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: This story does not address costs at all, even though one half of the drug combination –vemurafenib — is already being used in treatment and costs $11,000 per month of treatment. The combination treatment is reportedly going to cost $17,600 per month, and it is not clear whether payers will cover it. This story does not quantify the benefits at all except for saying that the safety and efficacy was tested on over 400 patients. What benefits they received from the treatment are totally omitted from the story. This is unacceptable, especially as the FDA provided some quantification in their news release. This story states both the severe and mild side effects of taking this drug. We’ll rule this Satisfactory since there was a good-faith attempt to address the criterion. However, while the array of side effects are listed they are not quantified. We do not know what proportion of those taking the medication get each side effect. Nor do we know how severe they are, or how many stopped the medicine die to the side effects. More detail would have been welcome. This story provides no evidence at all and relies on the fact that the FDA approved the drug combination. The research that led to the approval is not described in any meaningful way. There is no disease mongering here. Advanced melanoma is a terrible disease and many treatments fail. There appear to be no outside sources used in this story. All the information comes from the FDA. However, because of that, there is no conflict of interest as the drug manufacturer/distributor is identified, but no information apparently comes from them. It is important to remember here that the role of the FDA is to approve based on effectiveness and safety and the bar for both in a disease like melanoma is low. How clinically useful this drug will prove to be is open to question and it would have been nice to hear from some independent oncologists about that. No alternative therapies are discussed in the story. There is a lot of new drug development for melanoma; none mentioned. Because this is an announcement from the FDA about approval, the drug will now be marketed for treatment, and the story clearly indicates that the drug combination is distributed by Genentech. We’ll rule this Satisfactory, but we’d caution that FDA approval does not necessarily equal availability. The key factor here is the cost and who will pay for it, or not. The story doesn’t address this. The news hook here is the FDA approval of this drug combination. We’ve already given the story credit for this above under “Availability.” And we’d note that just because the FDA approves something, doesn’t mean that it’s novel. There are plenty of “me-too” drugs out there, and this story doesn’t make any attempt to clarify how this new drug combination works differently or better than existing drugs. This story appears to rely exclusively on a news release from the FDA and there are many similarities in the text of the two documents. Unfortunately, the story leaves out much of the quantitative data and other useful details included in the FDA news release. Claim: FDA Approves Roche’s Cotellic Treatment for Melanoma

Output: 0


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith told Fox News on May 20 that the United States needs Mexico's help in stopping their citizens from entering the United States illegally but that ""we get just the opposite. """"They hand out brochures showing individuals how they can avoid our Border Patrol, how they can get into our country,"" Smith said May 20, referring to the Mexican government. His statement came to our attention from Lainey Melnick of Austin, the Democratic nominee challenging Smith in November.Smith backed off his statement slightly when the Fox News interviewer, Bill Hemmer, asked: ""You are saying that the Mexican government is passing out leaflets on how to cross the border?"" Smith's reply: ""They have done that in the past, on how to, of course how to be safe, and maybe how to get food and water, but also how to avoid detection. ""Has Mexico really been giving its citizens advice on how to sneak into the United States without running into the Border Patrol? We looked into it.In response to our inquiry, Jamie Zuieback, who works for Smith as an aide to the House Judiciary Committee, pointed us to an opinion piece that aired on National Public Radio on Jan. 27, 2005. In it, commentator Gustavo Arellano reacts to a pamphlet produced by the Mexican foreign ministry called ""Guia del Migrante Mexicano,"" or ""Guide for the Mexican Migrant."" Earlier that month, The New York Times reported that about 1.5 million copies of the guide had been distributed across Mexico in December 2004.In his commentary, Arellano said the 32-page booklet ""advises Mexicans who are thinking of leaving their homeland on the best ways to do it."" Arrellano noted that the publication riled some American lawmakers, who described it as a manual on how to enter the country illegally -- a position aired at the time by then-U.S. Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., in an opinion article published in the Jan. 9, 2005, Austin American-Statesman. (Hayworth is challenging U.S. Sen. John McCain in Arizona's 2010 Republican primary. )Several weeks later, Francisco Alejo, who was then the Austin-based Mexican consul general, responded to Hayworth with an opinion piece in the Statesman. He wrote: ""In no way does the guide promote undocumented immigration into the United States. As it is clearly stated in the guide’s introduction and on the back cover, the safe and appropriate way to enter any country -- including the United States -- is with a valid passport and visa. ""Alejo said the guide was produced to advise ""people of the risks involved in, as well as the legal consequences of, crossing into the United States."" His article also said the Mexican government had produced similar guides in the past. Marc Rosenblum, senior policy analyst at the Washington-based Migration Policy Institute, a think tank that studies international migration, said his reading was that the purpose of the brochure was humanitarian, to prevent migrants from being stranded in the desert or dying.In the January 2005 Times article, Geronimo Gutierrez, then Mexico’s undersecretary for North American affairs, said that the year before, ""over 300 Mexicans died in their attempt to enter the United States, the vast majority if not all of them in search of a job. ... The Mexican government obviously has an obligation to take all actions possible in order to avoid the loss of life.’’ Let's recap. Smith first said that the Mexican government is currently handing out leaflets telling people how to avoid the U.S. Border Patrol and ""get into the country."" He amended that to say that Mexico has handed out such leaflets in the past and that they included information on how to ""be safe."" And the Mexican government acknowledged a few years ago that it was distributing information about safely crossing the border.That leaves two significant questions. Are the leaflets still being distributed? And do they -- or did they ever -- advise border-crossers how to get into the country while avoiding detection?Seeking answers, we tried to find a current copy of the handout, which is no longer available on the Mexican government's website. However, we resurrected the pamphlet using an Internet archiving tool. We then matched the Spanish text of the document with an English translation of excerpts published in the Times in 2005, supplemented with translation by Spanish-speaking colleagues at the American-Statesman.The introduction to the brochure we found -- it's undated -- says it was designed to dispense ""practical advice"" and notes that the safe way to enter another country is to do so legally, by acquiring a passport in Mexico and a visa from the destination country. It is illustrated with comics-like drawings.It warns migrants of the perils of crossing over. For instance, they are told that crossing the river -- unnamed in the brochure, but presumably the Rio Grande -- can be perilous and that wet, heavy clothing makes floating or swimming difficult. For desert crossers, this section advises migrants ""to walk during hours when the heat is not too intense. ""It also describes the dangers of getting involved with human smugglers and advises migrants not to use false documents or carry packages for someone else. If detained, they are told not to resist arrest or try to escape, and that they have certain rights while in custody. And there are tips for migrants to keep a low profile once they are settled in the U.S.: Avoid noisy parties, fighting, domestic violence, carrying weapons, illegal activities, driving while drinking or driving without a license or insurance.There is no information on where to cross the border or how to avoid the Border Patrol or U.S. authorities when doing so.When we noted the lack of such specific advice, Zuieback, Smith's committee aide, pointed out illustrations that she said show ""illegal immigrants watching the border for an opening to enter and, later, running from the Border Patrol."" She also said the advice to cross the desert when the heat is less severe is ""a clear message to cross at night. ""Zuieback also interpreted the tips on keeping a low profile as information on ""how to avoid detection by law enforcement while in the United States. ""As for showing migrants how to ""get into our country"" -- per Smith's statement to Fox News -- the closest such reference we spotted was a sentence urging people to ""use power lines, train tracks or dirt roads as guides"" if they get lost.Next, we tried to find out whether the migrant guide was still being distributed. Zuieback said Smith was not aware of ""additional publications"" since the guide prompted a flurry of news articles in 2005. However, we came across 2005 reports of similar publications by at least one Mexican state, Yucatan.Using Google Scholar, we found an academic article on the ""Guide for the Mexican Migrant"" published in 2009 by Bruno Lutz, a professor at the Metropolitan Autonomous University in Xochimilco, on the outskirts of Mexico City. Lutz wrote that the brochure was published and distributed from 2004 to 2006; that was confirmed by Ricardo Alday, a spokesman for the Mexican Embassy in Washington. When President Felipe Calderon came to power in 2006, the paper says, the guide was substituted on the government's website with a guide for the ""Mexican traveler,"" which Lutz describes as ""limited to giving very general indications about required visas and tourist attractions in each country. ""We then read the ""Guia del Viajero Mexicano"" on the website of Mexico's foreign ministry and found information on travel alerts, consular services and visa requirements, but nothing on illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.So where does that leave us? Smith was right when he told Fox News that the Mexican government handed out brochures offering advice to people planning to immigrate to the United States without authorization. And there is an element of truth in Smith’s statement that the information in the pamphlet shows people, as Smith says, ""how they can get into our country,"" but the part of the publication that deals with crossing the border focuses on safety.Significantly, Smith incorrectly declared, initially, that Mexico currently gives out the guide. We found no evidence to support that statement.Also, the congressman's description of the ""Guia del Migrante Mexicano"" -- that it tells how to avoid the Border Patrol -- was misleading. While two illustrations appear to show migrants in flight from law officers, the text does not contain information on how to avoid law enforcement while crossing over. In fact, it advises cooperation if apprehended." Claim: "Mexican government officials ""hand out brochures showing individuals how they can avoid our Border Patrol, how they can get into our country."

Output: 0


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: While the financial costs of screening mammography & false-positive recalls & biopsies were not included in the study, readers would benefit from being reminded that recall mammography & biopsies increase patient financial costs. This article leads with valuable information for all women over age 40 by stating “Getting screening mammograms every two years instead of annually reduces the chance of a false alarm, a new study shows.”  Unfortunately the writer doesn’t quantify or elaborate adequately on that reduction. Instead, the writer later focuses on how women undergoing screening mammography shouldn’t be anxious if they experience a recall because over half of women who have screening mammograms for 10 years will be recalled. Readers would have been better served if the writer had emphasized the significant reduction in both recall mammograms & false-positive biopsies in women who are screened every two years rather than annually. Part of the continuing controversy over screening mammography focuses on annual versus biennial screening. Because this study showed a significant reduction in the percentage of those recalled & needing biopsies among women who are screened every other year, with no statistically significant increase in late-stage diagnosis of breast cancer, the article should have emphasized those important findings. The piece states that the researchers noted that “…false positive recalls may cause inconvenience & anxiety and biopsies can cause pain and scarring.” This article fails to include several important facts about the study. 1) This is a prospective cohort study of women screened between 1994-2006. 2) Most of the mammograms were film rather than digital. 3) Few women underwent screening for the entire 10 year period. 4) Screening mammography recall rates are influenced by the skill of the radiologists who read the mammograms. There was no disease mongering. No independent experts were quoted. The story did an adequate job comparing – at a very high level – annual screening versus biennial screening. Screening mammography is widely available throughout the United States. The study did not examine a new procedure. There’s no evidence that the story relied solely on a news release. Claim: Annual Mammograms May Have More False-Positives


Output: 1