instruction:
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'.
question:
Paragraph: "An Instagram post making a political point about abortion in the United States muffs the landing by claiming that no one has died from COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus. ""Death toll in America,"" the March 1 post says. ""Coronavirus 0, abortion 63,000,000."" This 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.) Though any count of abortions in the United States can't be precise, the abortion number seems to be a reasonable estimate. (Read our 2012 fact-check for details.) But for COVID-19, the post is simply wrong. As of March 3, there have been nine deaths from COVID-19 in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have reported six deaths on their website while the Seattle Times reported three more deaths that afternoon. The victims were all in Washington state. Of course, the Instagram post was published on March 1. But the first death was reported on Feb. 29. Officials announced four more deaths on March 2." Claim: Instagram posts Says no one has died from the coronavirus in the United States.
answer:
0

question:
Paragraph: The story mentions that beta-blockers are available as generics but doesn't specifically mention costs. As a class, beta blockers drugs are low cost ($10 to $200 a month according to some estimates). The article describes the median survival time afforded the women with ovarian cancer under different scenarios with or without beta blockers in addition to their chemotherapy. For example, women who had been taking any beta blocker at the time of their chemotherapy had a median survival of 47.8 months while women who were not being treated with beta blockers while on chemo had median survival time of 42 months. The article notes that the quoted source and the study authors cautioned that beta blockers carry some side effects and additional research is needed to determine if the drugs' benefits outweigh their risks for cancer patients. It specifically mentions risks for people with asthma. Other specific harms from beta-blockers for the general population include depression and diarrhea. Beta-blockers may also cause complications for people with diabetes. The article provides a good overall description of the size of the study and how patients were followed. It describes the median survival time afforded the 1,425 women with ovarian cancer under different scenarios with or without beta blockers in addition to their chemotherapy. The use of language is appropriate in that it says these drugs were "linked to" and "associated with" benefits, but never claims that the drugs "prolonged survival" as stated in the MD Anderson news release. The story also briefly touched on the study limitations. Because the research was a retrospective look at 1,425 cases in a database of ovarian cancer cases, it wasn't randomized. The article also notes that more research is needed to determine if the findings will translate into new treatments, and that "This is not something that people should rush out and start taking." One area of concern is that the subheadline touts the dramatic benefits seen in a subgroup of patients taking nonselective beta-blockers "A type of beta blocker is tied to more than four-year increase in survival for women with ovarian cancer, study finds" but the story never specifically cautions readers about the small size of this group (only 75 people). Findings from such a small subgroup should be treated very carefully, and we're not sure that they should have been highlighted for readers in the headline. We say this knowing full well that reporters often have no control over what gets put in the headline. We observed no evidence of fear-mongering language in the story. The story includes an independent source who wasn't affiliated with the research. Christina Annunziata, a director with the Center for Cancer Research at the National Institutes of Health, said that while she found the study "interesting" and "thought-provoking," she cautioned that "I don't think it's practice-changing quite yet." Annunziata co-authored an editorial accompanying the report which were both published in the American Cancer Society's Cancer journal. The story would have been even stronger had it outlined the funding sources for this study, which included government and foundation grants. However, since we didn't find any significant conflicts in the list of funding sources, we didn't think this omission unbalanced the coverage. The relevant research is based on evaluating the use of beta blockers in conjunction with conventional chemotherapy, not as an alternative to chemotherapy or other courses of treatment. As such, we'll rate "Compare Alternatives" as Not Applicable. Beta blockers are called "common heart drugs" in the story and are thus generally understood to be widely available. Beta-blockers first came on the market more than 50 years ago and their use has become widespread as researchers found more applications for this class of drugs. Generic versions are available, making them some of the most affordable prescription drugs. A close call here. The story acknowledges previous research in this areas when it says, "Mouse and test-tube studies have shown that so-called nonselective beta blockers inhibit molecular pathways that promote tumor growth. Selective versions, designed to minimize side effects for heart patients, are less effective in hitting such targets. Dr. Sood and his colleagues wondered if the same effect would be found in people."That's good context, but the story could also have noted that a number of studieshave indeed examined the impact of beta-blocker use on ovarian cancer patients, and did not find the same prolonged survival rates that are reported on in this story. The researchers think that's because these earlier studies didn't distinguish between the two types of beta-blockers. Because the article quotes an independent, unaffiliated cancer expert, we are confident the article doesn't rely solely on a press release. Claim: Heart Drug Linked to Extra Years for Cancer Patients
answer:
2

question:
Paragraph: "The General Assembly on April 3 narrowly approved an amendment by Gov. Bob McDonnell that will ban insurers participating in an upcoming federal health care exchange in Virginia from offering policies that cover most abortions. The action was disappointing to NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia. The group said, among other things, that McDonnell's proposal would force the exchange to offer more restrictive coverage than most private insurance plans. ""McDonnell's amendment prohibits Virginians participating in the new health exchange from purchasing any insurance plan that includes coverage for abortion -- coverage that currently exists as a standard benefit in nearly 90 percent of private plans sold in the U.S.,"" NARAL said in a March 26 news release. Two Democrats running for lieutenant governor -- state Sen. Ralph Northam of Norfolk and Aneesh Chopra, former U.S. chief technology officer of the United States -- quickly sent out similar statements. We decided to check NARAL's claim that abortion coverage is standard in almost 90 percent of the private plans now being sold. We should note McDonnell's amendment has an exception that allows insurance companies on the exchange to cover abortions in instances of rape, incest or when a mother's life would be endangered by continuing a pregnancy. NARAL said it got the figure from a 2004 report by the Guttmacher Institute, an organization based in New York City that specializes in research on reproductive health issues. Although Guttmacher supports access to abortion and birth control, its research has been cited by both sides of the abortion debate. NARAL cited a Guttmacher synopsis that says the study examined abortion coverage through private insurance in 2002. It found that 87 percent of typical employer-based policies back then covered ""medically necessary or appropriate abortions."" Rebecca Wind, a spokeswoman for the Guttmacher Institute, said the definition of ""medically necessary or appropriate abortions"" is whatever a physician deems is required to protect the ""health or mental health of the patient."" Guttmacher said its figure on private insurance coverage for abortion did not consider plans that offered benefits only in limited circumstances such as cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of a mother. But the Guttmacher memo also noted another survey examining the issue came up with different results. That study, by Kaiser Family Foundation, found in 2003 that 46 percent of workers with employer-based insurance had coverage for abortion. The Guttmacher and Kaiser studies conducted early last decade offer the only detailed looks available on abortion coverage. Experts have not reconciled the difference in results. We spoke to Jon Gabel, a researcher who helped compile the 2003 Kaiser survey and now is a senior fellow at NORC, a social science research foundation at the University of Chicago. He said the 46 percent Kaiser cited refers to workers who were covered for ""elective abortions"" that did not involve a medical emergency. Gabel said he interpreted Guttmacher's study as an examination of abortion coverage for medical necessity. Guttmacher, in a 2011 memo, essentially said the two studies asked different sets of questions that may have led to the different results. Guttmacher did not defend its original finding as definitive. ""The actual level of coverage is probably somewhere between the estimates made by Guttmacher and Kaiser, meaning that most Americans with employer-based insurance currently have coverage for abortion,"" the memo said. Our ruling NARAL said McDonnell's amendment banning an upcoming health care exchange from offering insurance plans that include abortion denies Virginians ""coverage that currently exists as a standard benefit in nearly 90 percent of private plans sold in the U.S."" NARAL bases its claim on a 9-year-old study by the Guttmacher Institute that found 87 percent of typical of typical employer-based insurance policies covered ""medically necessary or appropriate abortions."" Contrary to NARAL's contention, the findings do not reflect coverage ""that currently exists."" The research focused on policies that were offered in 2002. Guttmacher never updated its report. The only other major research on abortion coverage was conducted by Kaiser in early 2003 and produced a different result. It found that 46 percent of workers with employer-based insurance had coverage for abortions. Experts have struggled to reconcile the two numbers. Guttmacher, in 2011, said that the ""actual level of coverage is probably somewhere between"" its estimate and that of Kaiser. So NARAL is citing as gospel an old figure that even its authors undercut." Claim: "Abortion coverage is a standard insurance benefit ""in nearly 90 percent of private plans sold in the U.S."
answer:
0