instruction:
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: "On 5 January 2016, President Obama proposed several measures to curb gun violence while delivering remarks on the topic in the East Room of the White House. As he discussed gun deaths involving children, the President began crying (as seen at the 0:44 mark in the video embedded below):  // <! [CDATA[ (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = ""//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&#038;version=v2.3""; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk')); // ]]> Some versions of the meme attributed its claims to Dr. Lillian Glass: In her 2013 book “The Body Language of Liars,” behavioral analyst Lillian Glass wrote that psychopaths are really bad at crying: “When psychopaths cry, they will often wipe underneath each eye, one at a time. When people cry genuine tears they cry with both eyes, and so they will tend to wipe both eyes at once.” A brief online search indicated that the quote cited above was lifted directly from a 6 November 2013 Business Insider article titled “7 Signs You’re Working with a Psychopath.” The article predictably described an entirely different context: They are really bad at crying. “When [Susan Smith] gave a press conference and cried about her missing children, her fake tears were actually what raised suspicions that she was the killer,” says Glass. When psychopaths cry, Glass says they will often wipe underneath each eye, one at a time. “When people cry genuine tears they cry with both eyes, and so they will tend to wipe both eyes at once.” In their original context, Dr. Glass’ observations clearly pertained to video footage (not a still image). Dr. Glass’ web site includes a blog wherein her observations consistently describe analysis of subjects in context and motion (utilizing photographs to illustrate the body language she described in a broader context throughout). Nowhere in her writings did we locate an example of her making such a definitive diagnosis based upon a single still image, nor of her throwing around severe diagnostic language such as “psychopath.” We contacted Dr. Glass regarding the meme and the use of language from her 2013 book The Body Language of Liars. Dr. Glass told us she was aware of the quote’s newfound popularity and was deeply dismayed by the lengths to which her words and work had been misconstrued due to the meme (and related articles). Dr. Glass strongly repudiated the assertions of the meme, noting that the quote originally appeared in her 2013 book and was used for the Business Insider piece in a very different context. Moreover, she stated that she would never engage in body language analysis so flippantly, nor did she consider the subject matter of the meme appropriate for such observations. Mostly, Dr. Glass was dismayed at the virality of a grossly misconstrued, unrelated, out-of-context quote from her book in a meme that misrepresented her work. We asked psychologist Dr. Emily Perrine-Gifford about the claims; she explained why the armchair diagnoses of social media made little sense to mental health clinicians: I don’t think people understand what a psychopath really is. A psychopath is someone who is literally born without a conscience. That means that if Obama were really a psychopath, he would have shown signs and symptoms from childhood. Psychopathy may be understood as the worst form of Antisocial Personality Disorder. Antisocial Personality Disorder can not be diagnosed until adulthood, but with psychopathy, since this is potentially the worst form of Antisocial Personality Disorder and is thought to have genetic origins as well as psychosocial origins, certain symptoms may be seen before adulthood. These symptoms, most notably, for psychopaths, are fire setting, problems wetting the bed past an age appropriate time period, and a blatant disregard for the safety of self or others. Psychopaths are notoriously difficult to diagnose as they can be charming and manipulative. However, I have particular expertise in this area as I have worked in forensic psychiatric hospitals and super maximum security prison settings. I am not convinced that President Obama is or ever was a psychopath. He shows little to no signs or symptoms of Antisocial Personality Disorder and these symptoms would have to present in order to be diagnosed as a psychopath." Claim: According to a body language expert, a photograph of President Obama crying reveals he is a psychopath.
answer:
0


question:
Paragraph: "It starts like a joke — Gov. Rick Scott walks into a Gainesville Starbucks — but one patron wasn’t laughing. In town on April 5, 2016, to tour the recently opened factory and headquarters for biopharmaceutical company Nanotherapeutics, Scott stopped in to the coffee chain for a cup. Cara Jennings, a former Lake Worth city commissioner, saw Scott and ripped into him from her seat. Among other grievances, she accused him of denying her health care coverage with his policies. ""In fact, you cut Medicaid so I couldn’t get Obamacare,"" Jennings shouted on April 5, 2016. ""You are an a------! You don’t care about working people. You don’t care about working people. You should be ashamed to show your face around here."" When Scott countered that the state had created a million jobs since the recession, she said no one cared (read our fact-check on those jobs numbers). She then criticized his March signing of a bill denying funding for women’s health care clinics that performed abortions (read our check about that issue). We tried to reach Jennings by phone, text, email and even Facebook, but we didn’t hear back from her, so we don’t really know the specifics of her situation. That makes it difficult to gauge whether she was able to benefit from the health care law. But we can look at whether Scott cut Medicaid, the joint state and federal program to provide health insurance for the very poor, in a way that could have denied people health coverage under the Affordable Care Act. It’s not so much that he cut anything, but more that he hasn’t consistently supported expanding the program. That has indeed left hundreds of thousands of Floridians without coverage. The expansion debate Jennings told ABC Action News in Tampa after the incident that she is a single mother who worked part-time. That provides clues that she may fall into what is known as the Medicaid coverage gap. To understand why, let’s review how the Affordable Care Act is linked to Medicaid. The law originally wanted to cover uninsured people two different ways. One was to subsidize people who needed help buying insurance through state marketplaces or HealthCare.gov. The second was to expand Medicaid to cover a higher number of poorer people. Normally, to be eligible for Medicaid, your annual income has to be 44 percent of the federal poverty level (100 percent is currently $11,880 for an individual and $24,300 for a family of four). The plan was to extend that eligibility to all adults up to 138 percent of the poverty level. Technically the calculation under the law is 133 percent, but a 5 percent deduction is added on top of that. But Medicaid expansion ended up being optional after a 2012 Supreme Court ruling saying it could not be forced upon states. Currently 19 states, including Florida, have chosen not to grow the program. Recent estimates from the Kaiser Family Foundation showed that 948,000 uninsured adults in Florida would be covered by an expansion. This has led to plenty of debate among lawmakers, including a meltdown during the 2015 Florida legislative session over how to cover more lower-income residents. The Senate was open to a limited expansion, while the House opposed it altogether. But now the math really starts to get tricky. If a state doesn’t expand Medicaid, people who make 100 to 400 percent of the poverty level can get marketplace subsidies to buy private insurance. Because of the way the law was written, that leaves people making between 44 and 100 percent of the poverty level out in the cold, without assistance. Those people don’t qualify for Medicaid, and can’t get subsidies to buy insurance. That’s the so-called coverage gap. According to Kaiser, there are 567,000 people under that umbrella in the Sunshine State. Chances are good that a single mother working part time could fit into that definition. Scott, a former hospital chain executive best known for resigning amid controversy over his company defrauding Medicare, has had a spotty history with Medicaid. He initially opposed expanding the program under Obamacare, then supported it during his re-election campaign, then went back to opposing it. While the Legislature is the body that would have to approve an expansion, Scott’s opinion affects the debate. (Scott’s office did not respond to our questions about Medicaid.) He has argued with Washington over the federal government ending payments for low-income hospital patients, leaving the Legislature to use state money to plug holes in the program the last two years. Scott has also asked lawmakers to eliminate automatic increases to Medicaid hospital rates. He’s also overseen the state’s controversial transition to managed care, in which private companies took over Medicaid policies as a cost-cutting measure. Florida CHAIN, a consumer health advocacy group, told us managed care organizations had actually seen a boost in funding. And there’s the aforementioned abortion bill Scott signed on March 25. That bill prevents state and Medicaid money from going to clinics that perform elective abortions, including Planned Parenthood affiliates. But these are specific issues not necessarily related to getting access to broad health care coverage under Obamacare. While many Floridians remain uninsured without Medicaid expansion, we found no evidence of an outright cut, as Jennings said. Our ruling The activist at Starbucks said Rick Scott ""cut Medicaid"" so people can't ""get Obamacare."" Her point-blank accusation that Scott cut the program doesn’t fit. But through Scott’s inaction and the Florida House's resistance to expansion, many Floridians are not benefitting from either subsidies to buy private insurance or an expanded Medicaid. The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details." Claim: "Rick Scott's Starbucks heckler Says Rick Scott ""cut Medicaid"" so people can't ""get Obamacare."
answer:
1


question:
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
answer:

0