TASK DEFINITION: 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'.
PROBLEM: Paragraph: The fruit (soursop, guyabano), leaves, and bark of the graviola tree (A. muricata), have long been utilized as a folk remedy in parts of Africa and South America for myriad conditions. Claims of their potential to “cure” cancer, similarly, have long been a fixture in certain regions of the Internet — fringe health websites and supplement hucksters, primarily. In their most exaggerated form, such claims take the form of a widespread conspiracy alleging a pharmaceutical coverup to squash evidence of viable, powerful, and universal cure for cancer in favor of financial gain. The dubious Health Sciences Institute, (promoter of a previously debunked claim that Hillary Clinton has worked to hide a cancer cure dubbed “sour honey”) described the plant’s potential this way: Since the 1970s, the bark, leaves, roots, fruit, and fruit seeds of the Amazonian Graviola tree have been studied in numerous laboratory tests and have shown remarkable results with this deadly disease. Several years ago, a major pharmaceutical company began extensive independent research on it. They learned that certain extracts of the tree actually seek out, attack, and destroy cancer cells. […] After more than seven years of work behind closed doors, researchers at this company realized they couldn’t duplicate the tree’s natural properties with a patentable substance. So they shut down the entire project. It basically came down to this—if they couldn’t make huge profits, they would keep the news of this possible cure a well-guarded secret. But one researcher couldn’t bear that, and decided to risk his job with the hope of saving lives. Indeed, there has been research on many parts of, and chemicals within, the graviola tree with regard to their ability to kill cancerous cells. In terms of a possible mechanism, most ideas revolve around unique chemicals contained within the fruit — annonaceous acetogenins — that may present a novel pathway to kill cancer cells. These chemicals are found only in the family of plants Graviola belongs to (Annonaceae) and some research indicates they may have the ability to inhibit chemicals that aid cellular respiration, which can cause a “programmed death” of cancer cells. Perhaps most notably, this mechanism has been explored using extracts from graviola material against human lung, colorectal, and liver cancer cell lines. Such studies have found that extracts were indeed able to cause programmed cell death as hypothesized. Other studies have shown limited potential in reducing the proliferation of cancer cells in some animals and cell lines as well. It is worth mentioning, however, that many chemicals that show anti-cancer properties in laboratory settings do not translate to viable cures or treatments for cancer. Investigations on laboratory animals, too, have shown limited but somewhat positive results with regard to the plant’s anticancer potential. Studies on rats and mice, respectively, have shown some anti-tumor potential with prostate cancer and breast cancer, and studies on rats have, as well, shown potential preventive effects for colon cancer. Outside of singular case reports from people alleging benefits from the plant, no large scale clinical human studies have been published on its efficacy as a legitimate treatment for cancer (at least one clinical trial has been registered, however). As such, the view of the UK based Cancer Research, and other Cancer groups, is as follows: There have not been any studies [of Graviola] in humans. So we don’t know whether it can work as a cancer treatment or not. Many sites on the internet advertise and promote graviola capsules as a cancer cure but none of them are supported by any reputable scientific cancer organisations. Both the United States Food and Drug administration as well as the United States Federal Trade Commission have issued warnings to groups selling graviola extract with claims of its cancer-curing potential. In 2008, in a press release describing a “sweep” of graviola supplement sellers, the FTC described their products as “bogus“. Outside of overblown claims, there are also legitimate concerns about the safety of these products. Numerous studies have suggested that the potentially active chemicals within the graviola tree may be neurotoxic. Epidemiological studies of cultures that regularly use the plant in traditional medicine have shown associations between the plant’s consumption and Parkinson’s disease: Epidemiological studies, however, linked the consumption of Annonaceae to a high prevalence of atypical parkinsonism, in Guadeloupe, in parts of the Afro-Caribbean and Indian population in London and New Caledonia. In several patients who desisted in their consumption of Annonaceae fruits, the progression of atypical parkinsonism ceased […]. Chemical investigations of active components within the plant reveal strong evidence of its neurotoxicity, as well: The fruit pulp extract of A. muricata revealed the strongest neurotoxic effect, with 67% cell death at a concentration of 1 µg/mL. A high reduction in cell viability coupled with pronounced cell death was found at 0.1 µg/mL for an Annonaceous seed extract. These results demonstrate that the intake of dietary supplements containing plant material from Annonaceae may be hazardous to health in terms of neurotoxicity. Claim: The fruit of the graviola tree (soursop or guyabano), or other components of the plant (A. muricata), are a viable cure for cancer.

SOLUTION: 0

PROBLEM: Paragraph: "As many Americans grapple with the new reality of sheltering in place, social media posts have pointed to a purportedly stark choice in Russia. A March 23 Instagram post said, ""Putin has stated: Russian citizens (have) 2 options: Stay home for 15 days or in jail for 5 years."" I love that A post shared by  Val (@itsvalos) on Mar 22, 2020 at 11:27am PDT 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.) Is this something Putin said, or did? No. The idea appears to stem from a tweet by an Indian comedian whose account goes by the name Nasir Chinioti. The tweet says, ""#Covid_19 #StayAtHome Vladimir Putin has given Russians two options. You stay at home for 2 weeks or you go to jail for 5 years. No middle ground."" Two days later, the author of the original post tweeted, ""Just joke,"" with three emojis. (Oddly, many social media posts circulating didn’t include the second part of the tweet, even though it’s even more eye-catching: ""RUSSIA: Vladimir Putin has Dropped 800 tigers and Lions all over the Country to push people to stay home.. Stay Safe Everyone!!"") Just joke 😜😎😷 Looking through credible media reports, we found no evidence that Putin had given Russians the draconian choice between lockdown or jail. ""Schools, sports facilities, and other gathering places are closed, and it seems Moscow asked residents over 65 to stay home, from March 26 to April 14, but they offered them the equivalent of $50 in two payments, one at the beginning and one at the end,"" said Yoshiko M. Herrera, a political scientist at the University Wisconsin-Madison who specializes in Russia. ""He also ordered that phone and internet not be shut off and that other housing-related fines not be collected."" Herrera said that these measures, plus earlier measures to close its long border with China, seem appropriate, but she added that ""there are some big caveats."" ""There is a lot of skepticism and criticism of the statistics,"" she said, citing allegations of undercounting and misreporting coronavirus deaths in other categories. In recent days, the BBC reported, the infection rate in Russia ""has begun to escalate even according to official figures."" Social media posts have said ""Putin has stated: Russian citizens (have) 2 options: Stay home for 15 days or in jail for 5 years."" Credible news accounts and experts on the region see no evidence of such a draconian choice in Russia. The claim appears to stem from a post by an Indian comedian, who later clarified that this was intended as a ""joke.""" Claim: “Putin has stated: Russian citizens (have) 2 options: Stay home for 15 days or in jail for 5 years.”

SOLUTION: 0

PROBLEM: Paragraph: An image that purports to show a screengrab from a medical journal was featured on a tweet that gained traction on January 15 2020.The tweet contains a capture of this citation:It says:Hormone replacement therapy has many nicknames among transfeminine people, including titty pills, titty skittles, smartitties, chicklets, anticistamines, mammary mints, life savers, tit tacs, breast mints, femme&m’s, antiboyotics, trans-mission fluid, and the Notorious H.R.T.“oh fuck this was in an actual medical journal I’m gonna cry lmao,” the user wrote.While it is legitimate, many of the users sharing it may not be aware of the context behind it. The citation was included in an article published by the McGill Journal of Law and Health, a publication covering healthcare-related law. The story itself is a first-person account by activist Florence Ashley regarding their experience seeking medical care both pre-and post-gender transition.Their listing of the nicknames for hormone replacement therapy (HRT) appears alongside a passage covering the temporary effects from stopping the treatment prior to reassignment surgery:I had to stop taking the hormones three weeks before surgery, give or take a few days. I was ill-prepared for this endeavour. Because hormones regulate emotions, amongst many other things, changes in hormonal regimen can have a heavy impact on mood stability and mental health. In my case, the fluctuations were large enough that I had to raise my dosage of antidepressant.A few months after surgery, my reflection in the mirror elicited an emotional reaction I had not yet grown accustomed to. After over a year on hormone replacement therapy, my body had changed in ways that finally began feeling comfortable. After decades of discontent, I was finally feeling at home in what I had previously described as a flesh prison. It had only taken a few weeks without hormones to lose what I estimated as six months of progress, noticeable in terms of fat redistribution, breast tissue loss, and changes to sexual functioning. The mirror served me a cruel reminder of this loss of self.In their paper, Ashley argues that current regulations covering disclosure of information between medical providers and transgender patients rely “on overly narrow conceptions of informed consent and underestimates the role that communal knowledge should play in health care.”Their own surgeon, for example, did not mention what the side effects would be of stopping HRT prior to surgery.“I would not have changed my mind about having surgery, it is true, but I could have done more to prepare had I known about the impact of ceasing hormone replacement therapy,” they wrote:Knowing in advance is crucial to psychological preparation and adaptation. Armed with knowledge, I could have scheduled appointments with my therapist, warned my loved ones about my increased need for support and softness, and refrained from in-person commitments. I did the latter two of those for a subsequent surgical procedure. Claim: "An article published in a medical journal makes reference to nicknames for hormone replacement therapy that included ""antiboyotics, trans-mission fluid, and the Notorious H.R.T."

SOLUTION:
2