Given a paragraph and a claim, classify it this way: If the claim contradicts the evidence present in the paragraph, classify the claim as '0'. If the claim has multiple supporting *AND* contradicting evidences, classify the claim as '1'. If the claim has supporting evidence and the paragraph is in overall favor of the claim, then classify the claim as '2'.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "The mid-pandemic election in Wisconsin yielded no shortage of bizarre storylines. But a noteworthy one emerged late in the day when President Donald Trump tried to put himself at the center of a debate over whether the election should have even been held as scheduled. The April 7, 2020, contest featured a Democratic presidential primary and a Wisconsin Supreme Court race between conservative-backed Daniel Kelly and liberal-backed Jill Karofsky, as well as numerous local elections. At his daily briefing that day, Trump connected his endorsement of Kelly to Gov. Tony Evers’ last-minute attempt to change the election. The implication was Democrats thought they’d have a better chance of boosting Karofsky by extending the election period. Here’s an excerpt of Trump’s extended discussion on the topic: ""(Wisconsin Democrats) didn't want to move the election. As soon as I endorsed him, the Wisconsin Democrats say, ‘Oh, let's move the election to two months later, three.’ They didn't mind having the election until I endorsed him, which is very interesting."" So Trump is saying his endorsement caused Evers to try moving the election back two months. Let’s take a closer look at that timeline. In case you lost track of the election back-and-forth, the basics are these: Evers had said for weeks he didn’t have the authority to move the election on his own. Then on Friday — four days before the election — he called on the Republican Legislature to switch to an all-mail election that would allow votes to come in through May 19, 2020. He also ordered a special session of the Legislature for the following day to take up the matter. The state Assembly and Senate both gaveled out of that session in seconds, without taking action. Then, 18 hours before polls opened, Evers issued an order to delay the election to June 9, 2020. Republicans appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, where the conservative majority overturned Evers’ order, clearing the way to hold the election. Trump is claiming his endorsement of Kelly was a pivotal moment in this back-and-forth. Trump sent a tweet at 12:12 p.m. April 3, 2020, saying Kelly has his ""complete endorsement."" Evers’ call for a mail-in election was released about an hour later. But that’s a coincidence. Here’s why Trump is wrong. Evers’ call at that point was not to move the election by two months, but to switch the format to mail-in only and extend the deadline to May. The attempt to move the in-person election to June didn’t come until several days later. And the Evers’ administration had been moving toward that mail-in announcement well before Trump’s tweet, including calls to Republican leaders, said Evers spokeswoman Melissa Baldauff. But there’s a much more glaring oversight from Trump. He had already endorsed Kelly several months earlier. At a rally in Milwaukee on Jan. 14, 2020, Trump urged his supporters to ""go vote for Justice Daniel Kelly to defend the rule of law."" At that time, of course, coronavirus was barely a blip on the national radar. And it was the pandemic that fueled the back-and-forth over Wisconsin’s election, not a repeat of a prior endorsement. In a statement later on Election Day, Evers said Trump was not a factor in his decision-making. ""I don’t pay any attention to who the president endorses,"" the governor said. ""Frankly, my focus right now is on keeping the people of this state safe, and that’s why I issued an executive order to extend Wisconsin’s election date and make sure everyone could vote safely from home."" Trump claims his endorsement of Kelly caused the Wisconsin attempts to push the election back until June. That’s not at all how it happened. Trump had already endorsed Kelly back in January. And in any case, the action from Evers that coincidentally followed Trump’s reiterated endorsement on Twitter was to shift to a mail-in election, not to move the whole election by several months. That leaves us with a claim that is both false and ridiculous." Claim: “As soon as I endorsed (Supreme Court Justice Daniel Kelly), the Wisconsin Democrats said, let’s move the election to two months later.”

Output: 0


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Costs are not mentioned at all. The costs of acupuncture treatment can vary widely, but most people can expect to pay at least $60 per session (and often considerably more). Given that this study involved 16 sessions, and that not all health plans would cover acupuncture to treat ASD, the expense could be considerable. According to the news release, the researchers “identified the most positive outcome of the study as the high compliance rate, with all parents of the children ages 3-10 completing the intervention.” While it is good to know that the patients were able to complete the study, most readers probably wanted to know if the patients benefited from the treatment in any way. The release notes that “researchers measured the effects of the intervention on factors such as the children’s behavior, ability to pay attention, sleep, and aspects of parenting stress” — but doesn’t tell readers whether any of those things changed as a result of treatment. The closest the release comes to quantifying a benefit is when it states that “most parents reported that the intervention had a positive impact on their relationship with their child.” It’s not clear what they mean by “most parents,” how much their relationship improved, how it improved, or why it may have improved. In fairness, the release states that the goal of the study was “to determine if young children with autism spectrum disorder and their parents would tolerate and adhere to an office- and home-based acupuncture/acupressure intervention.” However, the release also says “While a small study, the tolerance and adherence with acupressure this pilot [sic] are both hopeful signs for families of those in their care with autism spectrum disorder.” Why should families be hopeful? Who knows? Given that there had been more than a dozen clinical trials involving acupuncture and children with ASD as of 2012, it’s not clear what questions this new study has answered. Potential harms aren’t discussed at all. To be clear, the risks here are low. As the Mayo Clinic notes, “The risks of acupuncture are low if you have a competent, certified acupuncture practitioner.” But, then again, the release also doesn’t mention the importance of finding a certified acupuncture practitioner. And even with certified practitioners, there are risks, from soreness and bruising to infections. In addition, individuals with bleeding disorders are not good candidates for acupuncture. The release offers very little information about the study. For example, while the release refers to it as a “pilot feasibility study,” it doesn’t even tell readers how many patients participated (there were 10). No disease mongering here. The release doesn’t mention who funded the work. In this case, the work was funded by Autism Speaks. Many people have strong feelings about Autism Speaks, one way or the other, making the funding organization particularly worth mentioning here. It also doesn’t mention any conflicts of interest but there don’t appear to be any. The release doesn’t describe potential benefits for ASD patients, so it’s not clear what alternatives are relevant in this context. Alternatives to what? Ergo, we’ll rank this as not applicable. The release doesn’t address availability at all. While many (or most) readers are aware that acupuncture therapy exists, they may be less familiar with how widely available it is. Readers may not be aware of pediatric acupuncture at all, much less pediatric acupuncture for children with ASD. Is there a special certification for pediatric acupuncture therapy? What about for pediatric ASD acupuncture therapy? The release doesn’t tell us. Acupuncture research related to ASD is not new. Here’s a systematic review of the relevant literature from 2011, and another from the same year. The Cochrane review, among the collection of studies included in the reviews above, concludes that: “We need high quality trials of larger size and longer follow-up as the evidence base at present has many limitations.” But the study described here tackles the subject in a new way, that of the feasibility of being able to complete therapy. Prior studies haven’t shown that it’s feasible for families to commit to longer term acupuncture therapy. The release doesn’t rely on sensational language. We do caution that when a news release includes a quote that says a study offers “hopeful signs for families,” it should be obvious why those families should be hopeful. This release doesn’t do that, because it is not clear how or whether these patients were better off at the end of the study than they were at the beginning. It’s not as egregious as releases (or news stories) that claim amazing results based on limited data, but no release (or news story) should leave readers no wiser at the end than they were at the beginning. Claim: New study from KKI shows feasibility of acupuncture in young children with ASD

Output: 0


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "The story does not note the cost of a typical statin regimen, Zetia or the combination treatment, Vytorin. This is an important oversight as many people who are prescribed these medications take them for life. The story does mention that these new drugs ""raked in 5 billion dollars last year"". The failure of the combination product to be better than simvastatin alone has significant financial implications. Simvastatin (the generic name for Merck’s Zocor) is available for about $1.25 a day. Vytorin costs about $3.35 a day. Most clinicians assumed that the combined product was an advantage if you could not get a patient to an LDL goal with just the statin alone or side effects with the simvastatin prevented an adequate dose. The price for the combination is less than the cost of the components. The story provides no quantitative data and no information on the number needed to treat to show benefit (i.e. prevention of a heart attack or stroke through lowered LDLs) in one patient with the newer medications, with traditional statins or with combination treatment. The story says that there are no real dangers to continuing the drugs Zetia and Vytorin based on the lower drop-out rate and reported side effects in the study. The comments from both parties cast an extraordinarily negative shadow on the study drug and on the company sponsors. Without an appropriate description of the study design, the results cannot be fairly discussed to the public. While the primary endpoint was not obtained with the combination, it did lower LDL and inflammatory markers in excess of that achieved with simvastatin alone. Suggesting the drug did not ""work"" is a bit of a mis-statement. The story encourages patients to keep taking these drugs. The story also does not mention the potential harm of taking statins long-term, especially in high does. Some of these harms are very rare, however, they include: muscle pain and kidney or liver problems. The story provides no real discussion of the data presented at the American College of Cardiology meeting and published in the peer-reviewed New England Journal of Medicine. And the story didn’t assess the quality of the evidence. The study followed people (average age mid-40s) who had an inherited condition (called familial hypercholesterolemia) that is associated with very high cholesterol levels and greatly increased risk of early coronary artery disease. Many of them had been taking statins and other cholesterol-lowering medicines for years. All were randomly assigned to take either a statin (simvastatin, trade name Zocor) alone or a statin combined with another cholesterol-lowering medication, ezetimibe. The study was designed to find out if the combination of the two drugs could slow the growth of plaque in carotid arteries supplying the brain more than the statin alone. Plaque in these arteries is associated with an increased risk of stroke and heart attack. The two drugs together were more effective at lowering cholesterol than simvastatin alone, but adding ezetimibe did not change plaque measurements in the carotid arteries. The story does mention that lowering cholesterol may have other benefits, but we are not sure how those translate to fewer cardiovascular events or increased survival from these events. No overt disease-mongering. There are no interviews with the study authors or with practicing clinicians. The story reported on data presented at a recent American College of Cardiology Meeting, so there were several thousand cardiologists and other specialists available who could have been interviewed for clinical perspective on the results of this study. There was also no mention of the two accompanying editorials in the NEJM. The editorial by Brown and Tayor nicely identifies the issues related to the study and helps put the results into perspective. Unfortunately, this editorial was ignored by both parties involved in the story. Stating that taking more statins is the answer is incomplete at best. Lifestyle changes along with other drugs may be options as well. Interestingly however, this study raises questions about the simple notion that lowering total cholesterol, and LDL are important to lowering cardiovascular risk. People who are not able to lower their cholesterol enough with statins alone (or cannot tolerate the dose of statins needed to lower it) may wish to discuss with their doctor whether other medications (i.e., rather than ezetimibe) may be appropriate. These include niacin, fibrates, and bile acid resins. When added to statins, they can effectively lower cardiovascular risk. It’s clear from the story that the drugs in question are still available to patients, though they should not be considered first-line therapy. The story focuses on new information that there is little to no benefit of newer cholestrol-lowering medications on the prevention of arterial plaque, which translate to little benefit for prevention of heart disease, stroke and cardiovascular-related death. We can’t be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release. No researcher or cardiologist is interviewed. Quantified data from the American College of Cardiology presentation or from the New England Journal of Medicine article are not directly cited." Claim: Poor test results for heart drugs


Output: 0