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: "CNN's Jake Tapper noted that a backlash against vaccines was blamed for a measles outbreak in California. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has linked childhood vaccines to autism despite the medical community debunking that myth. During the second GOP debate, Tapper asked Ben Carson, a retired pediatric neurosurgeon who now lives in West Palm Beach, if Trump should stop making such a claim. Carson said Trump should look at the evidence, noting that there is ""extremely well-documented proof that there's no autism associated with vaccinations."" Carson then turned the subject to the scheduling of vaccines: ""But it is true that we are probably giving way too many in too short a period of time. And a lot of pediatricians now recognize that, and I think are cutting down on the number and the proximity in which those are done, and I think that's appropriate."" Are pediatricians cutting down on the number and proximity of vaccines? As for Trump's claim about autism, as PolitiFact has noted before, decades of epidemiological research have demonstrated autism rates do not increase when vaccines are introduced to a population. We contacted Carson's campaign to ask for his evidence and did not get a reply. Vaccines Doctors follow a childhood vaccination schedule prepared by the U.S. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Children may receive as many as 24 immunizations by their second birthday and may receive up to five injections during a single doctor's visit, according to a 2013 paper by The Institute of Medicines of the National Academies. That vaccine schedule is also supported by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control. More than 90 percent of children entering kindergarten have been immunized with recommended vaccines in accordance with this schedule. But some parents have sought to delay vaccines or reduce the number given per visit, while others have rejected them entirely, despite recommendations by the scientific community. That's not a good idea, according to the report. ""Delaying or declining vaccination has led to outbreaks of such vaccine-preventable diseases as measles and whooping cough that may jeopardize public health, particularly for people who are under-immunized or who were never immunized,"" wrote researchers. The researchers also concluded that there is ""no evidence that the schedule is unsafe."" The American Academy of Pediatrics issued a press release in 2013 stating that it agreed with the paper's conclusion. After the Republican debate, it issued a newstatement in support of vaccines: ""Claims that vaccines are linked to autism, or are unsafe when administered according to the recommended schedule, have been disproven by a robust body of medical literature. It is dangerous to public health to suggest otherwise,"" wroteKaren Remley, executive director of the academy. Despite the scientific consensus, pediatricians are facing pressure from parents to delay vaccines. A survey of 534 pediatricians done for the American Academy of Pediatricians in 2012 showed that 93 percent reported that within a typical month some parents asked to spread out the vaccinations. The vast majority thought these parents were putting their children at risk for disease but thought they would build trust with the families if they agreed to the request. While there is anecdotal evidence that some pediatricians have acquiesced to parents' requests to delay vaccinations, that decision is not rooted in public health or science. ""There is no evidence that pediatricians 'recognize'that we give too many vaccines in too short a time,"" said Mark Schleiss, division director of pediatric infectious diseases at University of Minnesota. ""Far from it. ... There is no evidence at all that spacing vaccines out or changing the schedule would improve health or help children."" Eugene R. Hershorin, chief of the division of general pediatrics at the University of Miami, pointed to what happened a decade ago when England and Japan delayed the DTaP vaccine, a combination vaccine used to prevent diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis. ""There was a tremendous increase in the incidence of pertussis in both countries, leading them to re-institute the schedule immediately,"" he said. Our ruling Carson said pediatricians have cut down on the number and proximity of vaccines because they recognize there have been ""too many in too short a period of time."" Leading medical organizations have concluded that the scheduling of vaccines -- including multiple ones at once -- is safe. While there is evidence that some parents ask pediatricians to delay vaccines, that's a decision based on parents' wishes and isn't based on scientific evidence. There is no evidence that pediatricians are cutting down the number and proximity of vaccines based on any conclusion by them that there have been too many in too short a period of time. Carson has provided no evidence to support his claim." Claim: "Pediatricians have cut down on the number and proximity of vaccines because they recognize there have been ""too many in too short a period of time."
0

Paragraph: Discussion of costs is relatively unimportant as most individuals would know how much beer costs. The story did quantify the benefits of one parameter by quoting the abstract "incidence of upper respiratory tract infections was 3.25-fold lower" but it was not mentioned that these were self-reported upper respiratory tract infections. The story mentions that there was 'significantly less evidence of inflammation.and lower counts of white blood cells than the placebo group" but does not provide numbers. The story also states that the 'beer experiment' showed benefits of minimizing post-race damage. But the study didn't measure damage, it measured blood markers of immune function. In the study, participants consumed 1-1.5 liters/day of non-alcoholic beer (or a placebo) for 5 weeks total. There could be several potential adverse effects such as weight gain from extra calorie consumption, imbalances in nutrients if the liquid replaced other fluids, etc. No potential harms were mentioned. The quality of evidence in the research study was low as it was a non-peer reviewed abstract that was presented at a scientific meeting only, and this is not mentioned. While the treatment (non-alcoholic beer) was compared to a placebo in a double-blinded design, the nature of the placebo is not known, other than that it was a beverage. The research does not mention whether numerous important factors were controlled in the study design (the training regimens of the participants, their diets, their total beverage consumption, etc) and these extensive limitations are not mentioned in the story. No disease mongering. Marathon running was described as "punishing to the body, causing muscle soreness and inflammation." This is accurate. The story quotes the lead author extensively. Unfortunately, no other independent perspectives are provided. No potential conflicts of interest are noted. The article does not mention potential alternatives that might aid marathon recovery, including any other dietary alterations, and does not discuss the advantages and disadvantages compared with any other approaches. Not applicable. The availability of nonalcoholic beer is not in question. However, it is not clear from the original abstract whether the type of beer matters, as the brand and/or the characteristics (such as calories) were not provided. This is not mentioned in the story. (note: the brand was provided in a press release) The treatment, beer, is not novel, and is not presented as such. Other substances that also contain the purported active ingredient, polyphenols, are discussed. There was an American College of Sports Medicine news release for the abstract, but it doesn't appear to have been relied upon. Maybe it should have been, since the news release actually includes a disclaimer the story did not include that the research was presented at a professional meeting but has not been peer-reviewed. Claim: Nonalcoholic Beer Aids Marathon Recovery
0

Paragraph: "On May 14, 2013, a federal agency recommended reducing the threshold for evidence of drunken driving from a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.08 to 0.05. That means having a glass of wine at dinner might make a person drunk, a spokesman for the Tavern League of Wisconsin told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel the same day. Under a BAC standard of 0.05, a person could get nailed for DUI after one drink? Tavern League's evidence The statement was made by Scott Stenger, a Madison lobbyist whose clients include the tavern league. He told us he based his claim on news articles about the 0.05 recommendation, including a report from the Journal Sentinel and The Associated Press, and a chart on blood-alcohol concentration from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. The news covered the recommendation by the National Transportation Safety Board, which investigates transportation accidents and makes recommendations based on its findings. The board said states should cut the current blood-alcohol level for evidence of intoxication as part of a series of ideas aimed at reducing alcohol-related highway deaths. In its report, the Associated Press said 0.05 is ""about one drink for a woman weighing less than 120 pounds,"" and that a drink is defined as 12 ounces of beer, 4 ounces of wine, or 1 ounce of 80-proof alcohol ""in most studies."" Meanwhile, the Texas agency chart that Stenger cited says its BAC data comes from another federal body, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which works to prevent highway crashes. That data says essentially what Stenger and AP did: A 100-pound woman could reach 0.05 after one drink. (Incidentally, both the AP and the chart used by the Texas agency said a 160-pound man could reach 0.05 after consuming two drinks in one hour.) So, there's evidence that a limited group of drinkers -- women weighing under 120 pounds -- could be legally drunk after one drink, if the standard for drunken driving were reduced to a blood-alcohol level of 0.05. What other evidence is out there? BAC calculators We checked three online calculators that provide blood-alcohol concentration estimates based on various factors, including gender and weight. They generally found a BAC of less than 0.05 for a 100-pound woman consuming one drink. The calculator at the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (which also has a smartphone app), says the BAC would be 0.03. A more detailed calculator from the University of Notre Dame's Office of Alcohol and Drug Education says the BAC would be 0.04 for a 5-ounce glass of wine, if the wine is red and 12.5 percent alcohol. And the calculator at Central Connecticut State University's Office of Alcohol and Drug Education says the BAC would be 0.05 after a 5-ounce glass of table wine. So, why do the blood-alcohol concentration figures vary? Well, as we noted, all of the figures are estimates. The Wisconsin DOT also points out that besides gender, weight and the amount of alcohol consumed, other factors are in play. Your BAC will be higher if you drink faster or drink on an empty stomach. Women reach higher BACs faster because they have less water in their bodies and more adipose tissue (fat), which is not easily penetrated by alcohol. Jan Grebel, a chemical test supervisor for the DOT, told us about another factor: If you drink frequently, your liver can break down alcohol more efficiently, but if you don't, your BAC would be higher after even one drink. Grebel quoted to us from a chart she utilizes when testifying in court in drunken driving cases. She said the chart estimates the BAC at 0.047 -- nearly 0.05 -- for a 100-pound woman after one drink. But Grebel said that would be the maximum BAC in that instance. Most people would not reach 0.05 after one drink, she said. Our rating The Tavern League of Wisconsin said a proposal to make 0.05 the standard for drunken driving would mean that having a glass of wine at dinner could make a person drunk. The statement is accurate, in that it's possible an individual could reach 0.05 after one drink. But it needs additional information, namely that the situation would apply only in a small number of instances and would depend on other factors, such as drinking on an empty stomach." Claim: A 0.05 standard for drunken driving means having a glass of wine at dinner could make a person drunk.
2