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'.

Paragraph: "Outspoken Orlando attorney John Morgan doesn’t mince words when it comes to his support of Florida’s proposed medical marijuana amendment. He does tend to paint his cause in broad strokes, however. During a University of Tampa debate on medicinal use of the drug on Feb. 24, Morgan argued that it’s misguided to enforce marijuana laws, using the example of Cathy Jordan, a 64-year-old Parrish resident who smokes to combat amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. ""The issue for this year is very simple,"" Morgan said. ""Should about 350,000 to 400,000 people, including Cathy Jordan, who’s here tonight, who was arrested last year, drug out of her home, because she suffers from ALS, and marijuana is the only thing that will help her, the only question this year for us is the legalization of medical marijuana."" Later, he added this: ""There was an arrest of Cathy Jordan a year ago. An ALS patient who’s sitting right here ... this afternoon, and guess what? The agricultural commissioner sent a SWAT team of hooligans out to her house to drag her and her husband out because it's the only relief that she could get."" Jordan is now the president of the Florida Cannabis Action Network, while Morgan has spent $4 million of his own money on a petition drive for a constitutional amendment for marijuana. Some of the details Morgan mentioned about Jordan’s encounter with law enforcement, though, didn’t sound right, so we decided to check it out. Acting on a tip The Tampa Bay Times wrote about Jordan’s plight last year, confirming that her marijuana usage did in fact attract the attention of Manatee County sheriff’s deputies on Feb. 25, 2013. A Realtor noticed an extension cord running from a shed on Jordan’s property to an empty home’s garage next door, then saw a mature marijuana plant growing in Jordan’s garden. The Realtor called the authorities. According to an incident report, two deputies responded to the call, originally for burglary and theft of service for the extension cord, and confirmed the plant was there. The responding deputies’ reports noted that two men harassed them and recorded their arrival and subsequent investigation. One of the men (neither are named in those reports, although Robert Jordan and his son were home) reportedly bumped one of the deputies several times and attempted to prevent the pair of officers from entering their property, saying the marijuana was theirs and they wanted the deputies to leave. One deputy called his sergeant, who responded and then requested the department’s Special Investigations Division, an undercover vice and narcotics unit that responds to drug calls. Three detectives responded to the call and spoke to Robert Jordan, who let the police enter his house and explained his wife used marijuana to deal with her ALS symptoms, according to the division’s report. Police confirmed no marijuana being grown inside the house, then went outside to find three large plants in a plastic container and two smaller plants in another. Robert Jordan then opened the shed that used the extension cord to reveal 18 smaller seedlings, ""a lighting system, an air conditioner, a thermometer and a white erase board to track planting dates."" The authorities explained to Robert Jordan that growing marijuana was illegal under federal law and they could either take all the marijuana ""observed in plain view"" or they would go get a warrant and forcibly remove the plants. The report states neither he nor his wife were ever threatened with arrest, but reluctantly agreed to let the department confiscate 23 plants. No one was arrested or dragged out of their house by a SWAT team. The Jordans sued the Sheriff’s Office for the return of their plants last year. Sheriff’s Office public information officer Dave Bristow did verify that none of the officers responding drew their guns and only entered the Jordans’ property with permission. No warrants were necessary. The Manatee County Sheriff’s Office wouldn’t comment on the incident other than to confirm details in the report, citing pending civil litigation. Robert Jordan confirmed the incident happened the way the sheriff’s reports says it did, although he said the deputies who first arrived did rush up his driveway with their hands on their sidearms. He described them as ""very, very aggressive,"" although he said he was aggressive, too, arguing about whether probable cause allowed them on his property. He noted he told his wife to go across the street with friends after the deputies arrived, and no one touched her. He had a different opinion about the Special Investigations Division detectives. ""The actual narcotics officers, they were gentlemen,"" Jordan said. ""They were embarrassed, because I told them they were taking my wife’s medicine."" Two of the trio wore ski masks, Jordan said, which the Sheriff’s Office said is procedure to conceal their identities for undercover work. The unmasked detective told Jordan he had two choices: They could wait outside a couple of hours while they got a warrant. Jordan said the detective told him they would then come back and ""tear your house apart. And we don’t put nothing back."" Or the Jordans could walk them through the house and allow the unit to confiscate his plants, then wait for word on official charges. The officer then told Jordan they had a right to take anything in the shed, but opted to only remove the light bulb from the grow lamp and smash it. The same week, State Sen. Jeff Clemens, D-Lake Worth, introduced a medical marijuana bill called the Cathy Jordan Medical Cannabis Act. The bill died, but he filed another bill under the same name in February, ostensibly to set a framework should the amendment pass in November. Robert Jordan was in the process of buying the property next door, and the utilities were in his name, so the burglary and theft of service charges were never brought, and the Realtor’s company declined to press any trespassing charges. The Manatee County state attorney’s later reviewed the case and declined to press growing and possession charges because ""the state lacks a good-faith belief it can overcome a medical necessity defense in this matter,"" according to the office’s report. Robert Jordan could have faced a felony count of possession and manufacturing of a Schedule I drug. We asked the United for Care campaign for a response. Manager Ben Pollara said Morgan’s comments were off the cuff. ""I think it’s just a case of something that happened a year ago … and he was talking from memory,"" Pollara said. A story about officers in ski masks with guns probably made it sound like a SWAT team, he said. Robert Jordan said he figured Morgan may have gotten his account from any of the numerous outlets that layered on the hyperbole about machine guns and police brutality -- he named this story by the Huffington Post as being particularly loose with the facts. ""No one asked me, or I would have told them the truth,"" Jordan said. He also said he had only met John Morgan and didn’t know him, but liked the man for his devotion to getting medical marijuana legislation passed, and how Morgan treated his wife. Having a legal supply of cannabis available would certainly make his life easier, he added. Meanwhile, the Jordans continue to cultivate their own plants, thanks to having the charges dropped. The ruling Morgan said ""a SWAT team of hooligans"" dragged Cathy Jordan out of her home and arrested her after authorities discovered her family’s tiny growing operation in their Parrish backyard. Officers obtained consent to search the property and removed mature plants and seedlings, and Robert Jordan faced charges of growing and possessing marijuana, which were later dropped. No one was arrested. No one was dragged anywhere. It seems Morgan may have read a report of the incident awash in hyperbole and recalled that. There was an incident at the Jordans’ home, but the police reaction was not nearly as drastic as Morgan described." Claim: "John Morgan Says Cathy Jordan was ""arrested"" and dragged out of her home by ""a SWAT team of hooligans"" for using medical marijuana."
0

Paragraph: "On Nov. 27, 2013, a Madison-based liberal advocacy group used a mass email to promote protests that were planned against Walmart stores for two days later -- Black Friday. The demonstrations aimed to ""expose Wal-Mart’s shameful labor practices and support workers,"" according to One Wisconsin Now, which then made this claim: ""The Walton family, which owns Wal-Mart, controls a fortune equal to the wealth of the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined."" That reminded us of a March 2011 claim by filmmaker and liberal activist Michael Moore. He said in a Madison speech that 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined. Based on online hits, it became one of our most popular fact-checks ever. So we wondered about the Walmart claim. Wealth, not income In the days before and after Black Friday, leaders no less prominent than President Barack Obama and Pope Francis decried the extent of income disparity in the United States and around the world. Obama called the growing income gap a ""defining challenge of our time."" The pope said that while the earnings of a minority ""are growing exponentially, so, too, is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few."" Walmart, of course, is a big target. According to Forbes, as of May 2013 the international retailer had $469 billion in sales and 2.2 million employees, including 1.3 million in the United States. The corporation has been criticized for low wages; and in December 2012, PolitiFact National rated as Mostly  a claim that more Walmart employees are on Medicaid and food stamps than other companies. But let’s be clear up front: Although income and wealth are related, they’re not the same. Wealth is commonly measured in terms of net worth -- the value of a person’s assets minus liabilities. So, things like savings and retirement accounts, minus what is owed on a home mortgage, credit cards, etc. That means a person with heavy debt can have little wealth, or negative wealth, even while earning a six-figure income. One more point before we get to the wealth figures. Walmart was founded by the late Sam Walton, who opened the first store in Arkansas in 1962. Walmart incorporated in 1969 and became a publicly traded company a year later. So, Wal-Mart is not family owned, but rather owned by its stockholders; on the other hand, according to Bloomberg and other news reports, the Walton family members still have control of the company, owning about half of the shares. Group's evidence Scot Ross, One Wisconsin Now's executive director, told us his evidence to back his group’s claim is a July 2012 article by economist Josh Bivens, research and policy director of the liberal Economics Policy Institute in Washington, D.C. Bivens wrote that in 2010, the wealth of six Walton family heirs was $89.5 billion, 22 percent higher than in 2007. Meanwhile, the median wealth of American families in 2010 was $77,300, nearly 39 percent lower than three years earlier. (Median wealth refers to the American family that is exactly wealthier than half of all families and less wealthy than half.) As for measuring one against the other, Bivens said the Walton family wealth in 2010 was as large as the wealth of the bottom 48.8 million families in the United States, or 41.5 percent of all American families. Rounded up, 41.5 percent would be 42 percent, the figure One Wisconsin Now claims. But let's keep shopping around a little. Similar claim It turns out that a statement nearly identical to the one made by One Wisconsin Now was uttered in July 2012 by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats. Sanders said the Walton family owns ""more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America,"" a claim PolitiFact National rated . Our colleagues found that Sylvia Allegretto, a labor economist at the University of California, Berkeley, compared the Waltons’ cumulative net worth with that of the overall population, as cited in the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances. That survey was published in August 2012. Allegretto found that the Waltons’ wealth in 2010 was valued at $89.5 billion -- equal to the entire bottom 41.5 percent of American families. The 2010 figures are the latest available for doing comparisons with the net worth of the overall population. But we found, using the Forbes 400 list for 2013, that the wealth of six of Sam Walton’s descendants has continued to grow. Here are their rankings and their wealth: No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 billion. A note before we close: Allegretto told us the housing crisis is a key reason that the gap between the Walton family wealth and the wealth of other American families has grown. More Americans were left with ""negative wealth"" because they lost their biggest asset -- their home -- and often significant amounts of their savings, as well, she said. Our rating One Wisconsin Now wrote: ""The Walton family, which owns Wal-Mart, controls a fortune equal to the wealth of the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined."" For comparison purposes, the latest data available, for 2010, the figure is 41.5 percent. To comment on this item, go to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's website." Claim: The Walton family, which owns Wal-Mart, controls a fortune equal to the wealth of the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined.
2

Paragraph: The news release quotes lead researcher Robert Meier, MD, saying previous studies have shown SBRT to be “a cost-effective and faster alternative to IMRT” but does not provide any detail as to the specific costs of either procedure. In fact, the difference is substantial. A 2014 study in the Journal of Clinical Oncology examined Medicare claims data showed a mean treatment cost of $13,645 for SBRT versus $21,023 for IMRT. And a 2012 study in the Journal of Oncology Practice concluded that SRBT has “great potential cost savings” for the health care system, with an average cost of $22,152 versus $35,431 for IMRT. One could also consider the cost of side effects as well as need for future treatments. The news release gives a lot of data. It states that 97 percent of patients were free from prostate cancer progression after five years, exceeding a historical control of 93 percent. It also says that fewer than 2 percent of patients experienced severe toxicities in their gastrointestinal, reproductive, and urinary systems, and no patients reported life-threatening or fatal toxicity. However, the news release does not attempt to say how these rates compare with other treatment options, which would help readers put the data in perspective. There are important caveats left out in the description of findings that are discussed under the evidence criterion. The news release states that between half and two-thirds of patients experienced low, “usually temporary” rates of toxicities. It also notes that “fewer than 2 percent of patients experienced severe toxicities in their gastrointestinal, reproductive, and urinary systems, and no patients reported life-threatening or fatal toxicity.” A few more details here would be helpful. For example, how many patients experienced a decline in urinary or sexual function, and for what period of time? And what are other potential risks of radiation therapy? The real question is how do these harms compare to other treatments? That was not assessed in this study. The news release gives some details to help readers understand how the study was conducted. However, it neglects to include several key points. First, the patients enrolled are from a very low risk population in terms of measuring benefit. The statement that these results compare favorably to historical controls at 5 years misses the point that the risk of death for this patient population isn’t seen until 10-15 years at the earliest. Second, without a contemporaneous comparison group, it should be stated that these results are subject to misinterpretation — both in terms of benefits, which are likely to be equally good with almost any other treatment (and some would argue active surveillance without treatment), and harms. Finally, it isn’t clear who this population represents. If these are younger men in their 50s and 60s, side effects are important but the long-term efficacy (beyond 5 years) is critical. If the men are over 70, one can argue whether they needed to treat the low risk group at all. In summary, this is a case series with no contemporaneous comparison group among a population with low risk prostate cancer where 5 year follow-up is inadequate to say that the treatment was successful in preventing progressive disease. The release could have included some cautions that the lead researcher discussed in a published paper in 2015. For example, he states that more radiation effects on adjacent organs might be observed after longer follow-up, and “firm conclusions about the efficacy and toxicity of SBRT relative to more conventional approaches await scrutiny by prospective randomized trials.” The news release does not commit mongering. However, as noted above, the patients enrolled in the trial were a very low risk population and one could argue that some of these patients may not have needed treatment at all. The news release does not say how the study was funded or whether any of the investigators have conflicts of interest. In papers on the topic published in 2015, the researchers declared no conflicts of interest. Some of the men in the study had a low-risk form of prostate cancer, which might have made them eligible for active surveillance rather than surgery. That option is not discussed in the news release. As mentioned in the quantifying benefits section, the news release does mention that this type of radiotherapy was compared with standard radiotherapy, although it was not directly studied. The news release states that patients in the trial were treated at 21 academic, regional, and community medical centers, which suggests that SRBT is widely available. The release claims novelty with this statement: “Our study is the first to contribute multi-center data that support the use of SBRT as front-line therapy for men with prostate cancer.” But it also states that SRBT for prostate cancer has been studied at other institutions, and that the procedure has become a standard of care for some lung cancer cases. It does not claim that this is a novel procedure. The news release does not contain any unjustifiable or sensational language. But as noted above, the favorable results in terms of benefit are not surprising and attributing them to the treatment could be viewed as unjustified. Claim: SBRT Offers Prostate Cancer Patients High Cancer Control and Low Toxicity in Fewer Treatments

1