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: Wild claims that cells from aborted fetuses are used as ingredients in food and drinks have been around since at least 2011:The Christian media is swarming with accusations that Senomyx, a San Diego-based research and development company, whose clients include food heavy-hitters Nestle, Campbell’s Soup, Kraft Foods, and PepsiCo, is conducting research with HEK293, originally derived from human embryonic kidney cells.These accusations began with an action alert issued by Largo, Florida-based Children of God for Life, a nonprofit, pro-life organization focused on the “bioethical issues of human cloning, embryonic, and fetal tissue research.” In the alert, Debi Vinnedge, executive director of Children of God, calls for the public to “boycott products of major food companies that are partnering with Senomyx, a biotech company that produces artificial flavor enhancers, unless the company stops using aborted fetal cell lines to test their products.”In March 2012, that same Florida-based anti-abortion group issued an updated press release claiming outright that Senomyx had used human embryonic kidney cells — also called HEK293 — to test its products, but the group seemed to misunderstand where those cells came from:In a shocking decision delivered Feb 28th, President Obama’s Security and Exchange Commission ruled that PepsiCo’s use of aborted fetal remains in their research and development agreement with Senomyx to produce flavor enhancers falls under “ordinary business operations”.The letter signed by Attorney Bryan Pitko of the SEC Office of Chief Counsel was sent in response to a 36-page document submitted by PepsiCo attorneys in January, 2012. In that filing, PepsiCo pleaded with the SEC to reject the Shareholder’s Resolution filed in October 2011 that the company “adopt a corporate policy that recognizes human rights and employs ethical standards which do not involve using the remains of aborted human beings in both private and collaborative research and development agreements.”The group again called for a boycott of companies that had partnered with Senomyx.The original claim that Senomyx had used HEK293 to test its products is true, but thanks to anti-abortion groups enabled by some Christian media outlets, the original claim has morphed over the years. Today, viral emails and blogs claim that cells from aborted babies are used as ingredients, which is completely false.The HEK293 cell line dates back to the 1970s. Today, it is commonly used to test new drugs and vaccines:The cells, called HEK 293 cells (that stands for human embryonic kidney) were taken from an aborted fetus in the 1970s in the Netherlands. Bits of chopped up DNA from the adenovirus, a virus that causes a pretty severe cold. The kidney cells were forced to take up bits of DNA using a technique invented in 1973 that used a calcium solution. The resulting cells don’t act much like human cells at all, but they are very easy to work with and have become workhorses of cellular biology. That’s why they’re used in the development of drugs and vaccines. No new fetal tissue has been used to keep the cell culture going; the use of this cell line isn’t leading to new abortions.In 2008, Senomyx was awarded a patent on “recombinant methods for expressing a function sweet taste receptor” that lists the cells as part of the process, and according to 2011 reports, many of the company’s 77 patents listed HEK293.While it appears to be true that these cells are used to develop and test new ingredients, the claim that the cells themselves are used for ingredients is false and based on a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific research and development and how it works.Iteration: Adrenochrome (“Adenochrome”) and fetal tissue harvestingRumors about cells from aborted fetuses in commercial products like Pepsi re-circulated after the January 22 2019 passage of new abortion-related laws in New York State, and those long-circulating claims merged with a related rumor involving a substance known as “adrenochrome” (often misspelled as “adenochrome”).Users of 4Chan’s /pol/ board were among proponents of the claim, evidenced in a February 2 2019 post titled “FUCK: Was the recent abortion law pushed to produce enough adrenochrome for RBG to survive? ?” Variations of the rumor also appeared on Instagram (archived here):Adrenochrome is a byproduct of the oxidation of adrenaline (epinephrine). It has long been thought to be a powerful recreational drug due to its mention in Hunter S. Thompson’s Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, but the substance described in the book was intended to be fictional and its resemblance to an extant substance was accidental. Thompson’s reference to the substance as a drug appears to have driven the pop culture belief that it was both rare and powerful, but by and large, information around adrenochrome (regarldess of how it is purportedly harvested) is believed to be a myth. Claim: "Fetal cells from abortions are being used to flavor commercial foods and drinks or in the production of a mysterious substance known as ""adrenochrome."
[A]: 0


[Q]: Paragraph: Western wildfires have grown ever more lethal, a grim reality that’s been driven by more housing developments sprawling into the most fire-prone grasslands and brushy canyons, experts say. Many of the ranchers and farmers who once managed those landscapes are gone, leaving neglected terrain that has grown thick with vegetation that can explode into flames when sparked. That’s left communities ripe for tragedy as whipping winds and recurring drought that’s characteristic of climate change stoke wildfires like the ones still raging in Northern and Southern California that have killed at least 51 people in recent days. Hundreds of thousands of people were told to leave their homes ahead of the blazes to get out of harm’s way. Yet some experts say there’s been an over-reliance on evacuation and too little attention paid to making communities safe, as well as not enough money for controlled burns and other preventive measures. Search crews found many victims inside their vehicles, or just next to them, overcome by flames, heat and smoke as they tried to flee. Survivors of the blaze that nearly obliterated the Northern California town of Paradise and nearby communities spoke of having just minutes to escape and narrow roads made impassable by flames and traffic jams. “There are ... so many ways that can go wrong, in the warning, the modes of getting the message out, the confusion ... the traffic jams,” said Max Moritz, a wildfire specialist with the University of California Cooperative Extension program. As deadly urban wildfires become more common, officials should also consider establishing “local retreat zones, local safety zones” in communities where residents can ride out the deadly firestorms if escape seems impossible, Moritz said. That could be a community center, built or retrofitted to better withstand wildfires, which can exceed 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, leaving little trace of ordinary homes. Such fire protection measures in buildings can include sprinklers, fire- and heat-resistant walls and roofs, and barriers that keep sparks out of chimneys and other openings, according to the International Code Council, a nonprofit that helps develop building codes used widely in the United States. Creating more buffers — whether parks, golf courses or irrigated agriculture, like the vineyards that helped keep 2017 wildfires in California’s wine country from spreading into even more towns — around new and old housing developments would help stave off wildfires threatening to overrun cities and towns. So would burying electric power lines, which can spark and fail in the high winds that drive many of California’s fiercest fires, said Jon Keeley, a research scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey in California. Sparks from electrical utility equipment are suspects in the Northern California wildfire that consumed Paradise, destroying some 7,700 homes, and other deadly blazes in the state. A proven method to prevent wildfires from getting out of control is the use of controlled burns. By intentionally lighting fires, property owners or land managers can remove dead and low-lying trees and brush — material that otherwise accumulates and can accelerate the growth of fires. In the mid-20th century, California ranchers burned hundreds of thousands of acres annually to manage their lands, said Lenya Quinn-Davidson, director of the Northern California Prescribed Fire Council. That was phased out in the 1980s after California’s fire management agency stepped in to take over the burns, and by the last decade, the amount of acreage being treated had dropped to less than 10,000 acres annually, Quinn-Davidson said. Former agricultural land that rings many towns in the state became overgrown, even as housing developments pushed deeper into those rural areas. That was the situation in the Northern California town of Redding leading up to a fire that began in July and destroyed more than 1,000 homes. It was blamed for eight deaths. “You get these growing cities pushing out — housing developments going right up into brush and wooded areas. One ignition on a bad day, and all that is threatened,” Quinn-Davidson said. “These fires are tragic, and they’re telling us this is urgent. We can’t sit on our hands.” The latest California fires have fueled debate over the reasons for ever-more deadly wildfires, with President Donald Trump claiming in a tweet Saturday that “gross mismanagement of the forests” was the sole reason the state’s fires had become so “massive, deadly and costly.” He also threatened to withhold federal payments to the state. However, most of California’s deadly fires of recent years have been in grasslands and brushy chaparral, Keeley said. “Most of the fires we’ve been seeing in the last couple years that are the most destructive are not in the forest. Thinning isn’t going to change anything,” he said. Trump’s assertion also ignored the huge federal land holdings in the state and brought a quick backlash, with the president of the California firefighters union describing it as a shameful attack on thousands of firefighters on the front lines. To ease tensions, the White House sent Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to tour fire-damaged areas and offer assistance to California Gov. Jerry Brown. In an interview prior to the two-day visit, which began Wednesday, Zinke struck a conciliatory tone and said federal officials share blame for not managing public forest and rangelands aggressively enough. “We need to work in unison to make sure we thin the forest, especially fire breaks, and make sure we have prescribed burns,” Zinke told The Associated Press. “There’s been a lack of management on Interior lands, on U.S. Forest Service lands and certainly with state lands.” But it’s California, not the Trump administration that is putting more money behind such efforts. In response to the deadly blazes of recent years, California lawmakers in September approved a measure that would provide $1 billion over five years for fire protection, including more controlled burns and projects to thin forests and brush land. By contrast, federal spending on hazardous fuels reduction has been flat in recent years, hovering just under $600 million, even as direct firefighting costs jumped to a record $2.9 billion last year. For 2019, the Forest Service has proposed a $3 million bump for its wildfire fuels program. At Interior, Zinke proposed a $29 million cut in fuel management spending. ___ Knickmeyer reported from Washington. ___ Follow Matthew Brown on Twitter at https://twitter.com/MatthewBrownAP Claim: As wildfires grow deadlier, officials search for solutions.
[A]: 2


[Q]: Paragraph: "A Facebook user declared, ""I’m starting a public movement called TAKE IT OFF,"" in attempting a six-point takedown of facial coverings and how effective they are in fighting COVID-19. The post features an image labeled ""Face Mask Safety — Know The Facts Before You Wear One."" The image makes this six-part claim about masks: ""Decreases oxygen intake; increases toxin inhalation; shuts down immune system; increases virus risk; scientifically inaccurate; effectiveness not studied."" The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat  news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) ""Well, that all sounds like a lot of dangerous nonsense,"" Texas A&M University-Texarkana virologist Ben Neuman told PolitiFact. As we’ve reported, facial coverings are not in themselves totally effective in fighting the coronavirus and there is a need for more study. But health officials largely agree that wearing any kind of face mask, coupled with social distancing and frequent hand-washing, is more protective than going unmasked. While the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doesn’t recommend masks for children under age 2 or for people who are unconscious or have breathing conditions, it generally recommends wearing masks in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain, such as grocery stores, pharmacies, and gas stations. As the CDC puts it: ""Your cloth face covering may protect them. Their cloth face covering may protect you."" Here’s a rundown on why each part of the post is wrong. ""Breathing through a mask decreases the amount of oxygen we need to live & be healthy, increases blood acidity & makes breathing difficult."" A mask does not reduce oxygen intake nor does it make blood more acidic, virologist Angela Rasmussen, a research scientist at Columbia University, told PolitiFact. Neuman said a mask ""will add some resistance to the breathing process, meaning it may feel like it takes a bit more work to take a breath, but it won't materially change the makeup of air that comes through the mask."" ""Toxins that we normally exhale as we breathe become trapped in the mask and re-inhaled into the lungs, increasing symptoms."" Repeated, long-term usage of the same unwashed mask could potentially lead to bacteria accumulating on the inside, which is why paper masks shouldn’t be reused and cloth masks should be laundered with soap between uses, Rasmussen said. ""However, there’s no reason to worry about ‘toxins,’’ she said. ""The only potentially toxic molecule that you routinely exhale is carbon dioxide, which is only toxic when it displaces oxygen,"" and it easily passes through the mask. Neuman also said carbon dioxide would not be trapped by a mask. ""Decreases oxygen intake, increases carbon dioxide & toxin intake putting body under stress, releasing cortisol & shutting down immune processes."" Not true. ""There’s no decreased oxygen or increased carbon dioxide from normal breathing while wearing a mask, and no evidence that masks have any effect on the immune system or immune function,"" Rasmussen said. Inhaling high levels of carbon dioxide is dangerous, but this is very unlikely to happen from wearing a cloth face mask — especially if you’re only wearing it for short periods of time, according to the Cleveland Clinic. There are studies that show that medical N95 respirators may result in increased carbon dioxide, which can lead to headaches and fatigue. This is one reason they're not recommended for home use,"" University of San Francisco research scientist Jeremy Howard told PolitiFact. ""Cloth masks, on the other hand, have excellent breathability and the same problems have not been demonstrated with them."" A USA Today fact-check said a similar claim, that masks weaken the immune system, was . ""Encourages triggering & infection from dormant retro viruses already in the body, taking advantage of a weakened immune system due to mask wearing."" Masks can be effective in preventing the spread of COVID-19 because COVID-19 spreads mainly from person to person through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks, according to the CDC. The droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs. ""It’s absurd to think that masks would ‘trigger’ their activation and cause disease, especially since mask-wearing has no effect on immune system function,"" Rasmussen said. ""Virologists measure COVID-19 to be 80-140nm in size making the weave of material masks to be the equivalent of a chain-link fence to a mosquito."" (NM is a reference to the nanometer measure of diameter.) Rasmussen said virus particles are much smaller than the weave of masks, but infected people do not shed individual virus particles into the environment — they shed them in respiratory droplets. Masks prevent most, but not all, of these respiratory droplets from being dispersed into the environment. ""In addition, although we don’t know how many virus particles it takes to cause an infection, it’s almost certainly more than one. So you have to be exposed to enough respiratory droplets containing enough virus to establish an infection to actually become infected. Reducing droplet dispersal by wearing a mask greatly reduces this exposure risk, though it does not eliminate it completely,"" she said. Neuman said there is a growing number of research papers that demonstrate the effectiveness of surgical face masks in preventing transmission of a range of viruses, or demonstrate the effectiveness of face covering in limiting the novel coronavirus spread. ""Absolutely no peer-reviewed studies have been carried out of mask effectiveness within a social environment to control, prevent or eliminate the spread of disease."" Both papers cited by Neuman are published and peer reviewed. One was published in April by the journal Nature and the other on June 11 by the National Academy of Sciences. In terms of being ""within a social environment,"" 246 individuals provided exhaled breath samples in the first study, roughly half with masks and half without; the second study was a review of coronavirus mitigation efforts undertaken in Wuhan, China, Italy and New York City. Said Rasmussen: ""It’s true that to my knowledge masks have not been subjected to a large, randomized clinical trial, but a growing body of evidence does suggest that masks substantially reduce droplet spread."" A Facebook post claimed that wearing masks for the coronavirus ""decreases oxygen intake, increases toxin inhalation, shuts down immune system, increases virus risk, scientifically inaccurate, effectiveness not studied."" There is no evidence to back any of the six parts of the claim." Claim: Wearing masks for the coronavirus “decreases oxygen intake, increases toxin inhalation, shuts down immune system, increases virus risk, scientifically inaccurate, effectiveness not studied.”
[A]:
0