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: "At the first Democratic debate of the 2016 presidential race, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized opponent Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., for supporting a 2005 law that shields the gun industry from certain lawsuits. Clinton voted against this law when she was a senator, and she has lambasted it several times on the campaign trail this month. ""Probably one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress when it comes to this issue is to protect gun sellers and gun makers from liability,"" she said in Iowa Oct. 7. ""They are the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability. They can sell a gun to someone they know they shouldn't, and they won't be sued. There will be no consequences."" Is Clinton right? Are gun makers and dealers ""wholly protected"" against any kind of lawsuit, and do no other industries have similar immunities? Short answer: No. The gun industry is susceptible to some lawsuits, and there are federal laws restricting liability for a number of other types of businesses. As support, Clinton’s staff sent us a public health journal article that argues the gun industry’s ""broad immunity"" against litigation inhibits safe manufacturing and distribution of firearms, though it does not directly address her claim. Exceptions The law at issue is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush and seen as a victory for gun rights advocates. The purpose of the law is to protect gun dealers and manufacturers from lawsuits when their products are misused. For example, if a person buys a gun legally and then uses the gun to intentionally kill someone, the gun dealer and manufacturer cannot be held liable for the crime under the law. While opponents argue that the law stops some victims from having their day in court, supporters say the law protects gun dealers and manufacturers from frivolous and expensive legal proceedings. In any case, Clinton goes too far in saying the gun industry is ""wholly protected from any kind of liability."" The law lists several situations that are not protected from liability. It does not protect gun dealers who transfer a gun knowing it would be used for criminal purposes, nor those who knowingly break state or federal law if the violation results in harm. Gun manufacturers can also be sued if the gun, when used properly, causes injury because the product is defective. ""The statement is incorrect insofar as it suggests that gun makers are totally free from liability,"" said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California Los Angeles who specializes in gun law. Some opponents of the law argue that the liability protection is so broad and ambiguous, and the exceptions so narrow, that some legitimate lawsuits won’t have a chance to appear in court. But this is different from saying the gun industry is wholly immune to all lawsuits. Clinton also said the gun industry is the ""only"" business in America with this total liability protection. We know that it doesn’t have total protection, but do other sectors have something similar? Not the only one The act ""is not the first federal law to grant a particular industry immunity from tort liability,"" said Timothy Lytton, a law professor at Georgia State University, who edited a book on gun industry litigation. Possibly the most analogous rule -- in that it protects a specific group of potential defendants from a specific liability theory -- is one that offers some immunity to online service providers, said John Goldberg, a law professor at Harvard University and an expert in tort law, in an email to PolitiFact. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act blocks victims of online defamation from suing service providers (like Comcast) and content providers (like YouTube) for failing to monitor or remove defamatory posts uploaded by customers. In a prior interview with NPR, Goldberg called the gun industry law particularly ""aggressive"" in terms of the liability protections granted. Most of the experts we surveyed also mentioned a vaccine manufacturer liability law passed in the 1980s. Under the law, victims of injuries that they say were caused by defective vaccines are not allowed to sue vaccine manufacturers. This differs from the gun legislation, however, because it established the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, through which alleged victims can make a claim and receive compensation. ""By contrast, (the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act) simply prohibits certain kinds of tort claims against the gun industry without providing plaintiffs any alternative means of pursuing their claims,"" Lytton said. There’s also some liability protection in the medical devices and airline industries, noted Walter Olson, senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute and expert in tort law. For example,the 1994 General Aviation Revitalization Act said small aircraft manufacturers cannot be sued for accidents involving aircraft more than 18 years old. ""It’s not at all unique to the gun industry. It’s a version (of liability law) Congress developed for an industry that was under very heavy attack,"" Olson said, referring to the slew of litigation against gun sellers and makers that prompted Congress to pass the law. Our ruling Clinton said the gun industry is ""the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability."" Clinton is talking about a law that says the gun industry is protected from liability in certain instances, but the law also specifies several situations in which the gun industry is susceptible to lawsuits. Further, Congress has passed a number of laws that protect a variety of business sectors from lawsuits in certain situations, so the situation is not unique to the gun industry." Claim: "The gun industry is ""the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability."

Answer: 0


Question: Paragraph: There is no discussion of cost in this story. According to the National Cancer Institute, genetic testing for mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 can cost anywhere from several hundred to several thousand dollars and insurance does not always provide coverage. The story provides information regarding the relative and absolute risks associated with developing breast and ovarian cancer in patients with and without a mutation in the BRCA1 gene. For additional perspective, it would have been useful for the reader to know how many breast cancers are associated with BRCA gene mutations in the general population. While the story underscores how BRCA testing can lead to preventive measures to reduce the risk of developing cancer, it only mentions prophylactic surgery and not the less invasive options. There is no discussion of the emotional or social ramifications associated with receiving genetic testing results. Even receiving a negative result could lead to feelings of guilt, especially if other family members have tested positive. The story also fails to mention that undergoing prophylactic surgery to remove the ovaries, uterus and breast tissue can have serious effects on a woman’s health and quality of life. This story does not include a discussion regarding sensitivity or specificity of BRCA testing. The reliability of these tests, including information on false negative and false positive results, would be beneficial. Without providing a clear discussion on what constitutes a strong family history of breast and ovarian cancer, readers who are not necessarily candidates for genetic testing may incur undue worry. It would have also been useful for the reader to know that only a very small number of breast cancers are associated with BRCA gene mutations. This story only provides commentary from one patient. Perspective from a genetic counselor and/or oncologist would have added value to this story, as would interviews with women who received a negative result and those who received a positive result, but dealt with the information differently. This story only discusses prophylactic surgery as an option for patients who test positive for mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. Increased cancer surveillance, risk reduction behaviors, and chemoprevention should have also been presented as options. Genetic counseling services are not widely available in some geographic areas; however, this is not mentioned in the story. The story does not suggest that genetic testing for mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes is a novel test; however, information on how long it has been available would have been useful. There does not appear to be a press release associated with this story. Claim: Cancer Activist Sounds Alarm For Early Testing For Genetic Marker

Answer: 0


Question: 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.

Answer:
0