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: 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. JamesGulley, 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
2

Paragraph: "Speaking out against the exclusion of Planned Parenthood clinics from a Texas family planning program for low-income women, five Democratic legislators aired a statistic indicating that the group is a crucial provider. ""Nearly 45 percent of the women who receive health screenings through this program do so at a Planned Parenthood health center,"" said a commentary in the March 6, 2012, Austin American-Statesman by Austin state Reps. Elliott Naishtat, Dawnna Dukes, Eddie Rodriguez, Mark Strama and Donna Howard. We looked into that figure amid debate over the state's decision, which led the Obama administration to set in motion a phased-in cutoff of about $30 million in annual federal funds for the Texas Medicaid Women's Health Program, which has served tens of thousands of women a year since its launch in 2007. To participate in the program, providers may not perform elective abortions. Since the program's start, dozens of Planned Parenthood health centers in Texas have qualified because they don't provide abortions and are legally separated from Planned Parenthood clinics that do. That is changing, however. The Texas health and human services commissioner signed a rule in February 2012 barring entities affiliated with abortion providers from the program, which had the effect of disqualifying Planned Parenthood health centers that do not provide abortions. In response, the Obama administration declined to renew the program, arguing that Texas' new rule violates federal law by restricting women's abilities to choose their own caregivers. Perry has pledged to continue the program with state money and without Planned Parenthood. Under the program, participating women may receive health screenings, including a Pap smear, during the one family planning exam per fiscal year that the program covers. Examples of other screenings, related to family planning, that women can get during their visit: breast exam, pregnancy test, routine urinalysis, as well as testing for diabetes, sexually transmitted diseases and high blood pressure. Screenings are not covered outside of the annual exam. The program also pays for birth control such as pills and condoms. Naishtat aide Nancy Walker told us by email that the ""nearly 45 percent"" figure came from ""multiple sources,"" including the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. She said the agency told her that in fiscal 2010, about 46 percent of clients in the state's Women's Health Program had received services from Planned Parenthood which, we noticed, is a wider description than the legislators' reference solely to ""health screenings."" Commission spokeswoman Stephanie Goodman told us that the state has not compiled data on where women in the program receive health screenings. Asked about the figure that Naishtat's aide cited from the commission, Goodman told us that the figure is based on a data analysis for fiscal 2010 Sept. 1, 2009, through Aug. 31, 2010 showing that of the 106,711 women who were served by the program, 49,162 received a service from a Planned Parenthood clinic. That's 46.1 percent. We wondered, though, if it's correct to assume that all women in the program received health screenings, as the Democrats' article suggests. Goodman speculated that it might be, pointing out that all women in the program are entitled to an annual exam with health screenings. Also, the Democrats' article leaves the impression that the referenced women solely depended on Planned Parenthood clinics for their screenings. That might not be so. According to the commission's figures, 27,256 of the 49,162 Women's Health Program clients who were served by Planned Parenthood in fiscal 2010 also received a Women's Health Program service from a provider not linked to Planned Parenthood. In a previous fact-check, we laid out a couple of possible explanations for those women being served by both Planned Parenthood and another type of provider. For one, some portion of the 27,256 women may have had their exams and screenings at a Planned Parenthood clinic and then any tests processed at an outside lab. In those cases and the state couldn't tell us how many of them there were the only ""services"" that a woman would have received from a non-Planned Parenthood provider was lab testing. These women would not affect the Democrats' statistic, since they received their screenings at Planned Parenthood. But under the program, it's also possible for women to switch providers during the year and receive another exam and screenings. So some portion of the 27,256 women may have received screenings from both a Planned Parenthood and a non-Planned Parenthood provider during fiscal 2010. And if the number were large enough, the percentage of women in the program who received their screenings exclusively from a Planned Parenthood clinic would be smaller than 46 percent. Goodman told us the state has not teased out the detailed data that would settle this issue. Our ruling The Democratic legislators wrote that nearly 45 percent of women who received health screenings through the targeted family-planning program in fiscal 2010 had them at Planned Parenthood clinics. That could be so, but we identified a couple of unsettled hitches. According to the state, 46 percent of the cited program's clients went to a Planned Parenthood clinic, but the state has no breakdown of the number of women who were screened overall, which is what the Democrats focused on. Also, the Democrats' statement implies that 46 percent of women rely on Planned Parenthood exclusively for screenings, but some women included in the 46 percent could have had screenings at a different kind of clinic, though (again) such details are not available." Claim: Nearly 45 percent of the women who receive health screenings through (the Women's Health Program) do so at a Planned Parenthood health center.
1

Paragraph: In October 2018, a warning appeared and made its way around the usual internet circles to warn against eating meat from deer afflicted with "bovine tuberculosis." The warning was accompanied by a rather unappetizing photograph of a lesion-studded hunk of meat that showed what people should avoid:Since 1995, Michigan has been testing white-tailed deer for bovine tuberculosis year-round. Michigan has the longest- running continuous wildlife TB surveillance program in the world."Most Michiganders, and even most policymakers, don't realize how much we've learned about bTB in the last 20 years", said Dan O'Brien, veterinary specialist with DNR's wildlife disease lab. "The research we've done here in Michigan is respected around the world."Other countries dealing with similar outbreaks of bTB continue to watch our situation with great interest. At this point, we know what it will take to get rid of bTB. Whether we as a state will choose to make that happen though is still an open question."The original warning was belched back into the public consciousness in October 2018 because a large cattle herd in Alcona County was found to be infected with bovine tuberculosis, the 73rd herd so infected since 1998:BovineTBis a bacterial disease that also has infected free-ranging whitetail deer in parts of the northeastern Lower Peninsula.Cattle in Alcona, Alpena, Montmorency and Oscoda counties must be tested before they are moved off the farm, which can help prevent the illness from spreading.Assistant State Veterinarian Nancy Barr says farmers in that area should do all they can to prevent deer from having contact with cattle feeding and watering areas.The original warning simply urges hunters to get the wild deer they kill tested free of charge before consumption, even if it looks healthy. Humans as well as cattle can potentially contract bovine tuberculosis, which is relatively rare, but potentially fatalif left untreated. Claim: "Bovine tuberculosis"" has appeared in a herd of cattle in Michigan."
2