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'.

Q: Paragraph: The Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services announced the winning applicants Thursday, just days after the state awarded licenses to companies seeking to transport cannabis products. Testing facilities were licensed earlier this month, reports  the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The newly announced licensees included Blue Arrow Holdings LLC, a newly formed company that plans to retrofit a building in the long-shuttered Lempt Brewery complex in St. Louis to grow cannabis indoors, reports  the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. “We’ll be taking over that space and sustaining it,” said Max Bonanno, a consultant to Blue Arrow Holdings. “It’s pretty cool.”  But some of the applicants that didn’t win licenses threatened to sue or appeal. Among them was Dr. Paul Callicoat, a retired cardiologist and a principal of Sarcoxie Nursery in southwest Missouri, who said his family will review “all available lawful remedies” to reverse this decision. Voters made medical marijuana legal in 2018. The licensing program is expected to wind up by February with the awarding of licenses to applicants seeking to sell cannabis products to Missourians holding doctor-approved cards. Claim: State awards license to grow medical marijuana in Missouri.

A: 2
****
Q: Paragraph: Such a test could initially be used to select patients for clinical trials of experimental treatments being developed to try to halt progression of Alzheimer’s, the researchers said, and may one day move into routine use in doctors’ clinics. “Alzheimer’s begins to affect the brain many years before patients are diagnosed (and) many of our drug trials fail because by the time patients are given the drugs the brain has already been too severely affected,” said Simon Lovestone of Oxford University, who led this work from King’s College London. “A simple blood test could help us identify patients at a much earlier stage to take part in new trials and hopefully develop treatments,” he said. Alzheimer’s is the most common form of dementia, a brain-wasting disease which in 2010 was estimated to be costing the world $604 billion a year. The fatal disease affects 44 million people worldwide, with the number set to triple by 2050, the campaign group Alzheimer’s Disease International says. Several big pharma firms including Roche, Eli Lilly, Merck & Co and Johnson & Johnson, are pursuing various approaches to get to the root cause of Alzheimer’s and try to find treatments to halt its progression. Yet over the past 15 years, more than 100 experimental Alzheimer’s drugs have failed in trial. Lovestone and other experts believe this may be because drug trials are conducted too late, in patients whose condition has already gone too far. A predictive test for use before people develop symptoms would help researchers select the right people for drug trials, and help show whether the experimental drugs are working. Previous studies have found that PET brain scans and tests of lumbar fluid can be used to predict the onset of dementia from people with a less severe condition known as mild cognitive impairment (MCI), but these tests are expensive and invasive, so scientists are keen to develop a cheaper, simpler blood test. MCI includes problems with day-to-day memory, language and attention. It can be an early sign of dementia, or a symptom of stress or anxiety. Around 10 percent of people diagnosed with MCI develop dementia within a year. Apart from regular assessments to measure memory decline, there is currently no accurate way of predicting who will or won’t develop dementia. For this study, published in the journal Alzheimer’s & Dementia, Lovestone’s team used blood samples from 1,148 people - 476 with Alzheimer’s, 220 with mild cognitive impairment and 452 elderly controls without dementia. They were analyzed for 26 proteins previously found to be linked with Alzheimer’s. The team found 16 of these 26 proteins to be strongly associated with brain shrinkage in either MCI or Alzheimer’s and then ran a second series of tests to see which of these could predict which patients would progress from MCI to Alzheimer’s. With this second series, they found a combination of 10 proteins capable of predicting with 87 percent accuracy whether people with MCI would develop Alzheimer’s disease within a year. Experts in the field welcomed the results but said they should be replicated in larger studies before an Alzheimer’s blood test could be rolled out for use in doctors’ clinics. “The results reported today are interesting, but as the authors point out there is still a very large amount of work remaining until a usable blood test for Alzheimer’s disease becomes available,” said Adrian Pini of the MRC Center for Developmental Neurobiology at King’s College London. James Pickett, head of research at the Alzheimer’s Society, said the research “does not mean that a blood test for dementia is just around the corner”. “These 10 proteins can predict conversion to dementia with less than 90 percent accuracy, meaning one in 10 people would get an incorrect result,” he said. “Accuracy would need to be improved before it could be a useful diagnostic test.” Claim: Study paves the way for a blood test to predict Alzheimer's.

A: 2
****
Q: Paragraph: "Health insurance has emerged as a defining issue in the Georgia Senate race, and Republican incumbent Sen. David Perdue declared that there is one angle where he can’t be attacked. ""I’ve always believed in protections for Americans with preexisting conditions. Period,"" Perdue tweeted Aug. 18. ""Anyone who says otherwise just isn’t telling the truth."" The campaign ad attached to the tweet adds, ""Health insurance should always cover preexisting conditions. For anyone. Period."" That is a sweeping policy — guaranteed coverage for anyone, with no penalty for a preexisting condition. If that’s Perdue’s position now, it doesn’t jibe with his record as a lawmaker. He’s voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act — Obamacare — and a bill he cosponsored to guarantee coverage fails to match the ironclad protections under that law. Perdue makes no bones about opposing the ACA, which contains several interlocking provisions that protect people with preexisting conditions. He voted to repeal it in 2015 and backed the Senate’s failed repeal-and-replace effort in 2017. Perdue’s campaign said that it’s possible to be against Obamacare, and in favor of patient protections. It said, ""Perdue co-sponsored legislation to ensure preexisting conditions are covered at no additional cost to those patients."" That bill, called the Protect Act, never came to a vote in the Senate and doesn’t match the ACA’s guarantees. The current law blocks insurers from using any eligibility rule, list of covered services or pricing to deny anyone coverage. The Protect Act does say that insurance companies can’t deny coverage based on ""any preexisting condition."" But it gives a carrier the option to deny certain coverage, if ""it will not have the capacity to deliver services adequately."" Since the bill doesn’t define what that clause means, it leaves open the possibility that carriers could use it to drop coverage of certain expensive diseases from all of their policies. To Allison Hoffman, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, that’s a big loophole. ""Insurers could exclude someone’s preexisting conditions from coverage, even if they offered her a policy,"" Hoffman told us in 2018 when the bill was first introduced. ""That fact alone sinks any claims that this law offers preexisting condition protection."" Rodney Whitlock, a health policy expert who worked for Republicans in Congress, told us concerns about loopholes are reasonable. ""Insurers will use the rules available to them to take in more in premiums than they pay out in claims,"" Whitlock said in 2018. ""If you see a loophole and think insurers will use it, that’s probably true."" Hoffman notes that the Protect Act’s language against insurers discriminating based on genetic information also concerns her. The bill says carriers ""shall not request, require, or purchase genetic information with respect to any individual prior to such individual's enrollment."" But the bill says information collected incidentally can be used by insurers. That could happen, for example, when an employee inadvertently reveals details on a questionnaire, despite being told not to include information that can be linked back to their DNA. Insurers can’t use that information for setting premiums, but Hoffman says it could shape the list of covered maladies. ""If an insurer comes across genetic information incidentally, it seems to me that they could exclude any related conditions,"" Hoffman warned. ""This loophole could be huge considering the amount of incidental collection and how broadly it is construed."" The bill has other holes: for instance, permitting insurers to charge women more than men. Perdue’s stance on short-term health insurance plans also raises issues. These plans offer limited coverage that’s intended to tide people over when they’re between jobs. They don’t need to follow the strict rules of the ACA. They don’t have to cover the package of essential benefits under the law and they can exclude coverage for preexisting conditions. Under the ACA, they were limited to 90 days’ coverage. The Trump administration extended that to 364 days, with the option to renew them for up to three years. Perdue voted against a 2018 resolution to oppose Trump’s expansion of short-term plans. The measure failed by one vote. The Perdue campaign said that Obamacare isn’t the only way to take care of people. ""The best way to protect those with preexisting conditions, lower costs for all Georgians, and expand access to coverage is through free market solutions,"" the campaign said in a statement. The campaign noted that many counties have only one insurance company offering coverage. It argues that if more companies found it profitable to move into those areas, competition would improve the options for consumers. Perdue said that his policy is that ""health insurance should always cover preexisting conditions. For anyone. Period."" Perdue opposes the Affordable Care Act and weighed in on the side of short-term health plans that lack some of the ACA’s strong protections for people with preexisting conditions. Perdue’s bill to maintain those protections contains loopholes that insurance companies could use to avoid covering certain conditions. Perdue’s promise is sweeping and absolute. The policies he has backed offer some limited protections, but don’t match that promise." Claim: David Perdue Says his policy is that “health insurance should always cover preexisting conditions. For anyone. Period.”

A:
0
****