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: Viral claims regarding the purported dangers of common household plants belonging to the genus Dieffenbachia (shown above) have been on the internet for years. One article (titled, colorfully, “My Son Died for This Damn Plant it Is Urgent That Everyone Knows, Kills a Child in 1 Minute and an Adult in 15! !”) appears identically across multiple websites and provides the following representative claim: Please read this carefully. My son died because he put a piece of leaf in his mouth and tongue and these swelled to suffocate. This plant is very common in many homes and offices. It is deadly poisonous and dangerous, to the point of killing a child in 1 minute and an adult in 15 minutes. If you touch it by chance you should never bring your fingers to your eyes, as this could cause permanent blindness. Warn your friends and family. This post does not seek to debunk that specific story, in part because it comes with no details that allow any aspect of it to be verified. Instead, this post addresses more broadly the risk posed to humans by this widespread potted plant. Dieffenbachia is indeed very common among household plants (it’s simple, and requires little sunlight), and eating its leaves or rubbing your eyes with your hands after coming into contact with the plant may indeed cause irritation, which in turn can cause the swelling described above. As far as the plant causing death, however, Ed Krenzelok, an emeritus professor of pharmacology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and a former director of the Pittsburgh Poison Center who has researched Dieffenbachia toxicity specifically, is skeptical: I’ve never ever seen a fatality in my experience related to Dieffenbachia or any of the members of the Arum family. I’ve reviewed, virtually […] hundreds of thousands of cases in my career involving plants of this nature. The risk of irritation from Dieffenbachia is not news. People have been aware of its properties as an irritant since at least the first century A.D. Later, Jamaican slave traders — sadistically — rubbed the juice of these plants on the tongues of slaves, causing their mouths to become painfully swollen, as a form of punishment, making one of its common names “dumb cane“. The cause of this irritation comes from a chemical called calcium oxalate, which exists in varying concentrations across the entire plant kingdom, including a variety of food crops. In Dieffenbachia and some other groups of plants, this chemical forms microscopic (but razor-sharp) crystals called raphides that can rip apart and irritate tissues in your mouth or your eyes, as described by Krenzelok: Think of a micro-miniature balloon filled with crystal in the cells of the dieffenbachia and when you bite down on that, you squeeze the cells and the enzymes that are in there and the oxalate crystal are expelled. […] If you just touch a dieffenbachia or rub it on your arm or whatever, without breaking the integrity of the leaf, you’re not going to have a problem. Calcium oxalate is a ubiquitous chemical in nature. It is produced as a byproduct of a variety of cellular processes, and can form many different types of chemical structures depending on the species of plant. Not limited to plants, it is also produced as a byproduct in mammalian metabolism as well, and it is one of the most common minerals that form kidney stones. The risk to humans — at least, when speaking about the reactions described in these viral posts — would come not from the inherent toxicity of calcium oxalate, but from physical abrasion caused by these tiny sharp crystals, as explained by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia: Oxalate crystals can cause intense pain and swelling if they come in contact with the skin or mouth. When any part of these plants is chewed and swallowed, the crystals stab the sensitive tissues of the tongue, gums and throat, creating the sensation of biting into ground glass. Pain, difficulty swallowing, swelling and temporary hoarseness may occur. Poisoning from swallowing an oxalate-containing plant is rare because the intense mouth pain usually prevents children from eating a significant quantity of the plant. In terms of contact with the eyes, Krenzelok says he frequently saw eye irritation at his center, but never traumatic, permanent eye damage: I’ve seen a lot of cases where ocular exposure has occurred, but generally because people have a broken stem or something and they get some of the juice on their fingers and they happen to rub their eye and they have a little irritation. But I’ve never ever seen or observed a traumatic ocular exposure either. [In my experience], I’ve never seen loss of vision or anything of that nature. Claim: The household plant Dieffenbachia, one of the most common indoor plants, is so poisonous it can kill a child in one minute and an adult in 15 minutes.
0

Paragraph: In late summer 2019, we received multiple inquiries from readers about the accuracy of a viral Facebook post that claimed the popular energy drinks Red Bull and Bang test positive for various illicit substances, including methamphetamines, ecstasy, and the prescription opioids OxyContin and Suboxone. The claims were posted in July by user Angie Rider Freese, who included photographs of what appeared to be a urine screen-test cup, with “Red Bull” written on the lid. We have edited her post for clarity: “Today at work a patient had a Red Bull. [I] told him they [test positive] on drug screens. He didn’t believe me. So I had him pour some in a new cup, and it [tested positive] for [methamphetamine] and [oxycodone] and [buprenorphine]. Also Bang will [test positive] for [ecstasy/MDMA].” Rider Freese subsequently deleted the post in question, but she later confirmed its authenticity with a second post in which she explained that she had taken it down because its viral spread had caused her to be inundated with friend requests and messages. Although the original post was deleted, social media users have continued to share a screenshot of it, meaning its claims continued to be promulgated. The claims were inaccurate and misleading in several ways, but they did allude (whether knowingly or not) to a flaw in some substance-testing field kits that have caused innocuous substances to incorrectly test positive for drugs such as methamphetamines. Experts told us that a false positive of this kind could, in principle, be produced in certain tests of a sample of Red Bull or other energy drinks, or a urine sample taken from a person who had consumed the beverages. However, we found no evidence of an actual pattern of such false positive test results. The first point to clarify is that neither Red Bull nor Bang nor any other energy drink contains methamphetamine, buprenorphine (often sold as suboxone), oxycodone (often sold as OxyContin), or MDMA (commonly known as ecstasy or X). What the meme alluded to (whether knowingly or unknowingly) was the phenomenon of false positives, in which a drug test incorrectly indicates the presence of a substance that is not present, either in a biological specimen (usually urine and blood) or a sample of the substance in question. The ingredients of both Red Bull and Bang can be found listed here. Despite Rider Freese’s claim that the energy-drink samples tested positive for various drugs, it’s not clear that the urine test cup in the second photograph illustrates any such positive tests. The test strips on urine screen-test cups, such as the one shown in the photograph, invariably indicate a negative result where two horizontal red bars are visible. The only clearly visible test strips in Rider Freese’s photograph show horizontal, double red lines, suggesting negative results for unidentified substances. The second misleading feature of the meme is that Rider Freese said she used a urine screen test to screen for methamphetamine, buprenorphine, and oxycodone in a sample of Red Bull. This makes little sense, because that kind of test is used to screen for illicit substances in a person’s urine, not in a beverage. Testing substances, rather than biological specimens, is done via a “presumptive substance test.” The typical use of such a test would be where police found a powder in someone’s car, which they suspected might be a prohibited substance like cocaine or heroin, so they either send a sample of the substance for laboratory testing, or conduct a field test themselves. Typically, law-enforcement agents use a type of substance testing called colorimetric testing, which involves adding a small sample of the questionable substance to a liquid solution, and inducing particular chemical reactions that cause specific changes in the color of the solution. The presence or absence of those color changes indicates the possible presence or absence of the substance being tested. The following is a helpful and relatively straightforward video guide to presumptive colorimetric drug field tests, produced by Florida International University’s (FIU) National Forensic Science Technology Center:  ﻿ These field tests are imperfect and can sometimes produce false positives. However, the preliminary or “presumptive” result they produce is typically enough to give a law-enforcement agent probable cause to make an arrest. After that, samples are typically sent to a laboratory for “confirmatory” testing, which either confirms the initial result, or shows that the initial result was a false positive. Many private companies design various kinds of field-test kits and sell them to law-enforcement agencies throughout the United States. Those kits vary in their reliability, specificity, and sensitivity, and a pattern of false positives has emerged in recent years, with various innocuous household substances showing up as illicit drugs. For example, the Marijuana Policy Project has documented cases in which chocolate tested positive for hashish, flour tested positive for cocaine, and soap tested positive for gamma-Hydroxybutyric acid (GHB), which is used recreationally and as a date rape drug. In 2017, Georgia woman Dasha Fincher was arrested and imprisoned for three months, awaiting confirmatory test results, after police performed a field test on a substance that produced a false positive for methamphetamine but was in fact cotton candy. In principle, it’s possible that a sample of Red Bull, Bang, or some other energy drink could produce a false positive for one of the drugs mentioned in the July 2019 meme. However, we found no evidence of an actual pattern of Red Bull or Bang producing such false positives, which significantly undermines the claim that Red Bull “pops” for methamphetamine and Bang “pops” for ecstasy. It should also be noted once again that Rider Freese attempted to support her claims with photographic evidence of a urine test cup, which is a different test and simply would not be used to test a sample of a beverage (or any other substance) as opposed to a urine sample. Moreover, that photograph did not clearly show a positive test for any substance. It’s possible but unlikely that a urine sample provided by someone who drank a can of energy drink could test positive for methamphetamine or other drugs. Even if it did, it would only be the result of a false positive, just as in the case of substance testing. Kirk Grates, chemistry research project manager at FIU’s National Forensic Science Technology Center, told Snopes: “… There may be some analytes that are contained within these aforementioned energy drinks that could possibly cause a false positive.” Certain innocuous items have been known to cause false positives for various drugs in individuals who consume them before providing a urine sample. For example, the over-the-counter, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) ibuprofen has caused urine samples to give false positives for phencyclidine (PCP), and other NSAIDs have provided false positives for marijuana. The urine of individuals who use a Vick’s inhaler has been known to provide a false positive for methamphetamine. In principle, it’s possible that certain ingredients in Red Bull, Bang, or other energy drinks might trigger false positives for the drugs listed in Rider Freese’s meme, but we found no evidence of an actual pattern to this effect. The photographs posted by Rider Freese did not constitute evidence of a positive result for any substance, and, anyway, she claimed to have used a urine screen test cup to test a sample of Red Bull itself, rather than the urine of an individual who had consumed the drink. On the whole, we found no evidence to support the specific claims made in the meme, which was in any case expressed in confusing and misleading terms. However, the meme may have alluded (whether knowingly or unknowingly) to the possibility that the energy drinks in question, like other innocuous products, could in theory produce false-positive test results for the drugs listed in the meme, either through substance or urine testing. Claim: Red Bull and Bang energy drinks test positive for various illicit or prescription drugs in substance or urine tests
0

Paragraph: "Last month, the House, on a vote of 59-11, passed legislation that would make it a felony to attempt to strangle or choke someone, even if the attack did not result in any injury to the victim. The bill, H-5087, is now before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The proposal is intended, in part, to make it easier to prosecute anyone who applies pressure on a person's throat or neck with the intent to cause harm. The chief advocate, Rep. Roberto DaSilva, a Pawtucket police officer, said he submitted it because he was seeing too many cases in which serious strangulation attempts would be prosecuted as misdemeanor simple assaults because the attack, although potentially fatal, didn't result in obvious signs of serious bodily injury. ""If you take a knife, swing it at someone and not strike them, that's a felony,"" he said. ""Under this law, strangulation itself would be a felony. When you have your hands around their throat, you've taken it to the next level. It's serious enough."" But it was his assertion about the prevalence of the crime that caught our attention. ""Ten percent of violent deaths in the U.S. each year are due to strangulation,"" he said, adding that there are ""six female victims to every male victim."" We wondered if the rate was really that high. DaSilva sent us a handful of documents. One was a 2001 article from the Journal of Emergency Medicine, which flatly stated that ""Ten percent of violent deaths each year in the United States are directly because of strangulation."" Where did that statistic come from? Although the article has 35 footnotes, the ""ten percent"" statement carries no citation. Two of the three authors, Dr. George E. McClane and Gael B. Strack, a lawyer, have apparently been using this statistic for a while. DaSilva also directed us to a 1999 article in which McClane and Strack are quoted as making the same claim. Strack has repeated the statistic as recently as a 2007 article written to help prosecutors. In each case, there is no indication where the data come from. We emailed Strack, who is CEO of the Family Justice Center Alliance in San Diego; she told us it came from a paper written by McClane in 1995, which we found intriguing because no McClane research is cited in their 2001 article. Researchers are typically quick to cite their previous work each time they write a paper. We couldn't get an interview with McClane. The website of the Medical Board of California of the Department of Consumer Affairs said he surrendered his medical license in March after being found guilty of unprofessional conduct. His lawyer did not respond to an email. So we took another route. DaSilva had also sent us an article from 2007, also in the Journal of Emergency Medicine, saying that national data from 1993 showed that 11.8 percent of women and 1.9 percent of men who died that year were killed by strangulation. It didn't give an overall rate. So we went to the source: a 2003 article on firearm deaths by David Wiebe of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. It says the strangulation rate that year was 3.4 percent. That's 1 in 29, not 1 in 10. But that 3.4 percent does not include all violence-related deaths, as DaSilva did. Suicides are excluded. If you include them, as the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control does when it catalogues all ""violence-related injury deaths,"" the rate is even lower -- about 1.4 percent, or 1 in 71. That same difference is echoed in the most recent federal data, where strangulation accounted for only about 1.2 percent of the violence-related deaths in 2007. If you only look at homicides, the rate rises, but only to 3.5 percent, still far shy of 10 percent. Only when we focused on women who have been murdered did the 10-percent figure apply. Wiebe directed us to the 1998 version of the database, where 448 of the 4,241 female homicide deaths were logged as being due to strangulation. That's 10.6 percent. We calculated a similar number for 2007. (The actual numbers show that there were not six female strangulation victims for every male, as DaSilva said. Because 448 women and 213 men died of strangulation in 2008, the actual ratio was 2 to 1. To hit a 6-to-1 ratio, you have to compare the percentages of homicide deaths due to strangulation -- 10.6 percent for women and 1.6 percent for men.) In short, the ""10 percent"" statistic cited by DaSilva has been bandied about at least since the 1990s. As presented, it is false. Federal data from 1993, 1998 and 2007 show that the percentage is significantly lower, whether or not you include suicides. It may be that the federal statistics are being repeatedly misrepresented, taking numbers that were only meant to apply to female homicides and expanding them to include all violent deaths, regardless of gender. If DaSilva had said that ""10 percent of all homicide deaths among women are due to strangulation"" and that ""women who are murdered are six times more likely to die of strangulation than men who are murdered,"" he would be on solid ground. But he didn't. In his defense, he was quoting sources that should be reliable. The Journal of Emergency Medicine, for one, failed to display adequate rigor by allowing the 10-percent estimate to appear without attribution. And DaSilva is trying to address what he sees as a serious problem, especially in domestic assaults on women. Deborah DeBare, executive director of the Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said her organization has been concerned for a few years that strangulation assaults are not being aggressively prosecuted, even though they ""are one of the most dangerous ways of attacking someone."" And because they are often carried out by a coldly calculating assailant, she said, the hope is that the stronger threat of jail time might be a deterrent for some men. But we make our rulings based on whether a statement is actually true or false. (Get updates from PolitiFactRI on Twitter. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on our PolitiFact Rhode Island Facebook page.)" Claim: Ten percent of violent deaths in the U.S. each year are due to strangulation.

0