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 lead author is quoted as stating the implant could prevent HIV infection “more reliably and cheaply,” but the cost is not provided in the release. The cost may well be unknown since the treatment is experimental and in development. However, the published research states that the active ingredient — hydroxychloroquine, or HCQ — “is an inexpensive drug.” Perhaps that price could have been included. And cost is relevant since the vast majority of HIV infections occur in the developing world where cost could have a major influence on compliance with prevention measures. As stated in the news release: The tool, a vaginal implant, decreases the number of cells that the virus can target in a woman’s genital tract Two problems here. First, the emphasis on woman’s is ours because the research was done in rabbits. (The fact that this research used an animal model was not mentioned until the penultimate sentence.) Second, we’re given no data whatsoever to understand just how beneficial or significant the results really are. However, we did appreciate the inclusion of this quote from the lead researcher: What we don’t know yet is if this can be a stand-alone option for preventing HIV transmission or if it might be used in conjunction with other prevention strategies. We aim to answer these questions with future research. Given that the news release opens with “Scientists at the University of Waterloo have developed a new tool to protect women [emphasis added] from HIV infection” it might lead some interested women to ask about side effects. The question of harms is never addressed. That’s a huge oversight given that the device is implanted and there are many risks associated with such procedures: pain, bleeding, infection, the device becoming dislodged, follow-up surgeries to remove the implant. No potential risks are mentioned. In addition, if the device is not effective in comparison to existing preventive strategies then there’s a potential harm in relying on the device and acquiring HIV. This is a major weakness of the news release. Claims of efficacy, reliability, and affordability are made in the release with absolutely no supporting data from the study. Many readers might be familiar with the commonly quoted statistic that condoms — when used properly and consistently — are well over 90% effective in preventing HIV transmission. They would naturally want to know if this implant can approach that efficacy and be accomplished affordably and without side effects. But the news release does not include this. If such information can not be gleaned from  the study — either because it wasn’t measured or because of the limitations of applying results from animal studies to humans — then we encourage news release authors to follow up with the researchers and ask for clarity. No disease mongering. Prevention of HIV transmission is a global public health priority. The release does not mention funding sources. The published study does not include any disclosures of financial conflicts of interest by the authors. The news release briefly mentions “conventional methods of HIV prevention, such as condoms or anti-HIV drugs.” Given the preliminary nature of this experimental device it’s unlikely the authors can conclude how effective this vaginal implant is in comparison to these well-studied, conventional approaches. But mentioning how effective condoms and anti-HIV medications are might have been helpful context. It’s not made clear enough that this vaginal implant is experimental, in development, and has never been tested on humans and that it could be years — if ever — before the device is available. Although the release does not claim novelty specifically, it does mention the past failure of a related attempted preventative (nonoxynol-9). The researchers do emphasize in the published paper that this study is the first of its kind to use a vaginal implant to deliver HCQ to reduce the response of T-lymphocytes in the vagina. Furthermore, they point out this is a uniquely women-oriented strategy against HIV infection (versus a male-dominated one such as condoms). Alluding to potential impacts on women or people four times in the first few paragraphs, but not mentioning the research utilized an animal model until the penultimate paragraph, is quite misleading and unjustified. We’d suggest changing the headline to: “University of Waterloo develops a new way to fight HIV transmission in rabbit study.” Claim: University of Waterloo develops new way to fight HIV transmission

A: 0
****
Q: Paragraph: Activists say they fear the move, which reflects Bolsonaro’s oft-stated skepticism about environmental organizations, could lead to more deforestation and less oversight in the nation that holds about 60% of the vast Amazon rainforest, which scientists see as crucial for efforts to slow global warming and for the world climate systems. A policy roadmap drafted by Bolsonaro’s transition team before he took office Jan. 1 proposes a decree creating a “government council” to replace Brazil’s National Council of the Environment, which has almost 100 members, including representatives of independent environmental and business groups. The new body would consist of five presidential appointees plus Environment Minister Ricardo Salles, who is one of the authors of the plan. The documents, first published by the Brazilian Climate Observatory environmental group, were obtained and verified by the AP. Brazil’s Environment Ministry did not reply to a request for comment. Part of the transition plan has already come into force. The country’s forestry service, aimed at promoting “knowledge, sustainable use and widening of forestry coverage,” was transferred to the Agriculture Ministry on Bolsonaro’s second day in office. On the same day, the Agriculture Ministry was given the power to determine the limits of indigenous lands, rather than Brazil’s official indigenous rights agency. As a congressman and candidate, Bolsonaro often questioned the reality of climate change and cast environmental groups as foreign-influenced meddlers restraining Brazil’s economic growth by holding back mining and agriculture — stances that resemble those of U.S. President Donald Trump, who before taking office described the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a “disgrace” that largely should be dismantled. The authors of Bolsonaro’s transition plan say the current Environment Council, known as CONAMA, is a “confusing” body that “acts emotionally, without due technique, being subjected to ideological interference.” In another transition team document, lawyer Antonio Fernando Pinheiro Pedro argues that CONAMA’s decisions have led to “the emission of norms and standards that are far from reality.” In an interview shortly after his election, Bolsonaro complained that it could sometimes take a decade to get an environmental license. “That will not continue,” he said. While officials haven’t yet formally proposed the smaller council, there has already been increased friction over CONAMA. Security guards blocked alternate members of the council from joining the main meeting at a March 20 session in the capital of Brasilia, breaking a long tradition of wide-open debate in Brazil’s top environmental council. Carlos Rittl, executive secretary of the Brazilian Climate Observatory, which includes several nonprofit groups, said he believes that chaotic meeting was “more evidence that the plan (for a smaller council) is indeed being implemented.” “Deforestation ended 2018 on the rise. It is on the rise in 2019, but we haven’t heard a word from the minister about that. We have heard about limiting the access to civil society so we can’t have a fair discussion,” Rittl said. Former Environment Minister Rubens Ricupero speculated the new administration may have delayed creating the new council due to public anger over the collapse of a mine dam near the city of Brumadinho in January that killed at least 223 people, with 70 still missing. Ricupero noted that Bolsonaro’s chief of staff suggested closing the environmental ministry during the campaign, but said that the powerful agribusiness lobby is afraid such a move would damage trade and has prevented any such move. “Then Brumadinho showed that our problem is not excessive care in environmental licensing — it is the lack of it,” Ricupero said. He added that hopes Bolsonaro would engage with environmentalists have not come to pass. Bolsonaro recently defended his environmental ideas at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, saying that Brazil “is the country that most preserves the environment” and that “those that criticize us actually have a lot to learn from us.” The Bolsonaro transition plan also suggested closing the federal agency that oversees conservation zones such as national parks and biological reserves and issues fines for violation of environmental laws there. Many of those penalties are never paid, but several Brazilian agribusiness leaders have complained about them over the years. Pinheiro Pedro, the transition team lawyer, wrote that the agency should be folded into the Environment Institute, which enforces other environmental legislation and aims to promote the sustainable the use of natural resources. He said the two have “the same objective” and streamlining environmental governance is key to “avoid international interference.” Rittl, of the Brazilian Climate Observatory, said he believes that change would reduce oversight in key areas by diluting the focus of regulators. Environmentalists also took umbrage at the language used in the transition documents, though the tone echoes Bolsonaro’s own pronouncements. The plan says NGOs involved in climate change discussions are “uncontrollable organisms” that need to be stopped so the system is “closer to ministerial control.” It also contends Brazil’s environmental governance is crafted to give jobs to political appointees, describing that as “a risk to national sovereignty.” Emilio Bruna, a tropical ecologist focused on the Amazon who is based at the University of Florida, said the transition plan shows the “worst fears” about Bolsonaro’s presidency “are starting to come true.” “Scientists are not only concerned about the government not creating new protected areas, but also the downgrading of existing protections in the rainforest,” he said. “There was already a culture of impunity, but now it’s being reinforced.” ___ Associated Press science writer Christina Larson and EPA reporter Ellen Knickmayer in Washington contributed to this report. Claim: Brazil’s Bolsonaro eyes new body for environmental policy.

A: 2
****
Q: Paragraph: "When one thinks of the country’s most powerful lobbying groups, acronyms like NRA, AIPAC and AARP spring to mind. So do phrases like Big Pharma, Big Oil and Wall Street. During an appearance April 17 on NBC’s ""Meet The Press,"" North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory made the argument that the Human Rights Campaign is also among the most powerful lobbies in the United States. ""The Human Rights Council, my gosh, they’re more powerful than the NRA,"" McCrory said, meaning the Human Rights Campaign and the National Rifle Association. The Human Rights Campaign, or HRC, is a major player in the opposition to North Carolina’s controversial new law, House Bill 2, which limits LGBT rights in public accommodations — and which McCrory was on national television to defend. ""They are putting on a lot of pressure instead of having good dialogue,"" McCrory said. The HRC is the country’s largest gay rights group. It has led the charge for gay marriage and for the types of LGBT discrimination protections that HB2 prohibited cities in North Carolina from making. But has the group really eclipsed the NRA, an oft-cited stereotype of a powerful lobbying group that can shape public policy and opinion? McCrory says it has. And in the last few days, that claim has been picked up as a talking point by supporters of HB2. Measuring political power It would be big news if McCrory was right. Debates over gay rights, as with gun rights, are a large part of modern political discourse. We don’t know what criteria McCrory was using, if any, to make his claim. ""Meet The Press"" host Chuck Todd didn’t ask him to elaborate. When we asked McCrory’s campaign about his rationale, spokesman Ricky Diaz called it a ""ridiculous question"" and declined to answer. We also asked both the HRC and the NRA whether they agreed with McCrory. The NRA did not respond, and the HRC declined to answer. There are many ways to measure a group’s strength. We asked an expert, UNC-Chapel Hill political science professor Frank Baumgartner, who has written multiple books on special interest groups and lobbying. He listed three main ways to measure influence: Money and resources, ""cultural resonance"" and record of success or failure. Baumgartner said he believes McCrory’s comparison is "" or substantially exaggerated."" But let’s look into the numbers to see if they back that up. Money Money is especially important in modern politics because of the Citizens United ruling that McCrory mentioned, which allows for unlimited political spending. In 2014, according to federal tax filings, the NRA and its foundation had revenue of $356.1 million, compared with $51.2 million for the HRC and its foundation. Money allows interest groups to hire lobbyists, contribute directly to politicians and political groups or take part in what’s known as outside spending – TV ads, mailers and other political initiatives. In the 2014 election cycle, according to the Center For Responsive Politics, the NRA’s political spending was 7.5 times greater than the HRC’s ($36.8 million to $4.8 million). In the 2012 cycle, the NRA spent five times as much ($26.9 million to $5.1 million). In both cycles, the NRA spent more on lobbying than the HRC spent on lobbying, contributions and outside spending combined. For outside spending in particular, the NRA spent about $350 for every $1 the HRC spent. ""Cultural resonance"" How do you measure this? It sounds intangible, but there are ways to break it into specific, quantifiable pieces. And in everything we looked at, the NRA came out on top. Membership, magazine subscriptions, Google searches, social media following and official government mentions all show the NRA’s presence is anywhere from 2 to 10 times larger than the HRC’s. Both groups have magazines. The HRC’s goes to more than 350,000 homes, according to a group spokesman this week. According to the publishing group Alliance for Audited Media, the NRA’s three magazines had a combined circulation in 2015 of more than 3.5 million. As for membership, both have been accused in the past of inflating their numbers. Take it with a grain of salt, but the NRA claims 4.5 million members compared with 1.5 million for the HRC. The NRA also has a larger audience on social media – 4.8 million Facebook likes and 345,000 Twitter followers, compared with 2.3 million Facebook likes and 529,000 Twitter followers for the HRC. We also compared online searches, which indicate how interested people are in learning about the groups. When their Google searches over the last 12 years are graphed against each other, the HRC’s results show up as an almost flat line hovering just above 0. We used Google Trends to aggregate numerous terms related to both groups and map their relative popularity as compared with all other searches each month. The NRA is in red and the HRC is in blue. Even the HRC’s best month didn’t surpass the NRA’s worst month. We also counted how often they’re mentioned in congressional hearing transcripts and other documents listed by the U.S. Government Publishing Office search engine –1,408 results for ""National Rifle Association"" and 393 for ""Human Rights Campaign."" Reputation and success Baumgartner said he thinks this was the point McCrory was trying to make – on a group’s ""ability to push public policy in a direction the group prefers."" And again, Baumgartner said, the HRC doesn’t quite stack up. ""I'd say Human Rights Campaign has had some success,"" he said. ""But no, they would not compare to the long-run success of groups such as the NRA, the Realtors, the petroleum industry, the Chamber of Commerce and many others."" The NRA is famous for its clout and success in Congress. The HRC, on the other hand, has achieved most of its biggest victories – gay marriage, gay adoption rights and the invalidation of anti-sodomy laws – at the Supreme Court. The HRC has existed since 1980. For most of that time, one of its top priorities has been a federal LGBT anti-discrimination law. Efforts to pass such laws state-by-state have been mostly unsuccessful, as we explored in a previous fact check. On the national level, friendly legislators have introduced the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, ENDA, in nearly every Congress since 1994. It has failed each time, despite polling that shows about three quarters of Americans support such laws. The NRA has done the opposite, persuading Congress to repeatedly kill legislation that has even broader public support than ENDA does. Even though about 90 percent of Americans support background checks on gun buyers – previous PolitiFact rulings have found a range of 85 to 93 percent – the federal Fix Gun Checks Act has been voted down several times since 2011. It would allow for universal background checks, and the NRA is strongly opposed to it. As for the HRC, it hasn’t been totally unsuccessful in Congress. The group successfully pushed for a 2009 law that expanded federal hate crime definitions to include LGBT status. And what about outside of government, in the corporate world? It’s undeniable that the HRC’s influence there is growing. The group started ranking how ""LGBT friendly"" companies were in 2002 in what it calls its Corporate Equality Index. About a dozen received a perfect score that year. In 2016, more than 400 companies did. And many businesses have followed the HRC in criticizing North Carolina over HB2. But that hasn’t meant much so far. Key legislators have said they have no plans to repeal HB2 or make major changes to it, despite the pressure. On the other hand, the NRA has seen many of its initiatives passed in North Carolina, like 2013 law that loosened restrictions on concealed carry. Our ruling McCrory said the main group against HB2, the Human Rights Campaign, is ""more powerful than the NRA."" It’s a strong claim, given the NRA’s reputation for power and influence, and even the HRC spokesman was unwilling to embrace it. That’s not to say the HRC isn’t powerful. It’s a multimillion-dollar organization and the country’s largest gay rights group. But it doesn’t have the resources, adherents or success rate that the NRA does. In every way we tried to define influence, the HRC doesn’t even come close to the NRA’s level of power." Claim: "The Human Rights Campaign is ""more powerful than the NRA."

A:
0
****