evidence. By accurately describing the prevalence and seriousness of diabetes, the story does not engage in disease mongering. The story quotes multiple sources. The story aso points out that an expert was paid by the drug company. The story does mention alternative treatments, such as diet and exercise, metformin, and insulin, howeverthe story could have done more to explain how this new drug will fit in with existing therapies. Furthermore, the story should have compared the side effects of the new drug to some of the newer drugs on the market, such as Byetta, and not to some of the older drugs. The story clearly states that the drug was recently approved and will soon be on the market. The story clearly states that this drug is the first in its class, representing a novel approach to the treatment of diabetes, however there are several others that are in the pipeline that will likely be available by the end of the year. Because the story quotes multiple independent sources, the reader can assume the story does not rely on a press release as the sole source of information."
One-a-day pill OK'd for Type 2 diabetes