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: The European Medicines Agency had already restricted the use of Protelos - also known as Osseor or strontium ranelate - last April but its pharmacovigilance committee said on Friday the drug should no longer be used to treat osteoporosis at all. The move follows an analysis which found that for every 1,000 patient-years there were four more cases of serious heart problems, including heart attacks, and four more cases of blood clots among patients taking the drug than those on placebo. The recommendation will now be sent to the agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, which is expected to issue a final opinion at its January 20-23 meeting. Claim: EU panel recommends suspension of risky bone disease drug.
2

Paragraph: "According to a chain email making the rounds, people over 75 years old will be denied cancer treatment under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, after President Barack Obama. The email also states that vitamin B12 shots won’t be covered under Medicare because of Obamacare. Also, your primary care physician will have to admit you into a hospital -- as opposed to, oh let’s say, an emergency care doctor -- or Medicare won’t pay for it, again, because of Obamacare. Here’s a portion of the chain email, which a reader in Northeast Portland forwarded to PolitiFact Oregon, with a plea for more information. She said it came from a friend: ""Your hospital Medicare admittance has just changed under Obama Care. You must be admitted by your primary Physician in order for Medicare to pay for it! If you are admitted by an emergency room doctor it is treated as outpatient care where hospital costs are not covered. This is only the tip of the iceberg for Obama Care. Just wait to see what happens in 2013 & 2014! … (ellipses) Please for the sake of many good people, please... pass this on. We all need to be informed. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS... At age 76 when you most need it, you are not eligible for cancer treatment page  272."" The email goes on with a long list of other claims as assessed by a Judge David Kithil of Marble Falls, Texas. PolitiFact Oregon hopped to it. And we learned very quickly -- through the power of the Internet -- that a version of this chain email has been kicking around since 2009, based on H.R. 3200, a 2009 bill that did not become law. Many of the claims have been debunked. In fact, FactCheck.org found just four of the 48 claims in the original email to be accurate. PolitiFact ruled two statements to be . The chain email has morphed over the years, with new assertions added. As for the cancer-related statement, the email cites page 272 of H.R. 3200 to back up its assertion that seniors at 76 are not eligible for cancer treatment. Later, the email specifies that under Section 1145 of H.R. 3200, ""cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age."" Neither statement is accurate. There is no rationing, based on age or otherwise, on cancer treatment under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act signed into law in March 2010. Likewise, there is no rationing or cut-off age in 2009’s H.R. 3200. H.R. 3200 contained a section on ""treatment of certain cancer hospitals."" But the American Nurses Association described the section as  ""the opposite of rationing. The section allows Medicare to pay cancer hospitals more if they are incurring higher costs."" FactCheck.org agrees with the nurses group. And again, the bill never became law. ""All medically necessary treatment is covered by Medicare. Including cancer treatments, regardless of age,"" said Katherine Fitzpatrick with the Medicare Rights Center in Washington, D.C. and in New York. Yet, none of the debunking seems to matter, because four years later, the email lives on via the forward button. The Internet is unstoppable. What, we wondered, did the Texas judge think of his undying notoriety? ""I wish it would die. I can’t control it,"" David Kithil told PolitiFact Oregon. ""I don’t know how something like that goes viral like that."" The former judge said he wrote a letter to his local newspaper in 2009, protesting the initial version of the health care act. The letter was published in the River Cities Daily Tribune, circulation 5,000. Somehow, he said, the letter was republished online. Kithil wants readers to disregard his letter as it is outdated and based on legislation that did not become law. ""I’ve had calls from all over the country, 300 to 400 calls over three or four years on this,"" he said. He pleads with the callers, ""Don’t pass it on. It’s not accurate anymore. Trash it."" He says he still has problems with the Affordable Care Act, but that’s neither here nor there. Both the Medicare Rights Center and AARP, the national organization for seniors, verified that hospital admittance has to do with billing under parts A or B of Medicare, the government health plan for seniors 65 and older. The Affordable Care Act reduces Medicare payments to hospitals with readmissions within 30 days for certain conditions, such as pneumonia, but that’s not based on who admits the patient. Also, a spokesman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid says Medicare has never covered vitamin B12 shots as a preventive benefit. Again, this isn’t related to the Affordable Care Act. Older patients diagnosed with cancer need not worry that treatment will be rationed or denied under the Affordable Care Act. The claim is based on an inaccurate reading of a bill that went nowhere. We don’t know where or how the specific age of 76 was added -- Kithil said he doesn’t remember including a specific age in his letter. But we do know enough to rule this widely debunked and ridiculous-on-its-face statement a ." Claim: "Chain email Says ""At age 76 when you most need it, you are not eligible for cancer treatment"" under Affordable Care Act."
0

Paragraph: "As New York state began implementing a regional approach to reopening after coronavirus-related shutdowns, a lawmaker from western New York complained that many of his constituents faced a longer wait to reopen because they were geographically linked to more hard-hit counties. State Sen. George Borrello, who made the comments in a statement on May 11, represents New York’s 57th district, which includes three less-populated counties — Allegany, Cattaraugus and Chautauqua — south of more heavily populated regions near Buffalo (Erie County) and Niagara Falls (Niagara County). ""While infection rates in Allegany, Cattaraugus and Chautauqua counties have consistently been among the lowest in the state throughout the COVID-19 crisis, our linkage with Erie County and its higher infection rates means that we don’t meet the metrics for reopening, and our hurting, rural economies must remain shut down for at least another two weeks,"" Borrello said in the statement. The state’s reopening plan allowed regions to begin Phase 1 of the reopening process on May 15 as long as they met seven metrics established by the state. The Western New York Region subsequently met all seven metrics on May 18 and entered Phase 1 the following day. But we wondered whether Borrello was correct in his May 11 statement that the infection rates in the three rural counties was substantially lower than those of the more urbanized counties to the north, and consistently among the state's lowest. We used the county-by-county infection tallies posted on Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s pressroom page and converted them to a rate per 10,000 residents. We ranked the counties from the highest to the lowest for each week from March 30 to mid-May, when Borrello made his statement. We found that, as Borrello had said, Allegany, Cattaraugus and Chautauqua counties ranked low in infection rates consistently over that period, while Erie and Niagara started higher and continued to rise: Our analysis found that Chautauqua never ranked higher than sixth from the bottom for infection rates among the 58 New York counties for which data was available, and Chautauqua had the lowest rate of any county for much of the period. Allegany and Cattaraugus ranked marginally higher than Chautauqua, but well below Erie and Niagara. Overall, the three small counties usually ranked in the bottom one-third of counties in the state, and by the time Borrello made his statement, they were all in the bottom one-fifth of counties. By contrast, Erie and Niagara were consistently in the top half of counties as measured by infections per capita. New York City (including all five boroughs) ranked at or near the top for the entire period. The state reopening plan mirrored what many other states are doing, with certain types of non-essential businesses opening in phases in each of 10 regions, as long as certain health measurements are met in the region. Borrello said in an interview that he just wants sensible reopening policies that are implemented ""fairly and equitably."" ""Even though the infection rates are higher in Erie County than the rest of the region, we’re still talking about keeping those same precautions and ensuring that they’re being adhered to,"" he said. Borrello said that ""infection rates in Allegany, Cattaraugus and Chautauqua counties have consistently been among the lowest in the state."" A look at the data from the end of March to mid-May confirms that the infection rate in each of the three counties was usually in the bottom one-third of counties in the state, and by the time Borello made his statement, they were all in the bottom one-fifth of counties. By contrast, Erie and Niagara were consistently in the top half of counties as measured by infections per capita." Claim: “Infection rates in Allegany, Cattaraugus and Chautauqua counties have consistently been among the lowest in the state.”

2