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: The story does discuss costs, but the framing is problematic. The story, based on a conversation with one source, the study’s lead investigator, says, “It’s difficult at this point to predict costs. However, he expects costs will not approach those for Provenge, the pricey treatment vaccine for prostate cancer approved by the FDA in 2010. Provenge costs $93,000 for the one-month, three-dose treatment. Medicare covers it.” This tells readers that, no matter what the drug costs, Medicare likely will cover it. We appreciate the effort to bring cost information into the story, but this type of information is misleading. The story does explain that only one patient remains cancer free following the study. It then details how for most of the patients cancer continued to progress after 2 months. It says that the median overall survival in both the breast cancer and ovarian cancer patients was less than 16 months. But the story is framed in such a way to highlight the one potentially positive outcome of the study and to downplay the negative. We read more sooner about the one patient who may have responded well to the vaccine than we do about the 25 other patients who did not. The story mentions side effects in a satisfactory way. Technically, the story provides readers with much of the information they would need to assess the validity of the study, but it comes out in bits and pieces. For example, we only find out near the end of the story that “The woman, who remains disease-free, had a previous treatment with a different treatment vaccine. ‘That might have primed her immune system,’ Gulley speculates. She also had only one regimen of chemotherapy, perhaps keeping her immune system stronger.” This casts much doubt on the study’s design, and it would have been nice to have seen some outside expertise brought in to either discuss those design problems or to torpedo the story altogether. Again, the story deserves high marks for being very specific in the lead and throughout the story. It says, that the vaccine is “for breast and ovarian cancer that has spread to other parts of the body” in the lead and later details the particular circumstances of the study cohort. It says, “The patients had already undergone a variety of treatments but the cancer was progressing. Twenty one of the 26 had undergone three or more chemotherapy regimens.” This is the root of the story’s main shortcoming. Almost all of the information in the story comes from one source: Dr. James Gulley, who oversaw the study. Gulley is quite enthusiastic about this vaccine, despite the evidence, and the story needed more perspectives to put this vaccine into a broader context. At the very end, there are a few comments from Dr. Vincent K. Tuohy, who also is working on a breast cancer vaccine. Because of his competing research, he seems to have a conflict, but even putting that aside, his comments were not used to their best effect. There was no comparison in the story to existing alternatives. The median survival, for example, is presented without the context of how long these patients might have lived had they been undergoing standard chemotherapy and radiation treatments. We give high marks to the story for saying right in the lead that the findings are from “a preliminary study in 26 patients.” That tells readers both that the findings need to be interpreted with caution and that the treatment is not available to most people. The concept of vaccines for breast/ovarian cancer is indeed novel, and the story acknowledges that other vaccines are being studied. The story does not rely on a news release. Claim: Study: Vaccine for Breast, Ovarian Cancer Has Potential
answer:
2


question:
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."
answer:
0


question:
Paragraph: According to Simon and Schuster’s website, it’s the truth. The game is called “Panty Raider: From Here to Immaturity.”  The publicity says, “Gamers will Seek Out Supermodels to Strip Them Down to Their Bra and Panties.” Here are some other tidbits from the Simon and Schuster publicity:  PANTY RAIDER takes gamers to Model Isle where a supermodel photo shoot is taking place. The player is on a mission to photograph specific styles and colors of panties worn by supermodels to satisfy three testosterone-driven aliens and keep them from blowing up the Earth.One day on a planet far, far away, a catalog from a famous lingerie store inexplicably showed up in the mailbox at one horny alien’s home. Some time later, he and his two buddies had worn out the catalog and they needed more! So they hijacked a flying saucer for a joy ride across the universe in search of supermodels in their underwear.The player assumes the role of “Nelson,” an innocent bystander who is forced to help the aliens in their perverted quest. Nelson’s job is to photograph specific models, wearing specific types and colors of underwear (as specified by the aliens). If Nelson does not get the photos that the aliens are asking for, in the amount of time given, the aliens will destroy Earth.Once on the island, Nelson can use all the tools available to him: * Pick up lines – Use cheesy pickup lines to lure models out of the woods. * X-Ray glasses – You know the ones seen in the back of comic books? These actually work – allowing the player to see what kind of underwear each girl is wearing, before they go through the process of undressing her. Keep in mind if you waste too much time undressing a supermodel Earth will be destroyed can you control yourself? * Lures – Items such as tiny mints (lunch!) and credit cards. No self-respecting supermodel can resist these items. * Camera – Once the correct model is found wearing the right panties, and the outer clothing has been removed, it’s time to use the camera to photograph the model. These photos are then added to the player’s inventory. If all the correct models in the correct lingerie are photographed within the given amount of time, Earth is saved. Otherwise, the frustrated aliens are forced to take their hormone driven anger out on the planet. Last updated 11/13/00 For more information:  Simon and Schuster News Release   Comments Claim:   The email says that Simon and Schuster has announced a new CD-ROM computer game where “…to win the game, boys must strip supermodels down to their underwear, then provide photographs of them to aliens who wore out their one lingerie catalog – or else the aliens hormone driven anger will destroy the earth.”
answer:

2