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: "To show that insurance companies can be callous, President Barack Obama recently cited the case of an Illinois man who Obama said had died because of an insurer's decision. ""More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care,"" the president told a joint session of Congress on Sept. 9, 2009. ""It happens every day. One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it."" The man Obama was referring to was Otto S. Raddatz, who died earlier this year. But Lynn Sweet, a reporter with the  Chicago Sun-Times  , found the president was wrong to blame Raddatz's death on the insurance company. Raddatz, a restaurant owner, was insured by Fortis Insurance Co., according to congressional testimony by his sister, Peggy. In September 2004, at 59, he was diagnosed with stage IV non-Hodgkins lymphoma and began chemotherapy. As he was preparing for a stem cell transplant for which timing was crucial, he was told that his coverage was being rescinded due to a ""routine"" review that had found that he'd failed to disclose having gallstones and an anyeurism. Explaining that the doctor had never even told him about the discovery, and that no treatment had ever been urged, Peggy Raddatz went to the state attorney general for help. Within weeks, the attorney general's office got the decision reversed, and Raddatz was able to proceed with his transplant. The case drew national attention, including stories in Slate and on National Public Radio, and Peggy Raddatz testified twice to congressional commitees about her brother's story. But the president's version of the story was challenged by a Sept. 13, 2009, blog post by Sweet, who covers the White House for the  Sun-Times  . She noted that the transplant went ahead and Raddatz lived for another three years — an indication that the company's decision to rescind his treatment didn't cause his death. Peggy Raddatz's testimony backs this up. On June 16, 2009, Raddatz recounted the experience before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Raddatz is still angry with the insurer — in her prepared testimony, she called what the company did to her brother ""unethical"" and ""cruel"" — but she gave no indication that the delay hampered her brother's survival. At one point, the full committee's ranking Republican, Joe Barton of Texas, asked Raddatz whether her brother had received the stem cell transplant he needed. ""He did indeed receive the stem cell transplant,"" she responded. ""It was extremely successful. It extended his life approximately three-and-a-half years. He did pass away January 6th of 2009, and he was about to have a second stem cell transplant. Unfortunately, due to certain situations, his donor became ill at the last minute, and so he did pass away on January 6th. But again, (the initial transplant) extended his life nearly three-and-a-half years. And at his age, each day meant everything to him."" The White House acknowledges that the facts got garbled, but insists that the larger lessons from the story are unchanged. ""The story President Obama referenced in his speech underscores what so many Americans have learned the hard way: Insurance companies look for ways to rescind their coverage when you need it most,"" White House spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield said. ""A media account of Mr. Raddatz’s story that the president relied on in his speech confused some of the details, but the underlying point remains the same. President Obama wants to end the practice that allows insurance companies to pull insurance for individuals like Mr. Raddatz when they need it most."" In her piece, Sweet noted that a fellow  Sun-Times  reporter, Cheryl V. Jackson, talked to Raddatz after the speech, and she had no complaint with Obama's account of her brother's death. ""The point is that my brother lost his insurance coverage when he was dying,"" the article quoted Raddatz as saying. Still, the president said that Otto Raddatz's death was caused by a delay in his surgery caused by the insurer's decision to rescind his policy. But as Peggy Raddatz testified, government intervention enabled her brother to have the procedure, and he lived, despite his cancer, for another three and a half years. When Raddatz eventually died earlier this year, his sister said that his death came while waiting for a second procedure that did not happen because the transplant donor unexpectedly fell ill. Critics can still blame the insurance company for insensitivity — and it's true that the company only paid for Raddatz's treatment after the attorney general's office acted — but the evidence shows that it's inaccurate to say a delay in care caused his death." Claim: "Insurers delayed an Illinois man's treatment, ""and he died because of it."
0

Paragraph: Stem cells, which differ from other types of cells in the human body in that they’re capable of renewing themselves almost indefinitely and changing into more specialized cells with the potential to repair or replace specific tissues and organs, were discovered more than 100 years ago and, according to the National Institutes of Health, remain one of the most promising frontiers of medical research: Given their unique regenerative abilities, stem cells offer new potentials for treating diseases such as diabetes, and heart disease. However, much work remains to be done in the laboratory and the clinic to understand how to use these cells for cell-based therapies to treat disease, which is also referred to as regenerative or reparative medicine. There are two basic kinds of stem cells, embryonic and adult. The former can only harvested from human embryos, while the latter are found in a variety of human tissues such as bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, fat, and, since 2003, baby teeth. The scientists who discovered that the pulp of baby teeth is rich in stem cells also noted that SHED (“stem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth”) have unique properties: They are long lived, grow rapidly in culture, and, with careful prompting in the laboratory, have the potential to induce the formation of specialized dentin, bone, and neuronal cells. If followup studies extend these initial findings, the scientists speculate they may have identified an important and easily accessible source of stem cells that possibly could be manipulated to repair damaged teeth, induce the regeneration of bone, and treat neural injury or disease. Another innovation in stem cell technology is the implementation of stem cell banks — specifically, cord blood stem cell banks and dental stem cell banks for the purpose of enabling parents to cryopreserve and store their children’s stem cells for use in reparative or regenerative medical treatments later in life. Any number of articles touting the use of such facilities are circulating online, including “Doctors Are Urging Parents Everywhere to Keep Their Kids’ Baby Teeth,” which, despite its title, doesn’t name or quote a single physician who actually recommends it. Nor is there any mention of the cost of these services. One such facility, called Store-A-Tooth, charges $1,749 up front plus $120 per year for storage. Another, The Tooth Bank, charges $475 plus $115 per year for storage. And there’s StemSave, whose services cost $630 up front and $120 per year. There are others within approximately the same range. The main question facing most parents, then, is whether the potential benefits of preserving their kids’ baby teeth justify the expense. The answer is possibly not. Research is ongoing and the future looks promising, but no one can predict when or to what degree those promises will be fulfilled. To date, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has yet to approve the use of dental stem cells in any medical procedure. This is what the California Dental Association had to say about dental stem cell banking in 2013: Scientific study into cell-based therapies has identified tremendous potential for the use of stem cells to treat a number of diseases and disorders. As research has advanced, stem cell banking services, primarily umbilical cord blood banking, have sprung up around the country. More recently, researchers have discovered that stem cells harvested from deciduous teeth may be a source of tissue regeneration and repair. Like the marketing of umbilical cord banking to pregnant women, dental pulp stem cell tissue banks have begun to market to dentists and the public. Despite its exciting potential, experts agree it is premature to consider dental pulp stem cells as a source of cells for replacing or regenerating tissue. “What we do know,”  the CDA quotes Dr. Pamela Robey of the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research as saying, “is the cells from dental pulp in baby or wisdom teeth have the ability to make dentin and pulp and they might have the ability to make bone, but right now that’s all we really know for sure … we can’t say how useful for the future they’ll be.” Considering the uncertainties and the cost, then, parents would be well advised to seek the opinion of a knowledgeable medical professional and carefully weigh their decision before investing in a baby tooth bank account. Claim: Stem cells can be harvested from baby teeth, so it's a good idea to preserve them in private stem cell banks for future use in medical treatments.
1

Paragraph: In May 2016, photographs and messages reproduced above began circulating on Facebook along with claims that lurking underneath labels of pricey salon-brand hair products purchased through discount retailers were cheaper, lower quality brands. Photographs show the CHI line of hair care products with T.J. Maxx price tag and the label half peeled away to show a bottle bearing a less expensive (and presumably lower-quality) hair care product. Most versions of the claim included an assertion that salon-brand hair products should only be bought at hair salons, not discount retailers. The rumors served as a tacit criticism of salon clientele who purchase product from third parties rather than from salons or stylists (who would earn commission and meet salon sales goals otherwise). A similar social media rumor maintained that eyelash extensions can cause “lash lice,” a story spread primarily by multi-level marketing salespeople hawking mascara. In another instance, salons and stylists spread a rumor that Pantene (one of the top-selling drugstore hair care brands) can be flammable in combination with popular hair-lightening treatments. Both rumors began with or were passed along by people invested in the sale of competing products at full price. T.J. Maxx said that the CHI products depicted were genuine: At T.J. Maxx, conducting our business with integrity means everything to us and we take pride in offering our customers great values on high quality brand-name products. We have looked into your concerns and can assure you that the contents of the bottle are authentic and are as described on the outer label. We have also confirmed with our supplier that its relabeling of the bottle was appropriate. We thank you for your ongoing patronage of our stores. CHI also responded our questions about the photographs. The company explained that the labeling was due in part to manufacturing fluctuations, as well as cutting back on unnecessary waste: Recently, several of our customers have noticed cans of CHI® products with labels covering up other products. We sincerely wish to clear up any confusion. The Egyptian Oil and French Oil and other cans you may have seen were originally another CHI® product brand we manufactured. Due to a legal challenge that arose concerning the new brand names and designs, we were forced to cease production. As a result of this, we were left with many empty cylinders. To avoid them taking up vital space in our warehouse but most importantly, adding unnecessary waste to landfills, we decided to uphold our environmentally conscious efforts that we have maintained since 1986. We felt we made the right decision by placing original CHI® labels over these cylinders and filling them with our CHI® formulas. Therefore, the product is authentically made by Farouk Systems with the correct CHI® label on them and product inside. We sincerely apologize for any confusion this may have caused our customers. One of the two viral photographs didn’t display a T.J. Maxx or Marshall’s price tag, strongly suggesting that the relabeled bottles were indeed not restricted to non-salon retail environments. CHI’s statement affirmed the relabeled bottles were in no way different than any other from the brand, whether purchased in a salon or a discount department store. In this instance, both the retailer and the manufacturer said that the product packaging was simply repurposed, but the contents remain authentic and identical to products sold in salons and other non-discount retail environments. (In instances where counterfeiting occurs, the company being impersonated is typically the first to object to dilution of their brand.) Claim: Retailers T.J. Maxx and Marshall's sell counterfeit salon products.

0