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'.
--------
Question: Paragraph: The release does not include any cost information. The summary gives an absolute risk reduction percentage of 0.27% for patients who received radiation compared to those who did not. It also includes the number needed to treat (370) to save one patient. This is good detail, but we would also have liked more context on the controversies of DCIS treatment. A HealthNewsReview.org podcast provides a deeper look here. The release briefly discusses harms. The release says patients who received radiation and lumpectomy had more “local” recurrences of the cancer, but their overall survival was modestly better than patients who did not have radiation (a 0.27% reduction over 15 years). The release should have given some mention to the harms of radiation treatment, particularly since the potential benefit of radiotherapy was very small. The release provides details on the association study, which reviewed records from thousands of patients. The release also includes limitations of the study. There is no disease mongering. The release provides context on the prevalence of DCIS in the U.S. The style of this news release was to punt the question of funders and “conflicts” into a web link where the reader has to chase it down. It would better serve readers to have funders and any conflicts of interest spelled out in the release. Here is what the release states: Editor’s Note: The article contains conflict of interest disclosures. Please see the article for additional information, including other authors, author contributions and affiliations, financial disclosures, funding and support, etc. The study notes that researchers received funding from Canadian government agencies. The release let readers down in providing the broader context about controversies over appropriate treatment — if any — for women diagnosed with DCIS. It’s common knowledge that radiation and surgery are widely available treatments. There was no claim of novelty. The release stated that results are based on an association study of a national database containing more than 140,000 patient records. It’s unclear if similar studies have been completed. We found no unjustifiable language. Claim: Association of radiation therapy plus lumpectomy in reduced risk of dying in women with DCIS

Answer: 1


Question: Paragraph: Parts of this rumor are true, but they have been twisted into a false narrative. Tidbits from various reports have been used to make a number of claims about John Kerry’s ties to Iranian nuclear negotiators. These reports argue that Kerry should have recused himself from nuclear talks with Iran because of conflicts of interest. Let’s take a look at claims that have frequently appeared: John Kerry’s Daughter Married an Iranian John Kerry’s daughter married a man of Iranian descent, but he was born and raised in America. Dr. Vanessa Bradford Kerry married Dr. Brian Vala Nahed in 2009. The couple met as resident doctors at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. Vanessa was practicing internal medicine there, and Nahed was practicing neurological surgery, according to a New York Times wedding announcement: The bridegroom graduated magna cum laude from the University of California, Los Angeles, and received his medical degree cum laude from Yale. His father, a pulmonologist and sleep medicine and critical-care physician, is the chief of staff at Holy Cross Hospital in Mission Hills, Calif. He also runs a private practice there, which is managed by the bridegroom’s mother. Nahed was born in New York, according to his Mass General bio. John Kerry Concealed His Son-in-Law’s Iranian Bloodlines This one is mostly fiction. John Kerry acknowledged his family’s connection to Iran in a statement that was released on the Iranian New Year in March 2013: It’s a privilege to join President Obama in sending warm wishes for health and prosperity to the people of Iran and all those who celebrate Nowruz around the world. As you gather with your loved ones around the Sofreh Haft-Seen, we are proud to note that many Americans will join you in celebrating Nowruz. This year, we are once again reminded of the outstanding contributions of Iranian-Americans and Iranian students here in the United States, which reflect the rich history of your culture. I am proud of the Iranian-Americans in my own family, and grateful for how they have enriched my life. Kerry made the admission after a website operated by the Iranian government reported that his son-in-law was an Iranian-American and had still relatives in Iran. The report was published as Kerry faced a Senate confirmation hearing to become secretary of state, so it wasn’t a “secret.” Kenneth Timmerman, president of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, described the timing of Kerry’s statement in a column that appeared in the Daily Caller: Was the Iranian publication itself a subtle form of blackmail, aimed at letting Kerry know that the regime is fully aware of his son-in-law’s extended family in Iran? The Islamic Republic systematically puts pressure on family members of prominent Iranian-Americans (for example, individuals who work at the Persian service of Voice of America), to make sure that they do not engage in hostile statements or activities against the Tehran regime. Certainly, Secretary Kerry has long favored a U.S. rapprochement with the Islamic Republic. He has repeatedly appeared with groups such as the American Iranian Council (AIC), and has taken money from Iranian-Americans for his political campaigns, including at least one illegal donation from an Iranian woman who did not have a green card. So he didn’t need to have an Iranian-American family member to believe that the United States should forge direct relations with the Islamic Republic or ease U.S. pressure on the regime. Kerry may have figured that by revealing the family tie himself he could diffuse the situation, and make it more difficult for the regime to put pressure on his son-in-law’s family. Of course, that’s assuming Kerry in fact plans to do anything that angers the regime. Besides, the New York Times ran a wedding announcement in 2009 that quoted Kerry, so it wouldn’t have been a very well guarded secret. The Son of an Iranian Foreign Minister Was the Best Man in John Kerry’s Daughter’s Wedding-Reported as Fiction! There’s no proof that this one is true. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was one of the principal negotiators in nuclear talks with the U.S. The rumor that Zarif’s son was the best man in Kerry’s daughter’s wedding started with a post on Allen B. West’s website in July 2015: Secretary Kerry and Zarif first met over a decade ago at a dinner party hosted by George Soros at his Manhattan penthouse. What a surprise. I have to say, connecting the dots gets more and more frightening. But it gets even worse. Guess who was the best man at the 2009 wedding between Kerry’s daughter Vanessa and Behrouz Vala Nahed? Javad Zarif’s son. The story doesn’t cite a source, but Vanessa Kerry Nahed quickly shot the rumor down. She tweeted that her husband didn’t have a best man because they didn’t have a bridal party at their wedding. An Iranian news agency called the report a “news fabrication” and said Zarif’s son wasn’t at the wedding. According to the report: Officials at the Iranian Foreign Ministry on Sunday strongly rejected some US media reports alleging that Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif’s son had attended the wedding ceremony of Vanessa Kerry, the daughter of US Secretary of State John Kerry. The foreign ministry’s denial came after several American websites claimed in the last few days that Zarif’s son, Mehdi Zarif, had not only attended the wedding party of Dr. Vanessa Bradford Kerry and her Iranian American husband doctor Brian Vala Nahed, but also been Vala Nahed’s best man. The report seems to have appeared on the US media not to hurt the Iranian foreign minister, but to damage Kerry’s credit and reputation as the Republicans and the Israeli lobbies have started massive propaganda to torpedo a recent nuclear deal struck between the six world powers and Iran. Only the powerful Israeli lobby group, AIPAC, has declared a 20 million dollar fund for the purpose. And the Vanessa-Brian story only seems to be the beginning. It is true, however, that Kerry has a personal relationship with Zarif that predates the nuclear talks. The diplomats’ relationship was reported in a 2012 book by author Hooman Majd. Claim:  Secretary of State John Kerry’s daughter married an Iranian man with connections to an Iranian foreign minister who participated in nuclear negotiations. 

Answer: 0


Question: Paragraph: Cost is particularly important when many patients may have to pay out of pocket for weight loss drugs. The story does not provide any information about the cost of orlistat, the cost of the food in the study diets, or the cost of the counseling provided to study participants. A quotation from one of the study researchers suggests that a low-carb diet might be a cheaper alternative to a low-fat diet plus medication. While this is certainly possible, it also seems possible that low-carb eating, with its emphasis on protein from meat, would be more expensive than low-fat eating, and that this would cancel out any savings on medication. In any case, making any kind of judgment in this area would require more hard data, but the story provides only speculation. The story earns points for noting the absolute reduction in blood pressure in each group. We wish, though, that it had provided the weight loss in similar terms of actual pounds or kilograms lost instead of as a percentage of bodyweight. Similar to the HealthDay piece, the story provides no information about the potential adverse effects of orlistat or a low-carbohydrate diet. Similar to the HealthDay piece, the story gives a decent overview of the basic study design and outcomes. However more information would have helped us judge how well these diet plans might work in the real world. There is no information on who dropped out of the study or how well the two groups were able to adhere to the diet. In addition, the story states that low-carb dieters were advised to consume 20 g of carbohydrate per day, but it seems very unlikely that participants were able to maintain that level of carbohydrate restriction for almost a year. Overall, this story squeaks by with a satisfactory. The story does not exaggerate the prevalence or consequences of obesity. The story’s only quotes come from Dr. Yancy, a researcher affiliated with the study. The story also does not inform readers that Dr. Yancy and another co-author on the study have received funding from the Robert C. Atkins Foundation, which promotes research on low-carb diets. Given the story’s focus on blood pressure, it should have mentioned how the results of this study might compare to treatment with blood pressure medication. The story mentioned that orlistat, the weight loss medication tested in the study, is the active ingredient in Xenical and Alli. Unlike the competing piece in HealthDay, however, it did not specify that Xenical is a prescription drug and that Alli is available over the counter. Although this information would have been helpful, providing the trade names for both drugs is probably enough to orient most readers. The story mentions that both low-carb and low-fat diets are proven to produce weight loss. However, it suggests that we should be surprised that a low-carbohydrate diet could produce such beneficial effects on blood pressure. In fact, this effect was well-documented in another comparison of weight loss diets published in JAMA in 2007. The story lifts two quotes directly from a news release put out by Duke University. While the story admits that the quotes came from a release, it doesn’t perform the basic task of finding another source to provide an alternate viewpoint. The reader is left wondering if this is journalism or simply an extension of the Duke University press office. Claim: Low-Carb Diet Lowers Blood Pressure

Answer:
0