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: "A  post about COVID-19 is being shared in a new format on Facebook. In an audio message that a reader sent us on March 23, a woman with a British accent lists 10 ways that people can avoid being infected with the coronavirus. The message claims to be based on research from Chinese scientists. ""It was sent to me by a colleague who has a friend that works at Dr. Negrin, which is the main hospital on our island,"" says the woman on the audio message. ""It’s obviously in Spanish, so I’m just going to read it and translate it for you."" University Hospital of Gran Canaria Dr. Negrin is located in the city of Las Palmas on Gran Canaria, one of Spain’s Canary Islands. The island chain’s tourism industry has been hard-hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. Here’s some of the questionable medical advice in the audio message that caught our eye: If some of those claims sound familiar, it’s because many of them have been circulating on social media in some form since January, when the World Health Organization addressed a slew of COVID-19 rumors on Twitter. We’ve also debunked several bogus coronavirus prevention and treatment methods. But this audio message was new to us, so we decided to check out each of the five claims. All of them either lack evidence or have been debunked by public health officials. While health experts recommend drinking water regularly to stay healthy, there is no evidence that sipping some every 20 minutes can help prevent coronavirus infection. The primary way the virus spreads is through close contact with infected people and respiratory droplets, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. When someone with the coronavirus coughs or sneezes, their germs land on surfaces around them. The virus then infects people who touch those surfaces and then their eyes, nose or mouth. So to prevent contracting the coronavirus, the CDC advises people to avoid touching their face as much as possible. Other ways to prevent infection include washing your hands with soap and water, covering your coughs and sneezes with a tissue and regularly sanitizing the surfaces in your home or at your workstation. As of now, there is no specific treatment for the virus. In a tweet published Feb. 7, the WHO said it does not advise people to drink water as a way to avoid coronavirus infection. While air-drying your clothes may save you some money on your electricity bill, there is no evidence it will kill the coronavirus. We’ve rated similar claims . There is ample evidence that viruses, including human coronaviruses, don’t like heat. Influenza, for example, thrives in dry, cold weather, which is one reason the flu season typically spans from fall to spring. And high-intensity UV light can kill viruses. Here are 4 real ways to protect yourself But that doesn’t mean sun exposure kills the coronavirus. Experts told us natural sunlight doesn’t provide the UV intensity needed to kill the virus, and the WHO says on its website that COVID-19 can be transmitted in all climates, ""including areas with hot and humid weather."" Neither the WHO nor the CDC lists sunlight exposure as a method to kill the coronavirus. In fact, the WHO has debunked the claim, saying ""there is no evidence that sunlight kills the new coronavirus."" Public health officials say washing your hands is one of the primary ways to prevent COVID-19 infection. But if you’re healthy and in self-isolation, there is probably little reason to lather up so frequently. The CDC recommends washing your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds at a time — ""especially after you have been in a public place, or after blowing your nose, coughing, or sneezing."" On its website, UNICEF lists a few more examples of when people should wash their hands: ""after touching surfaces outside the home, including money; before, during and after caring for a sick person; and before and after eating."" So if you’re doing any of those things every 20 minutes, you may want to wash your hands. This claim is baseless. As we’ve covered before, there is evidence that human coronaviruses don’t like heat. But just as there’s no scientific proof that hot things prevent COVID-19, there’s no proof that cold things make you more susceptible. This claim is similar to one made in a fake UNICEF handout that circulated on Facebook in early March. It said people should ""stay away from ice cream and eating cold"" to avoid contracting COVID-19. In a statement, UNICEF debunked that claim. On its website, the WHO did, too. ""There is no scientific evidence that eating hygienically made frozen food and ice-cream spreads the new coronavirus,"" the organization says. There’s no evidence to support this. An article published in the New England Journal of Medicine on March 17 tested how long the coronavirus, formally called SARS-CoV-2, lived on five different surfaces: aerosols, plastic, stainless steel, copper and cardboard. ""SARS-CoV-2 remained viable in aerosols throughout the duration of our experiment (3 hours),"" the authors wrote. ""SARS-CoV-2 was more stable on plastic and stainless steel than on copper and cardboard."" On cardboard, they could not detect any after 24 hours. The coronavirus lives the longest on plastic and stainless steel — up to three days. That’s far from nine days, as the audio message claimed. And while the journal article hasn’t been peer-reviewed, its findings are similar to those of other researchers. An article published in the Journal of Hospital Infection in March reviewed what other scientists have found about the surface viability of various coronaviruses that infect humans, such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), which are both similar to COVID-19. The authors wrote that scientists found some of these viruses could live for up to five days on steel, and eight hours on aluminum. Another study they cited found a SARS virus strain remaining viable for up to five days on an unspecified metal. The article did find that one strain of SARS could live for up to nine days on plastic surfaces. But two other strains of the virus remained viable for only five days or less, and MERS could live for only up to 48 hours at a certain temperature. More recently, a March 23 report from the CDC said novel coronavirus RNA was found on surfaces on the Diamond Princess cruise ship 17 days after passengers disembarked. That finding raised questions about whether the coronavirus can last longer on some surfaces than previously thought, but researchers have noted that viral RNA doesn’t necessarily mean live virus was present. A chain audio message on Facebook Messenger lists 10 ways to prevent infection from COVID-19. We fact-checked five and found them inaccurate. First, there is no evidence that sipping water every 20 minutes can help prevent coronavirus infection. There is also no evidence that exposing your clothing to the sun will kill the coronavirus. Health officials recommend that people avoid touching their face and wash their hands for at least 20 seconds at a time —  not every 20 minutes, as the message claims. There’s also no evidence that consuming cold things makes you more susceptible to the virus. Finally, while the science is far from settled, there’s no proof that the coronavirus can live for up to nine days on metallic surfaces. The best available evidence suggests that it can remain viable on stainless steel for up to three days. If you receive a chain message that you want us to fact-check, send a screenshot to [email protected] or forward it to us on Facebook." Claim: An audio message lists five ways people can prevent the novel coronavirus.
0

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.
2

Paragraph: This release makes no mention of the costs of the drugs compared in this study, even though the drugs have been in use for years and are widely available. Since the study is a comparison of various treatments for this form of cancer, it seems relevant to offer a cost comparison as well as a comparison of efficacy. It appears that the high dose methotrexate is given over a 24-hour period, presumably in the hospital, while the standard methotrexate is given as a single dose. Also, the high dose methotrexate is followed by leucovorin administration while the standard dose is not. According to the site GoodRx, the cost for methotrexate in low-dose (2.5 mg) pill form averages out to about $50 for a month’s supply. Newer, injectable variations of the drug cost upwards of $500 a month for the 25 mg dose. The release states that patients receiving high doses of the drug methotrexate “had a significantly better outcome, by 5 to 6 percent” than did patients receiving the current standard of care, which is gradually escalating doses of the drug. The release also explains that patients nine years old or younger who were also treated with a steroid called decadron (dexamethasone) for half as long as normal (14 versus 28 days) benefited from the treatment while patients 10 and older did not. We’re not sure of the meaning behind these results as portrayed in the release. Which outcome was better by 5 or 6 percent? The study has several. Does that mean the relapse rate was reduced or is it the event free survival that was better? It would be more meaningful to readers if the release had included the actual relapse and event free survival rates for each group analyzed in terms most people can understand. For example: “relapse rates were 5 percent lower in Group X compared to Group Y.” We’ll give this category a satisfactory rating largely due to the release including information that patients 10 and older receiving dexamethasone “were at much higher risk for a debilitating bone condition called osteonecrosis,” although we would have been happier if that greater risk would have been quantified. However, the published study explains that there were toxicity problems beyond that of dexamethasone and the release would have been stronger including that information as well. The release stated the study was randomized and controlled, and provides a broad overview of the study design, for which we give the release a borderline satisfactory under this criteria. However, these are the superficial results. On deeper delving into the study methodology, the statistical significances of the results were very close to not statistically significant. This is due to their planned interim stopping of the treatment and the fact that they were looking at multiple outcomes in multiple groups. This release doesn’t demonstrate disease-mongering. While the release does say that this clinical trial was run by the Children’s Oncology Group, which is funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health, it makes no mention of possible conflicts of interest. Compounding that is the fact that the published study says, “Disclosures provided by the authors are available with this article at www.jco.org,” but that information is behind the journal’s paywall for most readers, so it’s unknown if there is, or is not, a conflict. It appears as though five of the authors (out of a total of about 20) have some conflicts of interest, mostly from several types of drug company payments. The release is comparing the efficacy of treatment regimens using different drugs so alternative treatments for B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia are noted. The release makes clear at the end that the treatment of this disease is improving thanks to refinement of the use of existing drug treatments, meaning that they are readily available for patient use. The release suggests the study findings could change the way childhood leukemia is treated. Modifying existing treatments to enhance a patient’s survival is certainly novel enough to warrant a release. There is no use of unjustifiable language in this release. However, the tone may be a bit overly optimistic given the study findings. Claim: Relapses of childhood leukemia improve with high doses of common chemo drug

2