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 lead author is quoted as stating the implant could prevent HIV infection “more reliably and cheaply,” but the cost is not provided in the release. The cost may well be unknown since the treatment is experimental and in development. However, the published research states that the active ingredient — hydroxychloroquine, or HCQ — “is an inexpensive drug.” Perhaps that price could have been included. And cost is relevant since the vast majority of HIV infections occur in the developing world where cost could have a major influence on compliance with prevention measures. As stated in the news release: The tool, a vaginal implant, decreases the number of cells that the virus can target in a woman’s genital tract Two problems here. First, the emphasis on woman’s is ours because the research was done in rabbits. (The fact that this research used an animal model was not mentioned until the penultimate sentence.) Second, we’re given no data whatsoever to understand just how beneficial or significant the results really are. However, we did appreciate the inclusion of this quote from the lead researcher: What we don’t know yet is if this can be a stand-alone option for preventing HIV transmission or if it might be used in conjunction with other prevention strategies. We aim to answer these questions with future research. Given that the news release opens with “Scientists at the University of Waterloo have developed a new tool to protect women [emphasis added] from HIV infection” it might lead some interested women to ask about side effects. The question of harms is never addressed. That’s a huge oversight given that the device is implanted and there are many risks associated with such procedures: pain, bleeding, infection, the device becoming dislodged, follow-up surgeries to remove the implant. No potential risks are mentioned. In addition, if the device is not effective in comparison to existing preventive strategies then there’s a potential harm in relying on the device and acquiring HIV. This is a major weakness of the news release. Claims of efficacy, reliability, and affordability are made in the release with absolutely no supporting data from the study. Many readers might be familiar with the commonly quoted statistic that condoms — when used properly and consistently — are well over 90% effective in preventing HIV transmission. They would naturally want to know if this implant can approach that efficacy and be accomplished affordably and without side effects. But the news release does not include this. If such information can not be gleaned from  the study — either because it wasn’t measured or because of the limitations of applying results from animal studies to humans — then we encourage news release authors to follow up with the researchers and ask for clarity. No disease mongering. Prevention of HIV transmission is a global public health priority. The release does not mention funding sources. The published study does not include any disclosures of financial conflicts of interest by the authors. The news release briefly mentions “conventional methods of HIV prevention, such as condoms or anti-HIV drugs.” Given the preliminary nature of this experimental device it’s unlikely the authors can conclude how effective this vaginal implant is in comparison to these well-studied, conventional approaches. But mentioning how effective condoms and anti-HIV medications are might have been helpful context. It’s not made clear enough that this vaginal implant is experimental, in development, and has never been tested on humans and that it could be years — if ever — before the device is available. Although the release does not claim novelty specifically, it does mention the past failure of a related attempted preventative (nonoxynol-9). The researchers do emphasize in the published paper that this study is the first of its kind to use a vaginal implant to deliver HCQ to reduce the response of T-lymphocytes in the vagina. Furthermore, they point out this is a uniquely women-oriented strategy against HIV infection (versus a male-dominated one such as condoms). Alluding to potential impacts on women or people four times in the first few paragraphs, but not mentioning the research utilized an animal model until the penultimate paragraph, is quite misleading and unjustified. We’d suggest changing the headline to: “University of Waterloo develops a new way to fight HIV transmission in rabbit study.” Claim: University of Waterloo develops new way to fight HIV transmission
0

Paragraph: "Like most Republicans, Rep. Greg Walden says the $825 billion stimulus law has been a failure. But unlike other critics who speak in contemptuous generalities, Walden puts hard numbers behind his opinion. ""When the bill was signed into law, the White House promised that the stimulus would increase by 44,000 the number of jobs in Oregon by December 2010,"" he says on his official congressional website. ""Unfortunately, even with the stimulus, since the bill was signed, the number of jobs has actually decreased by 18,300 through July 2011."" Walden supports his claim with a study by the Republican staff of the House Ways and Means Committee. That study relies on federal statistics and, sure enough, both the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Oregon Employment Department show that Oregon had fewer people working in July 2010 than February 2009. When the stimulus was signed into law in February 2009, 1.643 million people in Oregon held non-farm jobs, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. In July 2010, after billions of dollars of stimulus spending had been dispersed, the number of non-farm jobs in Oregon was 1.625 million. That’s a loss of 18,000 jobs which is the number Walden cited. But it’s only part of the story. First, a quick recap. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which is the full name of what is commonly called the stimulus, became law in February 2009. Democrats pushed the legislation as a way to create jobs and extend unemployment benefits through a mix of government spending, tax cuts and financial aid to cash-strapped states. The stimulus and its performance have provided a high intensity battlefield ever since. The White House released at least six reports on the program, counting jobs that were created or ""saved"" as a result of the stimulus. Those counts were augmented by dozens of other reports from independent sources. The most recent came Nov. 22 from the Congressional Budget Office. It says the stimulus is responsible for adding between 500,000 and 3.3 million jobs nationally. But the CBO, which is nonpartisan, also says its reports, ""do not provide a comprehensive estimate of the law’s impact on U.S. employment, which could be higher or lower...""  Among the reasons is that ""some of the jobs included in the reports might have existed even without the stimulus,"" and that the reports do not ""attempt to measure"" the number of indirect jobs. Earlier studies, both independent and partisan, have offered similar ranges for the law’s impact on jobs. A March study by the White House Council of Economic Advisers explains why. ""Evaluating the impact,"" said the report, which was the sixth in a series, "" … is inherently difficult because we do not observe what would have happened to the economy in the absence of policy."" Separately, the council’s report cited four independent analyses by the CBO and three private economic analysis companies that all found between 1.3 million and 3.6 million jobs saved or created. Oregon’s acting state economist Mark McMullen agrees precision is difficult -- and fraught with politics. ""This issue is about as politically charged as topics in economics get,"" he said. He points to CBO numbers to explain how many stimulus jobs were created and reported in Oregon. In 2009, 18,412 direct jobs were created with 33,489 in 2010 and 17,663 in 2011. Even trickier is estimating the indirect jobs from the stimulus. Here, McMullen and other economists extend estimates that Oregon collected between 1.2 percent and 1.5 percent of stimulus jobs depending on the year. That translates to 2,967 to 13,350 indirect jobs in 2009; 8,714 to 41,078 jobs in 2010 and 5,820 to 30,473 jobs in 2011. Economists say there’s another conundrum: Because of constant churning in the economy, the stimulus law could have generated - or come close to generating - the number of jobs the White House predicted even though total employment in the state declined. The reason is that the jobs total is fluid and that additions in jobs like road construction could be eclipsed by losses in other parts of the economy that aren’t touched by the stimulus. There are also jobs protected with stimulus money. Teachers, prison guards, and other state workers who probably would have been laid off were able to keep their jobs because the stimulus sent $2.4 billion to Oregon. More than $1.2 billion was used to fill state cuts to education that could have triggered teacher layoffs in every district. Another $117 million went to public safety, with some of that money used to avoid cut-backs in police and emergency response personnel. The White House and supporters factor those ""saved"" jobs into their calculations. Walden and critics do not. Got it? It’s all very murky and far from precise. But this much is certain: As of July 31, 2011, there were 18,300 fewer people working in Oregon than in February 2009. That is the number Walden cites in his comment and that much is true. But Walden’s context suggests that the stimulus did not produce jobs for Oregon, and that is not correct. While economists and other experts say it’s impossible to say how many Oregon jobs were ""created or saved,"" as the White House puts it, there certainly were some. And it’s clear that a significant number of Oregon jobs would have been lost without the stimulus. Walden’s assertion of lost jobs uses numbers out of context and leaves out important details. Return to OregonLive to comment on this ruling." Claim: "Greg Walden Says the federal stimulus program was ineffective because ""the number of jobs has actually decreased by 18,300 through July 2011."
1

Paragraph: The patient likely contracted meningitis at the downtown club on Saturday, officials said. The KitKatClub is renowned for its sexually uninhibited techno parties that draw visitors from around the world. City authorities issued a warning this week after being alerted to the Berlin patron’s exposure to the disease, urging all others who were at the club at the time to consult with a doctor. Bacterial meningitis can be spread via saliva and close body contact. Common symptoms are strong headaches, high fever, a stiff neck, dizziness and weakness. The disease can become life-threatening within hours. In a statement on its home page, the club itself said that “while infections in the club were very unlikely according to doctors and authorities ... anybody suffering from symptoms should immediately see a doctor.” The club said that none of its employees had shown any symptoms so far, but all had been offered antibiotics as a preventive measure. City officials said there was no need to shut down the club because it wasn’t the source of infection, and the site itself was not contaminated. Claim: Berlin nightclub patrons urged to get meningitis test.

2

