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: Italy has concluded Covid-19 is not a virus, and people are actually dying of amplified global 5G electromagnetic radiation poisoning. Italy disobeyed world health law from the WHO saying not to carry out autopsies on Covid-19 patients. The WHO never said autopsies couldn't take place. Italy has found that Covid-19 is actually disseminated intravascular coagulation (thrombosis). The way to cure this is antibiotics, anti-inflammatories and anticoagulants. Antibiotics do not directly treat Covid-19, which is caused by a virus. The anti-inflammatory ibuprofen is being trialled for use against Covid-19 and an anticoagulant has been used in some Covid-19 cases. Aspirin is not a specific cure. Covid-19 is not a virus, but a bacterium being amplified by 5G which causes inflammation and hypoxia. Covid-19 patients can get secondary infections from bacteria. Hypoxia and types of inflammation can be symptoms of Covid-19. There's no proof Covid-19 is in any way related to 5G. People with Covid-19 should take aspirin 100mg and Apronax or paracetamol. Trials into both of these drugs' effectiveness in treating Covid-19 are ongoing, but haven't concluded yet. Paracetamol can ease symptoms but isn't a specific treatment. Covid-19 clots the blood causing thrombosis, stopping blood flow and oxygenating the heart and lungs. Severe Covid-19 can cause blood clotting problems and issues like this have been seen in Covid-19 patients, but this is not the only thing that can be fatal in patients. In a day, Italy sent home more than 14,000 patients after treating them with Aspirin and Apronax. The Italian Medicines Agency doesn't mention aspirin or apronax in its list drugs used to treat Covid-19 outside of clinical trials. And there's no record of a day when 14,000 people were sent home from hospital in Italy. There is an order to incinerate or immediately bury Covid-19 bodies without autopsy. There is no such order. Claim 1 of 10 Claim: Covid-19 clots the blood causing thrombosis, stopping blood flow and oxygenating the heart and lungs.
[A]: 0

[Q]: Paragraph: "When one thinks of the country's most powerful lobbying groups, acronyms like NRA, AIPAC and AARP spring to mind. So do phrases like Big Pharma, Big Oil and Wall Street. During an appearance April 17 on NBC's ""Meet The Press,"" North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory made the argument that the Human Rights Campaign is also among the most powerful lobbies in the United States. ""The Human Rights Council, my gosh, they're more powerful than the NRA,"" McCrory said, meaning the Human Rights Campaign and the National Rifle Association. The Human Rights Campaign, or HRC, is a major player in the opposition to North Carolina's controversial new law, House Bill 2, which limits LGBT rights in public accommodations and which McCrory was on national television to defend. ""They are putting on a lot of pressure instead of having good dialogue,"" McCrory said. The HRC is the country's largest gay rights group. It has led the charge for gay marriage and for the types of LGBT discrimination protections that HB2 prohibited cities in North Carolina from making. But has the group really eclipsed the NRA, an oft-cited stereotype of a powerful lobbying group that can shape public policy and opinion? McCrory says it has. And in the last few days, that claim has been picked up as a talking point by supporters of HB2. Measuring political power It would be big news if McCrory was right. Debates over gay rights, as with gun rights, are a large part of modern political discourse. We don't know what criteria McCrory was using, if any, to make his claim. ""Meet The Press"" host Chuck Todd didn't ask him to elaborate. When we asked McCrory's campaign about his rationale, spokesman Ricky Diaz called it a ""ridiculous question"" and declined to answer. We also asked both the HRC and the NRA whether they agreed with McCrory. The NRA did not respond, and the HRC declined to answer. There are many ways to measure a group's strength. We asked an expert, UNC-Chapel Hill political science professor Frank Baumgartner, who has written multiple books on special interest groups and lobbying. He listed three main ways to measure influence: Money and resources, ""cultural resonance"" and record of success or failure. Baumgartner said he believes McCrory's comparison is "" or substantially exaggerated."" But let's look into the numbers to see if they back that up. Money Money is especially important in modern politics because of the Citizens United ruling that McCrory mentioned, which allows for unlimited political spending. In 2014, according to federal tax filings, the NRA and its foundation had revenue of $356.1 million, compared with $51.2 million for the HRC and its foundation. Money allows interest groups to hire lobbyists, contribute directly to politicians and political groups or take part in what's known as outside spending TV ads, mailers and other political initiatives. In the 2014 election cycle, according to the Center For Responsive Politics, the NRA's political spending was 7.5 times greater than the HRC's ($36.8 million to $4.8 million). In the 2012 cycle, the NRA spent five times as much ($26.9 million to $5.1 million). In both cycles, the NRA spent more on lobbying than the HRC spent on lobbying, contributions and outside spending combined. For outside spending in particular, the NRA spent about $350 for every $1 the HRC spent. ""Cultural resonance"" How do you measure this? It sounds intangible, but there are ways to break it into specific, quantifiable pieces. And in everything we looked at, the NRA came out on top. Membership, magazine subscriptions, Google searches, social media following and official government mentions all show the NRA's presence is anywhere from 2 to 10 times larger than the HRC's. Both groups have magazines. The HRC's goes to more than 350,000 homes, according to a group spokesman this week. According to the publishing group Alliance for Audited Media, the NRA's three magazines had a combined circulation in 2015 of more than 3.5 million. As for membership, both have been accused in the past of inflating their numbers. Take it with a grain of salt, but the NRA claims 4.5 million members compared with 1.5 million for the HRC. The NRA also has a larger audience on social media 4.8 million Facebook likes and 345,000 Twitter followers, compared with 2.3 million Facebook likes and 529,000 Twitter followers for the HRC. We also compared online searches, which indicate how interested people are in learning about the groups. When their Google searches over the last 12 years are graphed against each other, the HRC's results show up as an almost flat line hovering just above 0. We used Google Trends to aggregate numerous terms related to both groups and map their relative popularity as compared with all other searches each month. The NRA is in red and the HRC is in blue. Even the HRC's best month didn't surpass the NRA's worst month. We also counted how often they're mentioned in congressional hearing transcripts and other documents listed by the U.S. Government Publishing Office search engine 1,408 results for ""National Rifle Association"" and 393 for ""Human Rights Campaign."" Reputation and success Baumgartner said he thinks this was the point McCrory was trying to make on a group's ""ability to push public policy in a direction the group prefers."" And again, Baumgartner said, the HRC doesn't quite stack up. ""I'd say Human Rights Campaign has had some success,"" he said. ""But no, they would not compare to the long-run success of groups such as the NRA, the Realtors, the petroleum industry, the Chamber of Commerce and many others."" The NRA is famous for its clout and success in Congress. The HRC, on the other hand, has achieved most of its biggest victories gay marriage, gay adoption rights and the invalidation of anti-sodomy laws at the Supreme Court. The HRC has existed since 1980. For most of that time, one of its top priorities has been a federal LGBT anti-discrimination law. Efforts to pass such laws state-by-state have been mostly unsuccessful, as we explored in a previous fact check. On the national level, friendly legislators have introduced the Employment Non-Discrimination Act,ENDA, in nearly every Congress since 1994. It has failed each time, despite polling that shows about three quarters of Americans support such laws. The NRA has done the opposite, persuading Congress to repeatedly kill legislation that has even broader public support than ENDA does. Even though about 90 percent of Americans support background checks on gun buyers previous PolitiFact rulings have found a range of 85 to 93 percent the federal Fix Gun Checks Act has been voted down several times since 2011. It would allow for universal background checks, and the NRA is strongly opposed to it. As for the HRC, it hasn't been totally unsuccessful in Congress. The group successfully pushed for a 2009 law that expanded federal hate crime definitions to include LGBTstatus. And what about outside of government, in the corporate world? It's undeniable that the HRC's influence there is growing. The group started ranking how ""LGBT friendly"" companies were in 2002 in what it calls its Corporate Equality Index. About a dozen received a perfect score that year. In 2016, more than 400 companies did. And many businesses have followed the HRC in criticizing North Carolina over HB2. But that hasn't meant much so far. Key legislators have said they have no plans to repeal HB2 or make major changes to it, despite the pressure. On the other hand, the NRA has seen many of its initiatives passed in North Carolina, like 2013 law that loosened restrictions on concealed carry. Our ruling McCrory said the main group against HB2, the Human Rights Campaign, is ""more powerful than the NRA."" It's a strong claim, given the NRA's reputation for power and influence, and even the HRC spokesman was unwilling to embrace it. That's not to say the HRC isn't powerful. It's a multimillion-dollar organization and the country's largest gay rights group. But it doesn't have the resources, adherents or success rate that the NRA does. In every way we tried to define influence, the HRC doesn't even come close to the NRA's level of power." Claim: "The Human Rights Campaign is ""more powerful than the NRA."
[A]: 0

[Q]: Paragraph: "Last month, the House, on a vote of 59-11, passed legislation that would make it a felony to attempt to strangle or choke someone, even if the attack did not result in any injury to the victim. The bill, H-5087, is now before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The proposal is intended, in part, to make it easier to prosecute anyone who applies pressure on a person's throat or neck with the intent to cause harm. The chief advocate, Rep. Roberto DaSilva, a Pawtucket police officer, said he submitted it because he was seeing too many cases in which serious strangulation attempts would be prosecuted as misdemeanor simple assaults because the attack, although potentially fatal, didn't result in obvious signs of serious bodily injury. ""If you take a knife, swing it at someone and not strike them, that's a felony,"" he said. ""Under this law, strangulation itself would be a felony. When you have your hands around their throat, you've taken it to the next level. It's serious enough."" But it was his assertion about the prevalence of the crime that caught our attention. ""Ten percent of violent deaths in the U.S. each year are due to strangulation,"" he said, adding that there are ""six female victims to every male victim."" We wondered if the rate was really that high. DaSilva sent us a handful of documents. One was a 2001 article from the Journal of Emergency Medicine, which flatly stated that ""Ten percent of violent deaths each year in the United States are directly because of strangulation."" Where did that statistic come from? Although the article has 35 footnotes, the ""ten percent"" statement carries no citation. Two of the three authors, Dr. George E. McClane and Gael B. Strack, a lawyer, have apparently been using this statistic for a while. DaSilva also directed us to a 1999 article in which McClane and Strack are quoted as making the same claim. Strack has repeated the statistic as recently as a 2007 article written to help prosecutors. In each case, there is no indication where the data come from. We emailed Strack, who is CEO of the Family Justice Center Alliance in San Diego; she told us it came from a paper written by McClane in 1995, which we found intriguing because no McClane research is cited in their 2001 article. Researchers are typically quick to cite their previous work each time they write a paper. We couldn't get an interview with McClane. The website of the Medical Board of California of the Department of Consumer Affairs said he surrendered his medical license in March after being found guilty of unprofessional conduct. His lawyer did not respond to an email. So we took another route. DaSilva had also sent us an article from 2007, also in the Journal of Emergency Medicine, saying that national data from 1993 showed that 11.8 percent of women and 1.9 percent of men who died that year were killed by strangulation. It didn't give an overall rate. So we went to the source: a 2003 article on firearm deaths by David Wiebe of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. It says the strangulation rate that year was 3.4 percent. That's 1 in 29, not 1 in 10. But that 3.4 percent does not include all violence-related deaths, as DaSilva did. Suicides are excluded. If you include them, as the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control does when it catalogues all ""violence-related injury deaths,"" the rate is even lower -- about 1.4 percent, or 1 in 71. That same difference is echoed in the most recent federal data, where strangulation accounted for only about 1.2 percent of the violence-related deaths in 2007. If you only look at homicides, the rate rises, but only to 3.5 percent, still far shy of 10 percent. Only when we focused on women who have been murdered did the 10-percent figure apply. Wiebe directed us to the 1998 version of the database, where 448 of the 4,241 female homicide deaths were logged as being due to strangulation. That's 10.6 percent. We calculated a similar number for 2007. (The actual numbers show that there were not six female strangulation victims for every male, as DaSilva said. Because 448 women and 213 men died of strangulation in 2008, the actual ratio was 2 to 1. To hit a 6-to-1 ratio, you have to compare the percentages of homicide deaths due to strangulation -- 10.6 percent for women and 1.6 percent for men.) In short, the ""10 percent"" statistic cited by DaSilva has been bandied about at least since the 1990s. As presented, it is false. Federal data from 1993, 1998 and 2007 show that the percentage is significantly lower, whether or not you include suicides. It may be that the federal statistics are being repeatedly misrepresented, taking numbers that were only meant to apply to female homicides and expanding them to include all violent deaths, regardless of gender. If DaSilva had said that ""10 percent of all homicide deaths among women are due to strangulation"" and that ""women who are murdered are six times more likely to die of strangulation than men who are murdered,"" he would be on solid ground. But he didn't. In his defense, he was quoting sources that should be reliable. The Journal of Emergency Medicine, for one, failed to display adequate rigor by allowing the 10-percent estimate to appear without attribution. And DaSilva is trying to address what he sees as a serious problem, especially in domestic assaults on women. Deborah DeBare, executive director of the Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said her organization has been concerned for a few years that strangulation assaults are not being aggressively prosecuted, even though they ""are one of the most dangerous ways of attacking someone."" And because they are often carried out by a coldly calculating assailant, she said, the hope is that the stronger threat of jail time might be a deterrent for some men. But we make our rulings based on whether a statement is actually true or false. (Get updates from PolitiFactRI on Twitter. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on our PolitiFact Rhode Island Facebook page.)" Claim: Ten percent of violent deaths in the U.S. each year are due to strangulation.
[A]:
0